Assessing the Delta-Airbus order

In an event timely to the Delta Air Lines order for 100+100 Airbus A3231neos, the airline just took delivery of the 50th A320 family member to be delivered from the Airbus Mobile (AL) plant. Source: Airbus.

By Scott Hamilton


By Scott Hamilton

Dec. 15, 2017, © Leeham Co.: Was the choice by Delta Air Lines the big “blow” to Boeing many in the media are making it out to be?

It was a PR blow, yes. Even this was limited to those in the know.

But it wasn’t a material blow by any stretch.

Here’s why the hand-wringers are wrong.

PR Blow

Sure, Boeing sorely wanted to win this deal. But relations between Delta and Boeing have been bad for years, so this was a bad place to start from. The Boeing-Bombardier trade complaint, attacking the C Series order by Delta, didn’t help. These factors alone made Boeing’s chances an uphill battle.

Boeing pit the 737-10 MAX against the A321neo. As I noted previously, the MAX 10 put Boeing in the game. Pitching the MAX 9 against the A321neo clearly wouldn’t have worked. The MAX 9 carries fewer passengers, its airport performance is inferior and it has less range.

The MAX 10 carriers about the same number of passengers as the A321neo. So, winning comes down to commercial terms.

More than price

“We competed with a strong but disciplined offer in the Delta campaign,” Boeing said in a statement after losing the order.

One media outlet inferred that this meant Airbus won on price, which is a common refrain from Boeing when it loses a campaign to Airbus. “While Delta has chosen to go with Airbus and Bombardier in recent single aisle campaigns, we are proud of the 737 MAX family’s superior value and performance,” Boeing said.

Boeing, of course, didn’t compete the MAX 7 against Bombardier in the Delta campaign and by LNC’s analysis, the MAX 10’s economics are marginally better (virtually within the margin of error), because the MAX 10 is lighter than the A321neo, but it is not the plus-5% Boeing claims. The MAX 10 has worse airport performance and less range than the A321neo.

But that’s neither here nor there.

Sure, Airbus offered an aggressive price. So did Boeing. But the clincher appears to be what Delta emphasized during its Investors’ Day event: the deal with Pratt & Whitney for future maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) work for Delta TechOps.

CEO Ed Bastien remarked several times that the MRO will mean billions of dollars in revenue over the life of the program. TechOps will have MRO capabilities for the PW GTF engine for all of the Americas, with an estimated 5,000 engines in the program over time.

Did CFM make a similar offer to Delta for the MAX? I don’t know the answer to that but I do know from my sources that Boeing salesmen sometimes complain that CFM won’t step up to the table to help because it has an exclusive position on the 737.

Material impact

In the end, the Delta order was probably Airbus’ to lose. A PR blow to Boeing? Sure. A material blow? Not even close. With more than 4,000 MAXes in backlog, 100-200 is immaterial.

85 Comments on “Assessing the Delta-Airbus order

    • Mr Thompson really needs to make up his mind.Scroll down his column for a couple of weeks and you will read that having kicked the C series tyres themselves ,Boeing (his employers) are delighted that Airbus have made the dreadful mistake of getting involved in this money pit. Which is it?

      • It’s not terribly difficult to understand Dr. Thompson’s view points.

        “Loren Thompson is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, which receives money from Boeing and Lockheed Martin.” – Loren Thompson (AviationWeek)

        Part of the Lexington Institute’s Mission Statement:

        “It is the goal of the Lexington Institute to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. By promoting America’s ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive.”

        • What a fantasy land. Yes his views can make scene but only to those that believe that dribble.

        • After 273 comments on that article of Mr. Loren Thompson, no more then 25 comments support Boeing and that article.
          Is Boeing will get the message?

          • I was pretty amazed that someone who supposedly has a good education and positions he has held can’t parse an argument (er opinion) that holds rocks in a solid bucket held right side up with a super strong bail.

            It amounted to an attempt to convince that the Japans did not attack Pearl Harbor on the morning of Dec 7, 1941.

    • There’s a difference between “loose” and “lose”. For example: Hopefully, Boeing will loose the (metaphorical) dogs of war on Delta going forward. LOL

  1. I personally think Boeing lost big and will continue to loose big because the world is looking at what they and the US trade officials did to Bombardier and Canada and they are asking themselves are we next in line with this type of bully retaliatory measures? Airbus will continue to win and win big and its very short sighted on the part of Boeing to pick fights with customers and smaller country who just want to have a small part of the pie that the giants already have for themselves and control anyway. Congratulation to Airbus and look forward to fly Delta and Airbus all over the world.

        • Nope. Sorry, old sport. Still the King’s English! (From the Folwers’ 1906 standard reference work.) N.B. There’s also The King’s English Book Shop in Salt Lake. And, to “kick it up a notch”: Bloody hell, this continued misuse of “loose” for “lose” is driving me crazy! I’m watching this as THE indicator of the ongoing collapse of American English grammar! LOL)

          • English is not the mother tongue for everyone commenting here. It is one reason Scott’s rules don’t allow criticizing grammar and spelling.
            Otherwise the Brits and the Yanks would be re-enacting the Revolution!

          • Yea, I had a spell check program that insisted that I was spelling things wrong.

            I finally realized it was a British spell check (used in the US of all things)

            Color vs Colour as I recall. Few others. For someone who can’t spell for me to notice takes a lot of off the reservation (US colocialisim )

            Nice folk’s but funny accents and wobbly on correct usage and spelling of the English language which we all know is US powered as we are the vast majority of the native (so to speak) the official and right Guidance for English Speakers and spellers.

            In short we hijacked it and we own it now!

  2. Good analysis. I didn’t think they had the slots and was just wrong.

    It is a bit fascinating how many personalize/politicize these decisions. I find it instersting how no similar MRO “synergies” are involved in other decisions, ranging from indigo to southwest or Ryanair etc. DAL is a well run business, I think.

    Does Lufthansa or American for instance, run a similar complete bid for services as per DAL?

      • With Delta getting the P&W GTF rights, puts a challenge on GE engines in the US southeast. All the 737 housed in the US southeast and now DAL will have the only major P&W will be interesting. DAL needs the MRO because there are going to be limited partners to share the maintenance costs. SWA, AAR, and UA will continue to have a cost advantage, just because of the sheer size of their MAX and current 737 fleets.

  3. I haven’t seen any comment on whether the Delta order will serve as a stimulus for Boeing to move ahead with the MOM project. Boeing is having a difficult time achieving reasonable market share in this segment, and this is another major blow. Boeing has been wavering for years about whether to go ahead, but this loss has to hurt.

    • UAL will for sure order the 797 and most likley will copy DAL Engine shop deal as well, especailly if PWA manages to get onto the 797. We will see if Boeing, UAL and PWA can drum up a deal quickly to speed up the 797 and have GE/RR trying to catch up and maybe do a deal like on the 757.

  4. It might be comforting to blame this loss on politics, price, wrong managent decisions, MRO contracts, but I think that shouldn’t lead to denial/ mistification of the A321NEO vs 737-10 differences. Is it really equal seatcount that matters?

    What about:
    – lower sfc engines
    – choice between two engines/OEs
    – lower noise profile for noise restricted airports
    – option to carry standard container/pallets in one or both cargo holds
    – wider aisles/ seats for medium flights
    – spacier quiter cockpit
    – A330 cockpit commonality
    – commonality with 1600 A321CEO’s
    – ability to carry 5t more payload over 2500NM
    – ability to fly fully loaded from short hot caribbean airports to e.g. Seattle or Boston.
    – credible option to upgrade to bigger plus-plus in the future.

    • Of course no rational airline is ever going to order the Max9/10 over the 321neo at comparable prices and delivery times. Boeing needed to undercut Airbus significantly, and maybe even more than usual since they have already cost DL time and money with the C Series complaint. They failed to do so and lost.

    • This is basically laughable. No, the spacier cockpit, wider aisle, and engine noise didn’t matter to delta.

      It came down to two bids for very competitive products. That’s what Leeham basically said, and the winning determinant was the engine OEM package, which was far more significant than a few hundred thousand bucks worth of config or aircraft price. Blinders aside, that’s a very reasonable analysis likely fueled by “inside” sources.

      • You isolated quieter cockpit, but but ignoring the rest it is clear you got the picture 🙂

    • On the flip side it might be comforting to pretend that politics and price weren’t the major drivers of this sale…

      • On the double flip it may be sobering to realist that in spite of a potentially political deal helping out Delta in the near future they were not interested. One deal doth not make a campaign, the preponderance of said similar deals however does suggest a marked market preference

    • Lots of theories on what got Airbus the nod, however, just looking at the pluses listed by Keesje, it seems a no-brainer to choose a simpler, quieter, more spacious plane with containerised cargo and a choice of engines.
      So, like the Cseries choice, was this another one horse race? Was Boeing in it to merely get Airbus to sharpen their pencils?

    • thx. Was about to write the same.

      It’s the better fit for Delta with better performance of A321neo v.s B737max 9 & 10 plus the fact that:
      A320 family fits containers, has wider fueselage (more comfort for PAX ) – very important for missions ocean to ocean or transatlantic (LR version) and maybe there’s a A322neo available befor Boeing can even have a maiden flight with it’s NMA plane.

    • After some recent flying around JL comments on the NMA has some merit. An A322 most likely a small stretch of the 321 with new (CAT-D?) wing, real/effective range of 3500-4000Nm (plus reserves/diversions). Stretch to accommodate more onboard amenities and ~180 pax in higher comfort layouts (10-15 more than an 321?).

      The general perception seems always to revolve around Transatlantic, but some other examples. Qatar’s longest European destination is Dublin (3000Nm), Doha to Hanoi is also ~3000Nm. (London to NY also similar distance).

      Not looking for trouble here but I found the 320 family more comfortable in Economy on 5-7 hour flights than a 787, not just the seat width but the IFE’s under (6 of the 9) seats in the 787.

  5. It was a blow to Boeing. Not a death blow, but an up yours blow that you will pay a price.

    I agree with Keesje, the A321 is a better more capable aircraft, Boeing got used again to get a better deal for what Delta wanted.

    If Delta had taken 737-10, then they would have had MRO expertise in both the LEAP and CFM. That does not ring anything other than spin.

    If Boeing had any smarts they would simply not bid on the orders and then Delta would give them some buys just to keep the completion up.

    • I agree. If Boeing was smart they’d let Airbus start charging Delta higher prices because they know there’s no competition. Make Delta beg Boeing to come back to bid……

      Only for Delta to go right back to Airbus!

  6. Slightly off topic but I just saw a notation on Euronews that Tom Enders is leaving Airbus – no idea if true or when or why.

    • Yes, Enders will leave when his current contract is up in April 2019. Fabrice Bregier is leaving next February.

      • A lot6 going on there that would be a good Pontification write up though it could get a bit heated.

        While I have seen that for the most part it also has been self correcting (or comments to get back where it belongs by contributors)

  7. Canada will accept a Super Hornet offer worth 30 or so billion, as long as BA don’t do anything detrimental to the national interest. Add likely loss of P-8s etc and BA’s C series complaint looks like costing a thousand or two MAXes.

    • Questionable – the insertion into the fighter competition of a clause that takes into account ‘adverse conduct of a competitor’ or something along those lines is previously unheard of. With the exception of the right of centre National Post (which objects to any subsidies for anything) there is very widespread support for the government action against Boeing.

      • Offsets and technology transfer are requirements in any big military deal. While this is the first time I have heard it stated I think this is common thinking though by arms buyers. Also unstated is whether or not Eurofighter is now the leading contender. Personally I think they’ll go back to F-35, commonality with USAF.

        • I mean not acting against the customer county’s interests is a common unstated requirement. Getting old when the posts don’t make sense.

          • The F-35 angst was the cause to re-think this and a part of the new govenrenment postions.

            I think they are looking at the lowest cost option that meets their obligation.

            The F-18 new jets would have allowed that to be put off for quite a long time.

            Now its a stop gap and I don’t think the F-35 has a chance.

            For a small country its a huge investment and highly complex critter to deal with.

    • They were never going to order more than a handful of Hornets to tide them over. The new fighter was and will be the F-35.
      As for the P-8 it’s going to be awfully hard to pass up considering only the Japanese offer anything comparable and that would mean no maintenance at US bases.
      I would like to know how you figure Boeing is going to loose 1000-2000 MAX orders.

      • I mean the total value of lost military sales might eventually equal 1000+ MAXs. I think Super Hornet had a good chance of replacing the whole existing Canadian fighter force in the new tender, until the CS debacle, it fits current Canadian police, cheaper, and still can tap into US support.
        Buying Boeing is going to be difficult for Canadian or UK govt in near future.

    • C’mon, they’re never buying P8s, certainly not with Trudeau in power! It’s really sad, but he’ll let this already small RCAF capability continue to atrophy. Much more important to work on celebrating diversity and immigration, you know. LOL

  8. The loss is bound to affect future MAX10 sales. Boeing’s hope was that MAX10 would account for at least some fraction of this lucrative segment dominated by A321neo. Now there is a precedent that might guide other buyers. Not a great loss to Boeing at this point but isn’t there a saying that goes “Death by a thousand cuts?” This is one of them and I hope the number of cuts never reaches 100.

    • I fell sorry that Boeing management has not been able to scale further impact of C Séries complain. Is someone can tell me why the did not offer BBD a participation in this program for witch they do not have a comparable aircraft. This was a win t win situation …Boeing management should be blame and punish.
      At almost $300 a share this won’t happens

      • This goes right to the heart of the corporate culture in America and Europe / elsewhere, and the differences.

        In America the only thing that matters is today’s share price. That distorts everything the a company does.

        The engineers and designers in Boeing must know that they’re getting less and less out of tweaking a 50 year old design. If they had any influence over the direction of the business Boeing would have done a fresh design a long time ago, around about 1990.

        But they have insufficient influence, so Boeing didn’t.

        The recent article here about Leahy’s time at Airbus is quite interesting. It seems he basically tells Airbus to make him aircraft that can be sold. And they do.

        Contrast that with Boeing who, with the 737 at least, seems to be telling their sales team, “that’s what you’ve got to sell”. There’s only one ultimate outcome from that approach.

        • Too true

          What about the corporate culture that is manifesting itself in Airbus. We are having a behind the scenes negotiation with the authorities regarding massive wrongdoing over an extended period of time. The senior management, who may or may not be implicated (haha, sorry lost it for a moment), are allowed to announce their departure unencumbered or without sanction.

          Airbus then negotiates a fine on the basis that it told the authorities about this all in spite of being caught out. Can’t wait to negotiate my next parking fine on that basis. It will then be presented to the great unwashed as a victory for the regulator with a suitably chastened Airbus CEO (obviously new and untainted haha) describing how things have changed and this could never happen again. Boeing will crow but not too loudly, mea culpa

        • And yet over 4,000 MAXes in backlog. Seems like somebody is buying them. The uber billions it would have cost to do a new aircraft design would not be covered by 5-10% gain in narrow bodies share.
          From an aircraft lover it’s understandable to want new designs but from an economics standpoint it was definitely the right call not to replace the 737 yet.

          • yup, but this is a short term position that will not be eventually sustainable. This industry forces brave capital intensive investment on occasion. The salient number is not 4,000 but instead 40%. Boeing cannot be happy with that. Boeing must solve the dilemma of NMA or NSA in the near future or they risk ceding more than just market leadership of the single aisle sector.

            The chronic issue for either of Boeing or Airbus is the enormous amount of capex sunk into the manufacturing base for both of their single aisle offerings, much of which will be lost or non transferable to a new product. Given the MAX is the weaker offering it seems foolish to exacerbate the problem

          • I would call it Boeing got a good slice to the shoulder, not fatal but serious damage.

            While I don’t buy into the sales wins when both sides are production limited (ie Airbus can’t make 120 a month)

            I do think a lot of Boeing wins are on price alone along with existing commonalty.

            Airbus gets more for each aircraft.

            Their NEO makeover is also a lot less engineering than the MAX.

            It adds up

            Incredibly desperate when you sell a 737 at 25 million.

  9. With more than 4,000 MAXes in backlog, 100-200 is immaterial.

    Two hundred aircraft is not much compare to 4000. But the airbus represents the future and boeing the past. When in an important segment you start losing orders, it may be the beginning of the end.

    • Or not. The future? I’m looking forward to the AB disarray when a bunch of their former execs have to plan to wear the “vertical pinstripes”— in alternating black and white! LOL

      • Disarray? Pretty sure Airbus will be ok, even Boeing seemed to cope ok when Micheal Sears and Darleen Druyun went to jail…
        Have you got anything to add other picking up typos and mean-spirited, off-topic jibes?

        • Yes Olas it is serious, Spiegels words, Enders words, not mine…

          “Enders, 58, speaks of a past that Airbus has long sought to deny, years in which the company partly relied on bribes as it rose to become the world’s second-largest airplane manufacturer, after Boeing. And Enders speaks of a present in which all of that is beginning to come out — a situation that poses grave dangers to the company he runs.”

          “At issue are potential multibillion-euro fines and multibillion-euro losses. Indeed, the very survival of Airbus, with its 134,000 employees and its annual turnover of 67 billion euros ($78.6 billion), could be at stake. Hence, the message from Enders to all those who haven’t yet got the message, to those who think they can just carry on as before, including the bribery: “Leave this company rather than make us take you out of the company. Because we’re in a dead serious situation, dear colleagues.”

          “German CEO Tom Enders is leading the clean-up effort, but documents reveal that he might not be as spotless as he claims. By DER SPIEGEL Staff”

          • You are reading the statement required by Tom Enders to distance himself from this affair. He has decided to jump since then, as has Fabrice Bregier.

      • @MO

        This goes too far up the chain for more than a token personal fine/ jail sentence. These chaps are the establishment old boy and will walk off into the sunset as they are far too well connected. They have authority to act but that responsibility thing seems to go conveniently missing when something bad surfaces.

        • “Spain 2″law introduced in France on the 9th of December,almost certainlyto deal with this very problem and keep Airbus management out of prison. This is inspired by UK law that allows you to negotiate with the authorities if you have self reported an issue. Huge bundles of money are going to be involved though.

    • In less then 24 hours, Boeing lost over $50 billion in contract! (Including the military jets in total of 88 to replace them all)
      Maybe it is the ”Beginning of the end” for Boeing!

        • Strikes and gutters, an interesting philosophical slant on management of a large OEM

  10. In theory, Delta could not get a better deal from Airbus than American did for its huge order in 2011. Contractual terms between Airbus and AA dictated this! If DL got a better deal, the Most-Favored-Customer Clause (MFC) will have been invoked, triggering Airbus to send refund checks to AA for the price difference.

    So, let’s assume Airbus gave DL the same price as AA for each bird, but not a penny lower so as to not harm its relationship with AA! Next, let’s assume that Boeing offered a price that was significantly lower. At that point, let’s also assume that DL negotiated with both CFM and P&W for the MRO deal; and it was P&W stepped forward with an offer! When all variables were factored in, the price difference between the 737-10 MAX and A321neo was immaterial because DL could more than recoup the price difference via MRO-related revenue.

  11. 200 Max might be immaterial but Delta will eventually be looking for wide body aircraft. There might be a risk that BA loses these orders as well; BA can’t ignore such a big airline forever.
    Richard Tougas

    • If my reading on the 777-8 and 777-9 economics is correct, then Airbus will lose some in this aspect. 2020 will tell, I think. I hardly think the big airline will ignore Boeing in that case. Just my .03.

      • @ Jeff. I totally disagree. Airbus is in a much better position with the A350. The 787 is great but too small to replace the many, many 777-200’s on US airlines fleets.

        I think Boeing will dominate the A330/787 sized planes with the 787-9/787-10.

        Airbus, however, will dominate the A350/777 segment. The 7778 is a heavy niche airplane and the 777-9 too big and heavy for the networks by US airlines. The A350 family is the correct size.

        • It’s actually pretty funny. If Bastian were to really follow his mentor Anderson’s aircraft acquisition strategy/philosophy, Delta would haggle for, and then order 25 or so “end of line”. dirt cheap B777-300s to replace its 200s! But, actually, the 787-10 could fill many of Delta’s needs, and probably serve fine on Delta’s transatlantic routes.

    • Ah, they’ll be selling “Delta’s Boeing’s” to Emirates and Qatar! LOL

  12. I’d certainly defer to Scott Hamilton’s insight & analysis since unless there’s some who are closer than he is to the industry, or who’s work has them “in the know” in ways a great many others may not be nearly as plugged in as he/other “in the know” folks are, it’s hard to imagine most of us other “Monday Morning Quarterbacks” could offer deal “post mortems” nearly as well…

    Delta’s TechOps is pretty substantial, along the lines of a few others like AF-KLM, or Lufthansa’s…

    And aftercare, parts & maintenance can be VERY profitable…

    Other than what Scott noted, the P&W GTF engine choice by Delta is a vote of confidence that the still ongoing kinks/teething problems for that engine will eventually get ironed out…

    …also, while the P&W GTF engine choice is chalked up to a sweeter back end component for Delta’s TechOps that the rival CFM engine manufacturer causes agita to Boeing salespeople hoping to have that incentive available as a sweetener to close deals that could break in either of the Big 2 aircraft manufacturers if only that honey pot were available to counter whatever Airbus can pull out of its bag of magic tricks to best Boeing in competitive sales campaigns, as it appears Airbus did to have as an edge over Boeing with Delta for this 100 + 100 orders/options large capacity narrow body deal…

    …is it just me, or does the fact that the Bombardier-Airbus C-Series aircraft are also powered by P&W GTF engines, too?

    Granted, the CS100s (or possible 300s in future tranches) have different models of the P&W GTF engine than the bigger A321neos will, but there’s some degree of commonality to align with between the two versions of the engines that will be on Delta’s future large and small capacity mainline narrowbody aircraft…

    …so, while nobody knows for sure when Delta will get its hands on its first CS100, it’s hard to overlook that now two different future mainstays of Delta’s mainline narrowbody fleet will be powered by the P&W GTF engine…

    …and as Delta goes, so too, may others who see Delta as a leader to follow, and of course, who then Delta can welcome with open arms if those “followers” just so happen to buy aircraft in the future that Delta can bid to repair and maintain their engines…

    Not too bad, eh?

    Lastly, I guess the 757 replacement aspect is just a given by this point…

    …but does anyone know if this deal is “just” for garden variety (but apparently the doors switched about a tad updated version…) A321neos?

    …or will any A321neoLR’s also be in the mix since, they’d certainly offer Delta an opportunity to broaden its trans-Atlantic nonstops beyond those that its 757s currently do…

    …or to have available to counter JetBlue if/when it launches routes across the pond on A321 “LRs” in the not too distant future, as many expect it to do…

    …or to other places Delta flies to such as South America, just to note but two different continents “LRs”could be put to good use…

    • It is possible that a stretched a321 with increased range to replace the 767 with single aisle economics is in the works. The 100 unit options may include such planned Airbus MOM plane based on the A321.

    • Delta/Northwest has a long history with Pratt engines: their B747s, most of their DC-10s, the B757s. When they first looked at the CSeries, I’m sure they had engineers and mechanics in on the inspections and consultations. A Northwest CEO “back in the day” said when he buys engines he buys Pratt – Whitney; when he needs lightbulbs he buys GE. The UTC geared turbofan has been flying commercially for over a year. Bombardier should deliver 40 planes in 2018. Airbus – more than that. I’d bet Delta did its homework. [This comment has been proofread for spelling, grammar, and sentence structure – but not veracity.]

  13. Scott

    I respectfully disagree. The order is not large in the scheme of things but it is further reinforcing the dominance of the A321 in a segment that Boeing thought it had to some extent covered with the MAX 10. I concede that it would have been a conquest win given the circumstances but still it would have suggested to the wider market that there was merit in the MAX 10. To Airbus it is just another order but at least Boeing can inflict pain on the pricing in a way they were unable to with the MAX 9.

    When we talk of being relatively insignificant it just shows how massive these companies are. The order is Something like $9bn at list. It is like the fine mooted for Airbus indiscretion’s in the near future. Apparently $1bn+ is just small change….

  14. How much does the Max 10 cost to produce? Would Boeing make money on a competitive Max 10 offer (think about the USAF tanker KC/767 procurement)?
    Could it be that the max 10 is mainly aimed at making Airbus offer the A321 at lower prices, and making it less profitable?

    • It seems Airbus has half the NEO backlog as A321’s. That what is visible in deliveries. About 2500 A321NEO’s With pricing typical for the near monopolist. Forget large discounts..

  15. After Boeing made a denouncement to justice is it possible for them to “cancell” this denouncement and have the justice forget to act ??? ….

  16. There is a weakness in the logic. Apparently, Delta decided that they could make money via an engine MRO. But that assumes that PW will sell zillions of engines. That means Airbue And Bomardier will zillions of airplanes. The aricle portrays that as a win.

    Delta airlines don’t think Boeing are in the game. But then United and American don’t think Boeing are in the game.

    Boeing products are poor in comparison to other products.


    • You might want to check how many 787s and 777s United And American have ordered. Yep, United And American don’t think Boeing’s in the game. LOL

      • I don’t see any logic to the Admiral statement at all.

        Maybe a non English speaker that got twisted around?.

  17. Theoretically ,at the moment,I would want to lose this deal.Backlogs are getting longer,which means that the supply side is getting tighter. So,while I am fairly certain that it can’t last,the longer that you hold off from selling anything,the more you can charge. The trouble is that it will end suddenly,and you had better be ready for it,or your name is Kodak.
    Never mind,you are too big to fail and uncle Sam will bale you out.

    • The last part would be true for any country.

      Like the auto industry, squeaky by as that deal was, it kept huge numbers of jobs in the US.

Leave a Reply

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