Boeing raises airliner list prices 4%

Jan. 18, 2018, © Leeham Co.: Boeing quietly raised its list prices by 4.1% for its commercial airplanes, the same day Airbus did (Monday)—but without the fanfare of an announcement, as did Airbus.

The 737-700, which has been out of favor with customers for years, now lists for $85.8m. The MAX 7, which has yet to find traction in the market, lists for $96m.

MAX 10 pricing

The new 737 MAX 10 has a list price of $129.9m.

This means that based on market intelligence at the time the program was launched last summer, some of the launch customers ordered the airplanes for about 32% of today’s list price. Taking into account the 4.1% price hike this week, the discounts to last summer’s list price (which wasn’t announced at the time) were about 66%. To put this another way, some of the orders

Other airplanes

The 767-300ER passenger model now has a list price of $209.8m. This model hasn’t been produced for several years, although last year there was speculation that a limited run re-start could be coming to bridge American and United airlines. No decision has been made.

Boeing continues to list the 777-200ER as an offer. No delivery or order has occurred for years. Fundamentally, Boeing no longer offers the airplane, LNC is told, despite the listing.

 

88 Comments on “Boeing raises airliner list prices 4%

  1. I think the MAX discounts can be explained by the strategic importance of getting an A321 competitor moving / keeping United on board.

      • Can’t be. That’s dumping.

        We all know Boeing does not do that. They get a full 15% return on any aircraft they sell. Just ask them.

        • Hello TransWorld,

          Regarding: “Can’t be. That’s dumping.”

          It would not be dumping for any sales into Boeing’s home market, i.e. the US.

          Outside the US it would not be dumping, according to the type of cost model that Boeing used to calculate an alleged dumping margin in their complaint to USDOC and USITC, and which USDOC accepted in its final determination (in the absence of the submission of any rebuttal model by Bombardier), as long as selling prices were high enough to recover production costs and provide a reasonable profit over the life of the program. Are you suggesting that this is not the case either for the 737 MAX-10 program or the 737 program as a whole?

          Below is an excerpt from from the C- Series cost model that Boeing used to calculate its alleged dumping margin submitted in its original compliant to USDOC and USITC (see page 124). Mr. Hamilton provided a link to this document in a post on 4-27-17. Note that the model allows for “An average list price discount for the first 206 aircraft of 50%”, “Bombardier’s expected loss of USD 32 million per unit over the first 50 aircraft”, and “Boeing’s own experience on the shape of the cost curve for a new aircraft series”.

          “To estimate Bombardier’s recurring costs, Boeing constructed a Bombardier recurring cost curve model using the following known information:
          • Bombardier’s published delivery schedule;
          • The published break-even point of the first quarter of 2020;
          • Bombardier’s expected loss of USD 32 million per unit over the first 50 aircraft
          • Published list prices; and
          • Boeing’s own experience on the shape of the cost curve for a new aircraft series.
          In addition, Boeing assumed the following:
          • A total production run of 2,085 units for the C Series program; and
          • An average list price discount for the first 206 aircraft of 50%.

          • In my post above I should have added “and average non-US selling prices were not below average US selling prices” to: “Outside the US it would not be dumping, …..as long as selling prices were high enough to recover production costs and provide a reasonable profit over the life of the program”.

          • The only reason I see is a price of launching for the MAX-10.

          • AP:

            I sometimes am being sarcastic.

            If I was a layer though I would certainly use the data in a relative comparison of how they do it vs what I did of what typical launch pricing is used to prime the pump .

  2. MAX-10 discounts designed to discourage Airbus from launching A322, or is the aircraft so bad it needs to be half the price of a MAX-7 to be worthwhile?
    MAX-7 price rise to jmake it look like BBD dumped the CS-100, and is irrelievent as the aircraft is irrelievent.

    • Why would it discourage Airbus from doing anything?

      Either there is an A322 market or there is not.

      The Max 10 does not hold a candle to it.

      A shadow at best and works with fleet commonality but its not even an A321 competitor.

      • @TransWorld:
        “…its not even an A321 competitor.”
        But the Max10 is because:
        1. What product do U think those Max10 customers would hv ordered/placed MoUs or LoIs instead if Boeing didn’t launch Max10 last yr @ the Paris show?
        2. What product do U think was in the Boeing proposal to DL in the bid finally won by Airbus’ 321Neo just 4wks ago?

        Even for 321Neo worshippers /Max10 haters, the mkt reality @ the top end of the narrowbody segment is that this pair do go head-to-head against each other in the RFP fm many airlines since last summer.

        • If your product regularly does not get sales in a face off with the A321 it is not a “real” competitor to the A321.
          -10 orders are mostly trades from -9 -8 (737MAX..)
          the -10 is the better product in scope of the B NB offer. the -9(ER) never went beyond a niche product.

          • FLX: I had that same discussion with Scott a while back, but instead of the -10 it was the 900/9.

            So (AP watch out here) I am going to enter my Passat in the Indy 500.

            Obviously I am not competitive , but its that strange year where there are only 31 entries and I get the last slot on the back row (Russian interference probably) . The Chinese hacked the rules and I am waivered despite my slow speed (I have torn the car apart, rebuilt it and its up to crash standards)

            So, am I a real competitor or am I just the closes thing that I have that can go reasonably fast?

            The nearest thing in this case is not remotely a true head to head competitor obviously .

            Sure if all 31 other cars crash I win, odds of that? Really really poor because as the field is whittled down the last entries sort themselves out, ok, he is faster than I am, why should I get a tangle when I am in solid 2nd and get lots of money? (as long as I don’t run into that damned Passat)

            While I understood Scott, when he contended that the 737-900/9 was being put up head to head with the A321 I disagreed that it was a contest.

            The -10 is closer, but its still very limited.

            I don’t hate the -10, what I hate is that Boeing has run what was a once fine aircraft into the re-vamp ground and anyone could see that two 737 generations ago.

            Much like Ford and the Model T, he did not want to get it.

            For the company that put us into the jet age in close enough to recent memory for many (and some of us lived it) its beyond a sad state of affairs.

            If the Passat was competitive at Indy, that would show had pathetic Indy development was.

            If commonality for an airline trumps the capabilities of the A321, we will see them stick with 737s and make do as best they can.

            Alaska will be an interesting benchmark with their pickup of the A321NEO and we see what they do when the lease is up. 8 years as I recall.

            I suspect they will find it a highly useful asset and keep it. They have a lot of head to head with Delta. Its the ideal cross check.

            We just have to be patient.

          • Looks like you really like your Passat?

            The MAX10 is a “marketing/paper” aircraft adding 2/3 rows for waving the seat mile cost, the rest is a “drag”. Don’t think pilots will enjoy flying it?

            If the money/mods that went into the -10 was spend on an MAX9+ (“ER”) with better performance it could have made airlines think twice.

            Guess they felt they don’t want to undermine the 737-8, but if you could have had and aircraft with 15-20 seats more seats as the MAX8 with good performance and range (+Aux tanks/s) game on?

    • @MartinA:
      “the aircraft so bad it needs to be half the price of a MAX-7 to be worthwhile?”
      That’s an apple vs orange comparison, i.e. U are talking about:

      Max10 contract price after discount fm list price @ launch last yr
      vs
      Max7 list price today

      U’re assuming anyone ordered or considering to order Max7 is not eligible for similar discount.

      “MAX-7 price rise to jmake it look like BBD dumped the CS-100…”
      So U’re implying Boeing didn’t make it look like BBD dumping CS1 BEFORE the rise of list price for Max7 a few days ago? U are grossly over-estimating the effect of that 4.1% hike in Boeing list price in trade dispute cases.

      • Re MAX 7 if you can’t sell something you drop your price, hiking list price of 7 along with the rest is pointless.
        Re MAX 10, even in airliner sales 70% discounts are extreme, just in shock

        • I flew a number of times in Aerolineas Argentinia’s 737-700’s, really enjoyed every flight, an aircraft that generate confidence (a bit 757-200 like in its own way).

          The MAX7 gained to much weight and Boeing made the MAX8 to good for the 737-7 to have a great future.

    • One might think the main points of the MAX 10 are to keep Airbus from making bigger profits on A321s and giving Boeing customers a reasonable alternative so they can keep fleet commonality.
      I think Boeing knows very well the only way the MAX 10 can compete for orders is by aggressive low pricing. They’ll make enough money on the Max 8 to set that off.

      In short: a low priced Max 10 indirectly sells lucrative Max 8 planes by making it less likely for airlines to switch to Airbus.

      • Good valid marketing points. Think one of the main reasons UAL changed to the MAX10 was to get in a position to be first in the que for converting to the 797?

        DAL and AA will be operating sizeable fleets of 321NEO’s, UAL MAX10’s, lets see how reality pans out.

  3. ” To put this another way, some of the orders…”?
    How do the ‘discounts’ align with complaints about Delta and C Series production cost?

        • @Pundit:
          I hv the same question immediately after I read the comment by MartinA.

          MartinA works for Boeing and therefore the term “we” is appropriate in his comment?

          • FLX: Its the generic We in Third Person singular .

          • No interest, as TW put it, generic account of what BA would wish things to look.

  4. What would it cost to buy one max-7 with a bare interior compared to G650 the same way. I was amazed to find out some time ago from Leeham News just how inexensive airliners actually are.

    Does anyone know (Scott?) whether the amazingly low (to me) prices estimated here for actual aircraft sales include the engines? Or do airlines typically make a separate deal with the engine maker possibly including some maintanance contract?

    I would love a reply.

    • This story , says list prices include ‘propulsion group’
      And it quotes from Boeings website ( at the time)

      “The prices above reflect an average price reflecting a range of available options and configurations for each model. Configurations and options that may affect price include performance capability, interiors, avionics, fuel capacity, etc.”

      • Lots of airlines negotiate “bare” aircrafts and negotitate engines, spare engines+QEC kits+APU, tooling, training, buyer furnished equipment “BFE” like toilets, galleys, seats, floor mats etc. separately for a fleet of 20-200 aircrafts. just look at discounts Boeing gave to Ryanair driving the rest of EU competing airlines mad. I guess it was not specified by Boeing as an examples in the Bombardier complaint.

    • @Dan F:
      “What would it cost to buy one max-7 with a bare interior compared to G650 the same way.”
      My gut feeling is that contract price for 1 Max7 will still be a lot more(e.g. tens of million) than for 1 G650.

      Likely reasons:
      1. Actual contract unit price being far far lower than list price for Max7 is doable only when a customer(e.g. airline or lessor) buy in bulk for a fleet.
      2. Except very large, specialized private jet global charter companies(e.g. NetJet), typical G650 customers rarely buy in bulk so typical contract price is near its list price.

      • Max-7?

        Why not step up to something with a little more stretch out room?

        How about a like-new lightly used 737-800 2017 model for 49.5 million USD? I’m sure it still has that new airplane smell.

        2017 BOEING 737

        NEW B737-800 available June, 2017. Only Principals or exclusively mandated brokers with LOI and POF will be entertained.

        Sale type: Sale
        Sale price: $49,500,000.00
        Aircraft condition: New

        https://aircraftsalesandparts.com/aircrafts/3280-2017-jet-aircraft-turbo-fan-airframe-boeing-737

        • Why be all cramped up in a puny $65 million USD Gulfstream 650 if you can have a 1999 Model Boeing BBJ (737-700ER based) for only $22 million USD? You can buy lots of gas for $(65-22) million USD = $43 million USD, and you can tell almost all of your billionaire friends that “my plane is bigger than yours”. Note however that Larry Page’s 767 and Trump’s 757 are bigger.

          https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1453059/1999-boeing-bbj

          • Well that an easy one . the private jets can take off and land on shorter airstrip. So they can use all those small private airport and caribian small island. No need to land big comercial airport and go thru those big terminal and have to walk to the plane with the average joe. No security check to go thru just walk to the plane and take off. Plus those private planes flight much highers that commercial flight. Less turbulence and trafic. The converted comercial aircraft (exemple BBJ) can’t do that.

          • Hello Bluedog,

            Regarding: ” the private jets can take off and land on shorter airstrip”.

            That is not true in the case of the BBJ. Business Jet Traveler lists the balanced field length of the BBJ as 6,020 feet, and that of the Gulfstream 650 as 6,146 feet. For the airline version of the 737-700, on which the BBJ is based, Wikipedia lists a takeoff run at maximum take of weight, ISA + 20 degrees C of 6,699 feet. For the 737-600, 800, and 900, Wikipedia lists 6,161 ft, 7,598 ft, 9,800 ft for the same spec. Don’t forget that although the 737 has evolved into a 707 replacement in its longer fuselage versions, the original short fuselage 737 design was for an airplane to serve airports too small for a 707 or 727, airports now served by regional jets. See the links below.

            https://www.bjtonline.com/aircraft/boeing-bbj

            https://www.bjtonline.com/aircraft/gulfstream-g650

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation

            Regarding: “No need to land big comercial airport and go thru those big terminal and have to walk to the plane with the average joe. No security check to go thru just walk to the plane and take off.”

            This is not true. Runway requirements for BBJ are very similar to Gulfstream 650 so the same airports can be used. Large airports with lots of commercial traffic always have an executive terminal or ramp where the private jets go. Private jets flights are not subject to TSA screening, which also means that whether you are in a Gulfstream or BBJ, you are not allowed to load or unload in a TSA screened terminal.

            Regarding:” Plus those private planes flight much highers that commercial flight. Less turbulence and trafic.”

            This is true, Business Jet traveler lists maximum altitude for BBJ as 37,000 feet and that of the Gulfstream 650 as 51,000 feet.

            I meant my post to be funny. Since we are getting serious, the obvious difference between the BBJ and Gulfstream 650, is that you sit in the Gulfstream, or maybe lie down on a reclining seat or small bed, whereas you live in the BBJ, which has room for multiple bedrooms with showers and bathrooms with house size beds, and conference rooms. From the interior description of the BBJ for sale ad that I posted a link to : “Mid-Aft office/bedroom with wrap around divan that converts to a bed and optional single seat” and “Large Aft Stateroom with queen sized bed and large lav with shower”.

            Business Jet traveler estimates total fixed/variable costs per year as $1,229,801/$2,455.001 USD for the BBJ vs. $1,136,881 /$1,555,696 for the G650, but remember, you could save $43 million USD by Boeing a used BBJ to credit towards operating expenses. Buy two used BBJ’s and save twice as much!

          • AF looks like you are interested in aircraft field performance. Just from some real world experiences. The 727-100 run circles around the 737-200 (especially hot/high), the 727-200 lost the edge.

            Interesting was that pilots from my part of the world developed a “bush technique” where they could land a fully loaded (pax) 727-100 without problem within <700m (2000 feet).

            Another aircraft with surprizing field performance for me on hot/high strips (considering its wing size) was the A300B4-2K (Kruger flaps). Must add they were operating only 2-6 hour long flights on the routes I flew.

          • In my post above I left “at seal level” out the sentence about the take off run of the 737-700 according to Wikipedia.
            The sentence should have read as follows.

            For the airline version of the 737-700, on which the BBJ is based, Wikipedia lists a takeoff run at sea level, maximum take of weight, and ISA + 20 degrees C of 6,699 feet.

            Wikipedia lists a takeoff run at maximum take of weight, ISA + 20 degrees C of 6,699 feet. For the 737-600, 800, and 900, Wikipedia lists 6,161 ft, 7,598 ft, 9,800 ft for the same spec.

          • Another correction. The 9,800 foot takeoff run I cited from Wikipedia, is for the 737-900ER, not the 737-900.

            The fully corrected (I hope) passage should read as follows.

            For the airline version of the 737-700, on which the BBJ is based, Wikipedia lists a takeoff run at sea level, maximum take of weight, and ISA + 20 degrees C of 6,699 feet. For the 737-600, 800, and 900ER, Wikipedia lists 6,161 ft, 7,598 ft, and 9,800 ft, respectively, for the same specification.

          • AP your details are impeccable, but a wet runway, tire pressure, wind direction and barometric pressure (high/low pressure weather systems) and terrain clearance makes life interesting.

            If you got pax at the back and your gut tells you not >100% sure, the theory does not count, no play.

  5. So, that puts a 737-10 at around 41.6 million.

    As that is a 220 seat + aircraft, in proportion to the C100, that puts the 100 at what 15 million?

    Something to submit to ITC me thinks.

    • MAX 10 @ $42m about right. CS100 $19.6m by Boeing estimate, $23m in another estimate and “millions more” say BBD and DL

  6. Emirates is reporting to be closing in on a deal for a firm 16 A380 and 18 options.

    ITC got its stuff from the staff today. Much redacted with BBD finalizing Mobile plans.

        • Good question. Not sure if they just firming up to 140 or additional?

          Deliveries reported to start 2020, no mention of engine type in the event that is 20 additional.

          Was wondering if the 380+ winglet update could be certified by then?

        • 20+16 are clearly on top of existing order for 142 A380 (not 140). Look at Emirates press release (with the picture of Leahy and HH Al Maktoum) : the Emirates has now 178 A380 on order.
          The engine selection is currently not done. The A380 Plus is up to now linked to the Rolls Royce engine since the new winglets would require to modify the wing and the engine pylons and so far only Rolls Royce has been interested to do the job. According to french press, negociations are ongoing with both RR and EA.

          • Do you have a link to that pylon change needed?

            I had not seen that.

          • My math says at rate 6, Airbus would be making A380 for 23 years on the 140 order alone.

            Add in 20 (blew that didn’t I?) would make that 23 years and a couple months.

            That takes us into 2044.

            The math does not work folks.

          • My ref says 162 ordered (does not include the latest) and 101 delivered.

            Leaves 61 from any other orders.

            All this has gotten mixed up.

            Total looks to be 13.5 year production .

            Takes us to June 2031 (at rate 6, I think they are still winding down to that)

    • expect Boeing to claim illegal dumping by Airbus, as there is no way that the 380 could be a better plane than the 747 and that Airbus dumping is jeopordising thousands of Boeing jobs by illegally dumping the 380 as there is no way it would be possible for another company to have a product better than Boeing.

        • Exec talk from BA seemed to be straight out of the Ryanair school of negotiation — bluff and bluster.

          BA is the poster child of A380 usage.
          Heavily slot constrained at its main hub.
          If it serves high growth markets then they have to generate capacity one way or the other.

          Use the A380.
          Move growth to Gatwick.
          Watch others steal their lunch.
          Dump economy passengers of the flight to make space for a bigger premium offering.
          Become a national airline rather than just being a London airline.

          BA had a fleet of 50 plus B747’s 15 years ago?
          They either go big or go home or at least decant to Madrid.
          A380 is perfect for them if they still have a desire to be a front rank carrier.

          If not then the pip’s will be squeaked, the assets sweated and the cows cashed but they will decay towards irrelevance.

        • Brexit angle — UK brownie points plus low ball politics.
          UK government cashes in a few favours for allowing the 3rd runway at Heathrow.

          BAw orders big on new build A380’s.
          Let’s say 12 + 12 options.

          This allows AB to work the A380 line at 9 or even better 11 units pa into the medium term.
          An ever grateful FR / DE aero lobby pushes their governments to offer London a bit of slack regarding the single market and everybody lives happily ever after.

          Given the economic numbers involved …
          Make the order 24 + 12 or even 24.

          BAw know how much A380 availability helps their business.
          US to Heathrow — the golden (3000) mile — the A380 sets BAw apart from the rest.

          In this context the B777X won’t cut it.
          Plus their B747 fleet is very high maintenance in today’s lean world.

          All they need to do is monetise the available real estate better and they rally are onto a winner — 469 is an interesting number.

          Plenty of high spending posh.
          Very few plebs up the back.

          • British Airways doesnt use the A380 Heathrow to JFK. It uses the 777 and 747.
            Maybe in 10 years it will upgrade from its 747s ? That whats Airbus could be counting on .
            When you include Newark and Gatwick there is something like 30 flights per day in peak season between the 2 cities. None of them 380s.

          • Interesting that refitting is an issue. AB went through hell fitting our A380s as they gave operators too much of a free hand to customize their aircraft, so now that has come back to bite, twice. They made sure there was no repeat of the problem with the A350.

  7. ‘Tis very tempting to (and at least one blog has) tie these numbers to existing aircraft ear-marked for ‘customers:’ 20 x Amedeo, ten ‘undisclosed,’ and six Virgin Atlantic. So, perhaps not up to 36 new-new airplanes after all?

    • Everyone has discounted (,well nearly everyone) those as possible orders for some time

      • I think his point is that it really does not change the production figures overall.

        The total listed build of A380 per Airbus stands frozen (and that assumes the 16 are taken up, not a given)

        • I am generally good with head calcs but you are starting to confuse me.

          My gut feel is that AB will like to produce ~12 aircraft/year with hopes of new orders from China and current A380 operators until 2017.

          By then the world and A380 could look different?

          • Anton: Airbus is heading to rate 1/2 per month, 6 a year.

            Unless those orders materialize, its what have to do to eeek out the program.

            Emirates also has to be able to take the whole production because they (I believe) are the only real orders out there.

            So its how fast can Emriates take them long term and as noted below, what’s the gate situation.

            I understand its all pretty packed down in the sand lot.

          • Can actually see EK stabilizing with an A380 fleet of around 150 (seems they like round numbers) and phasing out older generation 380’s by 2017/8? Beyond that its back to the drawing board.

            That needs a matchbox to do the calcs, but could be interesting what’s the bottom line. 6-9 Good for EK but is it worth the hassle for AB. Seems EK is very good at dangling carrots!

          • As the night is reaching a conclusion, like your term eeeeking out. Makes me think of my pension fund.

        • Transworld – Absolutely. The 36 might merely have become un-discounted.

          • Was just wondering if you must do a reality check on the available A380 gates in future.

            If other airlines phase out A380’s in 10 years EK could have some nice shaded parking for A380-900’s with ultra-fans while others try to get parking for their high density cramped 11 abreast 777-9’s with folding wing tips?

          • Other than some of the early leases that Emirates may phase out (part out) I don’t see anyone other than MA dumping theirs in 10 years.

            Where they work they seem to work well.

            If there is nothing to replace them then like the 757, it lives on for a long time.

            I always found it a bit odd, we see very nicely marinated Japanese aircraft come through Anchorage all the time. On the way to be sold.

            If someone buys them then they are still fully viable aircraft.

            A lot of 767s gone through, look like new.

            And they are planning on flying the newer 767s for some time.

            A380 will be the same. The only reason Singapore retires 5 is they are leased and they are early builds, not same standard as now and not as good as the current build r ones that Singapore gets (which is a few more on the production line)

          • The 757 and 767’s are like vintage cars, seems to keep going by their loving and caring owners.

            Even with my AB cap, Airbus has not build an equal, maybe the A359 turns out to be the first?

          • @ Pundit, TW

            I think it of no interest as to the verifiable orders as there is much fungibility regarding what truly stands. The big important issue is that AB have bought 6 years on the A380 programme for thing external and internal to change. In that time there is certainly scope for a fundamental change in the market. Certainly we are in a twin engine panacea at present but once all the larger aircraft start getting pensioned off and the hubs are full of B787/777x and A350 there could be a place for some A380-900neo. If nothing else this keeps Boeing honest at the top of the market and that is probably worth a few hundred million euro each year. I would guess AB have nightmares about the free ride BA had with the B777-300ER and do not want a re-run.

  8. Some announcements from Fabrice Bregier and Didier Evrard (who is also going to be retired) : the delays due to suppliers (Zodiac is mentioned) are behind them, they are now able to increase again the production rates for recent airplanes (they are not named but I guess it’s about A320Neo and A350).
    The 30 gliders in stock at the end of 2017 should be equipped with engines before mid-year.

    • Production rate is pretty constant down the FAL.
      What is affected by engines and interiors are ‘deliveries’
      At one stage there was around 40 A320 series siting around the factory, as the deliveries slowed while the assembly process was fairly constant.

  9. Seems we all got carried away by the MAX10 discussion/s, getting back to the increase.

    But isn’t the increase just to show our aircraft are valuabe? And, just for you, velly, velly special price. Creating more space for the slick marketing guys to operate in.

  10. Hello Anton,

    You are showing aptitude for a position in sales.

    Save 60%!!! – (off the price no one ever pays).

    The more you buy the more you save!

    But hurry – this is a limited time offer only!

    Sign a firm deal before the end of the airshow and get a pound of coffee and a pen and pencil set free!

  11. Has there been anymore news on the MoM / B797?
    Chicken and egg — what would be announced first?

    The engine or the aircraft?
    Any version of the MoM will need a new engine?
    45K to 60K lbs thrust.

    • Aircraft always first, though there will be serious discussions with the big 3 engine suppliers on who will (or can) do what.

      RR, GE, PW all know the glory is in the aircraft and their spot in the sun is second though most vital part of that.

      Some in turn become famous, Merlin would be one that comes to mind (though I still say the Allison 1710 would have been even better if it had a supercharger)

      • Funny, but the Merlin is so conected to the Spitfire in people’s minds, but most Spits were Griffin engines.

        • At the wind up?

          Merlin production got into some real serious numbers.
          Factories all across the UK got involved.

          They re-cycled some of the earlier ones into tank engines.
          The Griffon production was smaller by a factor of 10.

          Now if they only had managed to get the Napier Sabre into shape both would have been history …

      • The Alison V-1710 did have a super charger and even a turbocharger with the Lightning.
        What you mean is ‘intially didnt have a 2 stage supercharger’, however even the later P-63 used a 1710 with a sort of ‘add on’ second stage supercharger.

        They could have replaced the European theatre P-38s turbocharged – single stage supercharged Allisons with 2 stage merlins but the USAAF baulked at that.

  12. Delta will not order any plane from Boeing for a very long time. The fight between Boeing and Delta started in 2014. Boeing is just now fighting back because Dennis M call Delta bluff and playing hardball. the 10 900ER was a put-option. It is also why the BBD fight will not be resolved with a hanger in Alabama.

    • If Delta gets a good enough offer they will buy from Boeing. Business is business after all.

  13. Delta choice of A321 over 737-10 is not the RFP to use as a template for the future competition.

  14. “MAX 10 pricing
    The new 737 MAX 10 has a list price of $129.9m.
    This means that based on market intelligence at the time the program was launched last summer, some of the launch customers ordered the airplanes for about 32% of today’s list price. Taking into account the 4.1% price hike this week, the discounts to last summer’s list price (which wasn’t announced at the time) were about 66%. To put this another way, some of the orders“

    Around the same time Boeing filled a complaint against Bombardier for price dumping. Folks may say this is different because Boeing is not a foreign company, but I can feel little sympathy for this kind of business ethics, I just can’t.

  15. Are Airbus official listed prices in USD or Euro? Was just wondering of exchange rate fluctuations, President-T and the US$ is not having the best of welcomes in Davos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.