Pontifications: Trump-China trade war hits Boeing

By Scott HamiltonAug. 19, 2019 © Leeham News: There have been no widebody orders placed by China with Boeing since President Trump launched a trade war in March 2018, hurting American’s biggest exporter and affecting the US balance of trade.

In fact, there have been no announced orders by China with Boeing since October 2017. Only 22 China orders were announced in 2017.

Boeing has a large number of Unidentified 737s listed on its website. It is widely believed that China accounts for perhaps as many as 25% of these, but Boeing won’t comment.

China historically accounted for between 25% and 33% of Boeing’s annual deliveries.

Since 2011, China took delivery of more than 170 widebody passenger and freighter jets, or 9.3% of all widebodies delivered by Boeing.

Counting on a surge in demand

Boeing—and Airbus—count on a surge in demand for widebodies in the 2020 decade as current ones in operation age.

Boeing 777-200ERs already are on their way out, replaced by Boeing 787s, up-gauging to 777-300ERs,  by Airbus A330s and A350s.

Boeing 767-300ERs are also in retirement, with several hundred passenger models remaining in service, others converted to freights and 767-200s largely in the boneyards.

Related stories:

Facing production gaps on its 777 and 787 lines from 2022, Boeing needs widebody orders—especially following the 737 MAX crisis and the billions of dollars in compensation charges and added costs (totaling nearly #7bn already) that have been announced.

China’s in-service widebody fleet is relatively young. Only 35 aircraft, including freighters, are more than 12 years old, the age at which the government likes to see aircraft “flipped” for new ones. There are 174 widebodies less than 12 years old.

Although this might suggest China simply isn’t ready to place orders for widebody jets—and the first delivery slots don’t appear until 2022—Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg nevertheless remarked at a recent investor meeting that there have been no widebody orders since the Trump trade war with China began.

De-risking 777X

LNA was the first publication in any medium to report (on Aug. 5) that Boeing was pushing back the development and entry-into-service schedule for the 777-8 by two years.

We pointed to weak sales, the fact that the 777-8 is a highly niche airplane and shifting priorities at Emirates Airline (the largest customer of the -8) as the reasons.

Another emerged last week: “de-risking” the 777X program by concentrating on the 777-9.

De-risking the 777X program by delaying the 777-8 has a familiar and perhaps fatal ring to it.

Airbus began delaying the A350-800 development as the program schedule move to the right for the A350-900 and -1000.

“De-risking” the program was one reason given.

Orders began shifting from the A350-800 to the A350-900 and A350-1000. Pretty soon, there were very few orders for the -800. And soon thereafter, Airbus canceled the program.

There are 45 777-8 orders, after adjusting for a reduction by Etihad Airways in its fleet restructuring. (Etihad’s full 25 777X remains on Boeing’s website, but the carrier indicated it will reduce this to six, all 777-9s.)

Emirates is negotiating for 40 Boeing 787-10s and publicly said it will reduce its order for 150 777Xs on a one-for-one basis. The -8s (35 of them) are believed the most vulnerable.

Hence, the future of the -8 is in real jeopardy.

Highly niche airplanes, including the long-range models, never have sold more than 100 units, although the Airbus A340-600 came close at 98. The Boeing 707-138, the first of the specialty long-range jets (for Qantas Airways) sold just 10. The Douglas DC-8-62 sold 51. The Boeing 747SP sold 45 and the Boeing 777-200LR sold 60.

The 777-200LR is the basis for the 777F, of which 227 have been sold.

This may well be the future of the 777-8. LNA is told Boeing already is pitching the 777-8F as the immediate follow-on to the 777-9. The -8F was intended to follow the -8 passenger model by two years.

It may well be that the freighter model could come before the 777-8 passenger model.

But not before 2024 by our forecast.

79 Comments on “Pontifications: Trump-China trade war hits Boeing

  1. Interesting to see the 340-600 counted as the most successful long-range plane ever.

    I usually thought that was the 340-500 which sold just 30+ of wich almost all have been removed from fleets after just 10 years.

  2. The difference between ultra-long of yesteryear and ultra-long of today is that ultra-long of yesteryear was ultra-compromised, ultra-long of today isn’t.

    Specifically, there is a move to thin but large area wings for reasons of efficiency. A by-product is that they can store a lot of fuel. Add improved engine efficiency, then narrowbodies will first achieve medium haul, then long haul, and widebodies will be able to go anywhere.

    We can see this with the A350 and 777X. Airbus and Boeing haven’t built thin, large area wings to store fuel, they have built them for efficiency. The next generation of narrowbodies will do the same.

    We can see this with the A350. Airbus didn’t actually do very much to the A350-900ULR apart from a bit of piping to access fuel to be stored in other parts of the centre wingbox. That means all airlines are now getting the 280 tonne A350-900 and can use it in a A350-900ULR configuration anytime they want. The same will apply to the A350-1000ULR. In both cases MTOW being the limiting factor.

    The same will apply to the 777X, not just the 777-8 but the 777-9. Again, the limiting factor will be MTOW. So if airlines want to reduce passenger load on a 777-9 to add fuel to fly further, then they can do it.

    The two issues with the 777X is that it is far heavier than the A350 and it’s engine, once on wing, may not be better than the A350 engine. An engine’s efficiency on a test stand is different to one in the air.

    Rolls-Royce haven’t produced a PIP for the Trent XWB. One was due for the -84 version this year. But it’s gone quiet. Not surprising given Rolls-Royce problems.

    • IMJ, Boeing’s best option with respect to the 777X programme would be to cancel the 777-8 in favour of a 85 meter long, stretched 777-10. They could increase MTOW for the dash 10 to, at least, 380 metric tonnes by swapping out the two six-wheel MLG bogies on the 777-9 for two single mounted eight wheel bogies on dual shock struts in an extended gear bay (Boeing patent*) — i.e. similar in scope to how Airbus designed the A350-900/-1000 MLGs and gear bays.**

      * https://patents.google.com/patent/US6173920B1/en

      ** https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-airbus-adopts-vickers-vc10-landing-gear-concept-for-a350-xwb-214238/

      The A350-800 and -900 will both have four-wheel bogies, although the -800’s will be slightly shorter to save weight. Both will fit in the same 4.1m (13.5ft) long bay. “For the -1000, which has a 30t increase in take-off weight, we’ll go to a 4.7m landing gear bay – an increase of one bay frame,”says McConnell. There is provision to incorporate the six-wheel bogie and bay in future weight growth versions of the A350-900, such as the -900R extended range and -900F freighter, to ensure they retain the required pavement loadings.

  3. Is Boeing effectively ceding the LR market to Airbus or will the B789 be used as the basis of a proper ‘Project Sunrise’ competitor? I understood that China needed a lot of larger aircraft for short haul simply due to the limited airspace available for commercial traffic. When I was pootling around China we certainly spent a lot of time on larger aircraft for what were often flights of 1-2 hours and this was the ‘explained’ reason why. Is this still the case?

    • The ‘runout’ A330 models during the changeover to the Neo version have been almost all going to Chinese airlines in the last few years.

    • The Chinese don’t have that many options when traffic grows and 737-800’s become too small. Leasing A321 is one but the other options are widebodies and the A330ceo/787’s are your best available option as the 797/A322’s are not available yet.

  4. Perhaps the geophysical argument may help.

    The great industrial powers of the 20th century were North America and Europe. After the fall of the Berlin Wall we all expected Russia to become an industrial power. It may happen. But China and India are likely to be first.

    For aerospace. China wants to be self-sufficient. The CR919 and CR929 are proof of that.

    Who pays first? Boeing. Boeing think the world owes them a living. But not China. Boeing sales in China will decrease. In the end it will happen to Airbus, but not later

    • Russia’s GBP is middle of the road. Somewhere around that of Canada. It’s per capital GBP is about 1/3 that Western countries and stagnant. Its population is only about 150 million, also not growing.

      I don’t think there is any way Russia will become a great power again. No more chance that that of the UK getting it’s empire back. We accord Russia a lot of respect due to all its nukes, the fact it controls Europes thermostat and habit.

      • Measuring Russia’s GDP in US dollars undervalues its actual capacity to produce quality goods and services. They make some pretty good aircraft, tanks, trains, trucks, space vehicles. My personal view is that western nations will slowly collapse due to birth rate collapse and replacement immigration by low quality immigrants. Russia suffers from the same deep seated moral malaise that prevents a positive fertility rate in the west.

        • Well the US got a lot of “low Quality immigrant”

          Funny how low quality turned into high quality country.

          Seeing as how all our antecedents were immigrants……….

          ya think the European millionaires of the day came flocking did you?

          And who did pick all that cotton?

        • Philip:

          I did not expect Russia to do anything but collapse.

          And China is not an internal market. They have to compete against other Boeing and Airbus jets.

          So their stuff has to be as good.

          They have yet to do that, including Russia with the Superjet.

          You can’t learn support on the fly, it has to be in the DNA and its not for either country.

          And China offers nothing that matches let alone is superior on tech level. Its all current or last gen tech in the aircraft.

          It will never succeed on state control.

          • I don’t believe in state control, but I do believe in strategic industries.

            Aerospace in the US and Europe are considered strategic industries. They are protected by the taxpayer. I don’t want to start a debate on subsidies. For me both sides of the Atlantic do it.

            China will do it. They want the next Airbus or Boeing. They will have a ready home market, but they will have a ready market in the Asia/Pacific region and in Africa.

            My view is by the end of the next decade, 20% of airplane sales with 110 seats and above will not be Airbus/Boeing airplanes. Most will come from Boeing’s current share.

            Your view that western technology is superior is right.

            But, with regard to Boeing. Is superior technology in the 737? No. The C919 will be more than a match. And it will be cheap. This comes to the 787/777. The C929 won’t match either, but it won’t be far off. And it will be cheap. The NMA; an airplane looking for a market.

            Boeing need to up their game. The writing is on the wall and it’s time they understood it for time is running out.

            With regard to Airbus. We know their thinking. They will launch a new narrowbody next decade. It will upgauge in seat numbers and range. They will re-engine the A350 next decade. But don’t be surprised if they launch an A330 replacement focusing on the smaller version. But it will be ultra-long range.

            In other words, Airbus know they will need to up their game, otherwise the writing will be on the wall for them too.

          • Phlip:

            China has made two Western Aircraft and they have not been able to sell them cheap.

            Airbus has stated that the US is the lowest cost area in the World to Build in.

            Good tech labor is not cheap anywhere, coolies may be but there is a limit on rote vs tech. Sewing underwear is not the same as machining a high precision part.

            Once a Chinese worker gets up to the level of good, he (or she) immediately gets a better job offer. In turn the company has to match or exceed the offer or loose that person. Cost keep spiraling up to where the skill costs as much or more as the rest of the world.

            In addition, labor costs (average ) are not the same as a finished production and that includes structural (corruption or not) roads, services, and power generation)

            What I can tell you is a a man who worked close to 55 years and having seen all the products, low wage markets can make cheap good cheaper than a Western Country.

            They cannot make higher tech or high quality any lower cost than we can.

            The AK Pipeline was built with thousand of uprights. Half were from US Steel and Half From Japan. As part of the process, they drooped a devise into the upright and put a corrugation (20 or so ripples) the pipe to give it grip in the ground. The Japanese pipe all split. The US pipe never split (that I saw).

            I built;t houses with what we call 16 pneny nails (Sinkers as they were coated to go in easy). At the time Korea was coming on as the supplier. A US sinker you had to hit really badly to bend. A Korean sinker you had to hit perfectly or it bent. As I worked for a one man builder, we would pick out the American sinkers. Cost? Same over the counter (I kid you not)

            Pipe US pipe comes in round. Chinese pipe is oval.

            I would not use a Chinese made bearing.

            SKF is the best world wide bearing mfg and they make them in a lot of countries (including France and Bulgaria ). All were good because SKF owns the plant and sets the standard.

            You get a Chinese Cummins engine parts its going to be good.

            Get a Chung Lee and katy bar the door.

            Its not that good stuff can’t be made in China or Korea or Burma. Its that it costs to make good stuff.

            The problem is the US Companies charge the same and keep the extra profit. And you can in things like extension cords that the plugs vary from fine to garbage.

            I just picked up a billet type hex drive set for working on my Ural. Taiwan made and good. No one in the US is making a set like that. Some smart guy in Taiwan figured that out.

            We had a 1200 RPM motor that we got from Reliance (since taken over by Baldor). As its a non standard us speed. You can adapt an 1800 to that use but it does not run smoothly

            Reliance for whatever reasons (maybe fits the 50 world) built them in a Reliance factory in Taiwan that at least part of its output was that 1200 motor.

            It was sweet running and made to he finest Reliance standards,.

            It also cost us the same as 1800 rpm Reliance motor did.

        • There are millions of Chinese smarter than you & I. They work hard and have growing self confidence. They took over our production, including high tech electronics. Travel through China & you’ll return feeling we (the west) are too slow, carefull and self centered.

          • There are also hundreds of millions of Chinese that were not as good as I was at my trade.

      • Russia would need a Rwandan transformation of letting well educated sober women run more of the country taking care of its populations health, teeth and substance problems. They also have legal and political power play problems that will get minimized with women running Russia to a larger extent letting thru political parties that are found in a democracy exist.
        Like one party for the poor; one for the rich; one for religious; one for farmers/forest workers; one for Industrial and medical workes, one for the Environmentalists and one for teachers/middle class office workers. They then form coalitions and run the country until a new coalition of parties win fair elections…

        • In Russia, and CCCP before, women in the workplace and politics are far more integrated than in the West.

          You’d be surprised by some Russian firsts in history. For instance the Russian empire had a black (as in African) field marshal before the USA even existed. First woman in space, first dog in space 😀

        • I’ve worked in Russia, mainly Siberia, used their airlines such as S7 and fast trains like the Saspan between St Petersburg and Moscow. Had an interesting ride in an Antonov An2, put it this way, it was nice to know it was stall proof. They have more educated sober and professional women running things in politics and corporations than we do in the “West”. Child care is widely available both now and under the Communist regime. Thanks for the laughs I’ve realised that you are operating at a very sophisticated level of Irony.

  5. In regard to Niche aircraft, I think percentages rather than numbers would be much more relevant.

    As we have moved in time so have what both the costs and numbers sold have been. A couple hundred in the DC-10/L-1011 Era are now paltry but were ok for the era.

    Included should be Pax count, a 707-135 does not compare to a 767 (1000 plus)

    Variants like the too long in tooth 737 best broken down for the Tube (that would normally be the Classic) so called Classics, NG/MAX could be lumped (A330/NOE as well)

    Of course its subjective but I think it would be more relevant.

  6. Boeing 747 SP wasnt a long range aircraft even when it first flew. The background says it was requested by Pan Am and Iran Air for its New York -Tehran or other middle east non stop flights. Yet the data says EIS was 1976 and max range was 5840nm.
    Yet the first updated model the 747-200 entered service in 1971 with a range over 5000nm and soon to 6500nm. ( It was the first type to have 3 engine choices)

    The real advantage of the 747SP was the reduced runway takeoff distance at max weight which mattered at high temperature airports. Boeing was also aiming at the tri jet market with a similar passenger capacity.

  7. Dealing with some countries beings additional variability.

    Viking Aviation (Twin Otter) found that out the hard way with Russia and Communist China (which was bureaucratic to put it mildly). Even India is questionable.

    Trump combines trade with behavior, which is good at the basic level – trade only with honest people, but he messes around with fixed-pie thinking.

    • “Trump… – trade only with honest people”

      I don’t see much honesty in Trump and his administration – au countraire – examples? antidumping custom fares to kill C-Series sales in US, or FAA being last to ground 737 MAX at Boeing pressure.

  8. I wouldn’t blame Trump for the China-US trade war, I would congratulate him for it. Most western nations have been letting their IP stolen for short term profits and are forced to deal with a rigged system in China. Western firm is forced to enter a joint venture, tech gets removed by Osmosis and the joint venture ensure that no assets either physical or intellectual remain. Meanwhile Chinese firms buy up western ones. Sure some sales are spectacular but they will eventually dry up. China now have a competitive Narrow Body, the COMAX C919, though equipped with the LEAP 1C it will probably be able to take a Russian engine the PD14 (geared turbofan BPR 8.5). The B737 will shortly be irrelevant in China. China/Russia will develop a A330-900/B787-9 equivalent though the C929 will be mainly a Chinese lead. Western exports to China will dry up. The worlds best robot firm KUKA recently was acquired by Chinese interests. Bit by bit everything is migrating to China. The failure to understand that China’s way of doing Business is grossly unfair and disastrous in the long run is the failure of most Globalists. Trump, to his credit, does understand this and he knows that you have to apply pressure to negotiate.

    • TRump is a failed real estate investor. His ‘handling’ of international trade will have a similar result. Only MAGATS think anything but.

      Ask yourself why the same idiots who brought us Brexshit brought us TRump….

      • Brexit will be good for the UK but bad for Europe. No deal Brexit will be bad for Airbus. A Brexit free trade deal will be neutral. This is because the globalist Macron and crypto [edited] Angela Merkel are playing hard ball and refusing Britain an Free Trade deal post Brexit making no deal Brexit inevitable. The UK leaving the EU is the equivalent of 19 European nations leaving the EU. Germany’s banking system is in a shambles and teetering on collapse (especially Deutsche Bank). Merkel, unlike the excellent previous Chancellors such as Kohl and the excellent Gerhard Schröder. These men knew you had to continuously reform and adjust a industrial and banking system. Merkel did nothing except waste the vast revenues that had been bequeathed to Germany by her predecessors. She was intransigent towards Greece while not cleaning out her own backyard. She wasted vast resources opening up Europe to millions of illiterate (in their own language) burdensome faux refugees mixed in with insignificant numbers of genuine ones. Both Macron and Merkel are globalist members of the Coudenhove-Kalergi society who want to expand the EU into Eurabia (Africa and Middle East). Britain will escape this coming banking collapse but Europe will not. It is hopefully a good thing that will depose the Globalists and allow Europe to be Europe. In this world the EU is irrelevant. Britain has sea trade routes and can form relations with others nations. Will this be bad for Airbus? No deal Brexit will be as Faury has noted but its not up to Boris Johnson. It will be Merkel and Macron that caused both Brexit and non deal Brexit.

        • I think you can argue only for whom Brexit will bring worse consequences. Airbus is “lucky” to have out-of-site system of production so he can accommodate, maybe it won’t be easy. If someone is thinking that through a trade-war will gain better long time future is wrong.

          The Brexit deal was reached between UK and EU, but UK didn’t recognise it against its own negotiators. But there is a deal, negociated by UK, and a deal as a deal is not perfect for anybody – that’s why it is called a deal, it’s not a unilateral act of hegemony to please only one side, just a deal. I don’t agree with your assessment that EU or Merkel or Macron caused non-deal Brexit.

          Personally, I think UK should be already out of EU, it was mistake to postpone it, but done at UK request. If someone can choose and choosed not to be part of something, there is no problem for me, is feel free to go away and be independent as much as he want, with all consequences.

          • I often thought the US should have let the Southern states go and contained them.

            UK is worth keeping, there should be a vote that says, ok, here is the consequences and you make the choice.

            From my perspective they were sold a bill of goods.

        • The EU will continue to prosper, with or without the UK. The oldish scandalously misinformed UK voters that created this mess will be gone in 20 yrs & young generations / industry will do what’s right for the country. Without the things used to be better brigade blocking welfare, opportunity & diversity. Boris is/was another clown.

          • I’m terrible sorry to disagree, but Boris is not a Clown. He has no talent to make people happy or at least laugh out loud. That is an art form and requires not only talent but a lot of hard work and practice. I can’t see any of that in Boris Johnson.
            Boris reminds me of some reckless youngsters that try to find out how bad they can be and still get away with it. I just find it amazing how he could find so many follower in good old England. Well, they’ll wake up some day and recognize what they have brought upon themselves. In case of a hard brexit it will be really soon and it will be a lecture for the whole world I guess.

          • In 20 years Breturn will be the favorite political warcry of the Brits, sorry, the English, Scotland will be independant and Ireland reunited, by then.

        • @William

          Could you please keep the comment section of this blog free of conspiracy-laden alt.right nonsense. Also, there are plenty of sites around that would seem to better suit your agenda

          • The parlous banking situation in Germany is a fact, they are where the USA was before the US GFC. Coudenhove-Kalergi society is real, its aims for unification with Arabia and Africa are real. In 2010 German Chancellor Angela Dorothea “Merkel“ was awarded with the European Award by the European Society Coudenhove-Kalergi. Additionally she is a counsellor of this foundation, just as former Jean-Claude Juncker (EU Commission President), and Herman Van Rompuy (President of the European Council) were. It is an award winning member of it and her recent actions are consistent with its aims. These are not alt.conspiracy theories as you claim, they are verifiable open facts. I would thank you for taking care to keep false information of posts.

          • William, nobody here is interested in this kind of discussion. Thank you.

          • I didn’t know that, it makes things even worse.

          • Putin was university graduate in Law. And wasnt a clerk , was a foreign intelligence officer
            “According to the Kremlin, Putin joined the KGB immediately after graduating from the law faculty at Leningrad State University in 1975. He spent 16 years in the Soviet security service, rising to the rank of KGB lieutenant colonel before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
            One of his undercover postings was Dresden ( his Stasi ID card has come to light) and he may have been recruiting foreigners studying there for the KGB.
            Where do you get your info from TW , a backyard barbeque?
            Even worse, some people believe you.

    • If this was a move to correct the abuses, no issues.

      However, we had a bar at one time called the Monkey Wharf.

      A lot of fecal mater flew to no gain.

    • William,
      do you know the story of “Made in Germany”? Here it comes:
      Once upon a time there was a large but very poor country in the middle of Europe that had fallen behind in its development so badly that people were starving and fleeing in masses over the Atlantic to a new country, the promised land, seeking a better life. Yep, this land was later called Germany, but it was still fragmented and not a single state.
      During that time, the first half of the 19th century that is, another country in the Northeast of Europe, was developing rapidly, using steam power and developing new technology in an unprecedented way. Right, that was England.
      Then some people in Germany woke up and decided to catch up with the way of the world. They founded schools everywhere and put a heavy weight on the education of engineers and scientists. Then they sent those your engineers over to England to work and learn at the new factories and to bring home as much “intellectual property” respectively “know how” in their heads and notebooks, and if possible, copy as many plans and draw up every machine they learned about.
      Next you see lots of new factories popping up in Germany, copying English products, machines, tools, engines, trains, power generators, you name it. And then the Germans started to export these goods. And as they were much cheaper than the English originals, mainly due to much lower labour cost, the English manufacturers and politicians made a terrible blunder: They ordered that every product from Germany hand to wear the label “made in Germany”.
      Instead they should have focused on improving their products and make new inventions (rings a bell?). But what happened is that the quality of the German products began to outperform the English products. And by the turn of the century, England was loosing their leading edge against Germany.
      So you think you can stop China or India to become a part of the “first world”? Could you stop Japan? Did the rise of Japan “kill” the US economy?
      Stop thinking backwards. Boeing has just made the same mistake. Capitalism is not about defending your position by raising borders and taxes, that will in the long run only damage your own economy, it is abou happy customers, about innovation, about constant improvements, including your own thinking. Learning! Experimenting! Travelling!

      • It’s the Northwest of Europe, but everything else is about right. Perhaps a little out of date. Productivity in the UK is now very good. But then we – I’m a Brit – are nicking ideas from Germany.

        It’s going to happen. China wants an aerospace industry. It will happen.

        • Oops, yes, Northwest of course. 🙂

          If you study history, you see how knowledge travels and economies prosper and fold. The hungry ones that are willing to walk the extra mile, to invest the additional hour, to learn just another language,… they will rise. If you want you can see that in almost every country where immigrants open businesses with almost no money in their pockets and succeed. Often you experience the best customer service and orientation in such businesses. Isn’t that one of the reasons why so many people go to “foreign” restaurants? In Germany it sure is.

          Here comes Boeing: As far as I can see they put shareholder value above customer satisfaction, and that is in my view the biggest mistake you can possibly make.

          Today I have read elsewhere that Southwest in seriously considering not only the A220 but also the NEO. Guess why.

      • I’m aware of German and previous Prussian economic and technical success. The Jealousy of it was the prime cause of WW1 and WW2 and the need to integrate Germany into the heart of Europe through free trade rather than the walled of artificial states created by the dismemberment of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires.

        However the problem with trade with China is their grossly unfair practices enabled by their command economy They operate a fixed currency (tolerable), impose very high tariffs (completely unacceptable) and impose joint venture agreements that amount to theft of IP. They prevent foreign ownership but practices it themselves on Western countries. To me it seems it is cowardly moral weakness to turn the other cheek in these circumstances. The western corporations traded short term profits for long term self destruction.

        The west is setting itself up to a disaster by opening itself up to this one sided trade. Selling its best firms and opening itself up to high tax welfare costs of low grade influxes that will inevitably shift manufacturing away from the west all the while selling its family jewels.

        Itt’s possible to see the demise of both Airbus and Boeing in the next 40 years. The Chinese are not fools, much the west is.

        • @William

          Well, China didn’t force no one to come to China, is West World wanted to come to China. If China made a requirement of joint-venture so a western company could accept it or refuse. I don’t see that because of that Chineses are stealing western industrial property, they are learning – something-for-something, you want our market – you allow us to learn from you, more less. China will be probably in 50 years there where Japan was 50 years ago.

          I see in what you wrote more critic to the Western World that to China – so maybe China isn’t a treat? maybe is just easier for some western politicians to depict China like that? Maybe some western corporations shall isolate themselves from China and his practices and market? Why blame China? For learning? For taking theirs opportunity to buy a western company?

          Trump’s trade war is just fighting the symptom, not a cause, look at beloved USA brands as Apple or Nike – they choosed China and don’t want to come back, for me these are rather chinese brands then american, why not impose tariffs strictly to them?

          Personally, don’t buy iPhone or Nike shoes (as examples only), on the market are more american or european equivalents, as you wish.

    • The problem is that one hegemony (like US) wouldn’t like to have competition in other hegemony (like China). As long as China was a cheap labour country – was good, but when would like to develop in something more then cheap labour country – is bad. It’s a hypocrisy. Everything is migrating to China because we as west-world wanted it, and are still wanting – for many different reasons, one of it was / is a cheap labour. And Chineses want something in back.

      Trump doesn’t understand that China as a big country with a time anyway will develop in a Big Country. Its not a weak banana republic. He can only try to slow down or to civilize – but with a trade war is a stupidest way, with a modern standards and reality you can’t isolate China, it’s not an XVIII century.

      • China’s relation with India are poor, India will one day be a big country, probably even bigger than the US or China. Could they be making the same mistake?

      • Well not quite sure we are a hegemony but you seem to miss the difference between who controls government and the people of a country.

        In our case our founding document (Constitution ) while ultimately heavy on freedoms failed to build in restraint to corporations (all sorts of reasons)

        And regardless of party in power, the driver is campaign donation so the bias to outright writing of laws by Corporate lobby groups /business has become the norm.

        Currently the world is getting to enjoy the ultimate end result when a populist who could care less but says the red button things gets into power.

        Trump does not understand anything other than his own greed.

        China is not un-civlized (and certainly by their assessment are more civilized). They are hypocrites in that while the Colonial era ugliness is bitter brew, they in turn believe its fine the other way.

        But back to the point, what the People of the US feel and what is going on are two different things. Presently the only remedy is another revolution with all its downsides.

        Its not exclusive, UK has Brexit and Germany has a failure to balance its defense needs with making money.

        I will remind ALL, Trump did not win the vote, we have a twisted thing called the Electoral Collage, which means that a non majority wining in the right combination of state (Trump with the states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by all of 75,000 votes combines that normaly went democrat ) took the election per the Constitution (wrong as it is)

        You can throw in Russian intefearance and ponder if they got to 75,000 people in those 3 states as well and if Europe contained them at all what would the end result be?

        • @TransWorld

          I meant a hegemony as a world economic power – hegemony in economy, however it sounds.

          I’m quite familiar with both US and Chinese freedom achievements, and imperial aspirations as well, however it sounds.

  9. @Gundolf

    My point of view! I don’t have to write anymore. Progress not stagnation and custom-wars.

    • @TransWorld

      Seriously? You so hurry to ground another aircraft.

      How about so exploding engine on 737 NG of Southwest when a passenger was killed, grounded all NGs with CFM56-7B engines in 2018?

      Or 747s because lately flaps felt off at take off, again.

      • Any time there is an unexplained even that can take an aircraft out of the air yes you ground it.

        CFM-56 should be inspected immediately as well but its a long established engine that you can accept its a one off.

        PW has had issues and they need to ensure that you don’;t have aircraft with two bad engine and if one series is bad make sure those are off.

        Boeing is knocked for their response on Lion air (rightfully so) and you will continue to let someone who is wearing in traffic drive without a stop and a check for DWI?

        Truly stunning.

        • @TransWorld

          So maybe you should allow specialists to investigate before you call for grounding?

          Why you don’t want to be 747s grounded for its known issues with falling off flaps at flight?

          Or 737 NGs for its known issue with impossible to operate manual trim wheel at higher speed, as MAX?

          Why you wanted CFM-56 only be inspected and not grounded when exploded during Southwest flight?

          Retorical questions.

          PW 1500 has some teething issues. Let the people do the work.

        • MAX wasn’t grounded because of “unexplained issues”. There was no call for grounding immediately after the Lion Air crash.

          A flaw that came to be KNOWN after the Lion Air crash initial findings and remained unresolved apart from an (inadequate) RTFM put out by Boeing/FAA till the Ethiopian crash. and only then was the grounding called.

          • I can only conclude that Boeing bashing is the goal and not a real interest in air safety

    • Regards to Seeking Alpha article – misconception of misconception – is a belief that we know what a real purpose of the MCAS was – we don’t, simply – we know only Boeing stories, lies, first it was anti-stall system, second – it was just NG-emulator-sytem.

      Personally I believe that in first moment after crash Boeing said truth (MCAS is anti-stall) , really wanted to be transparent, but after it scared itself of the repercussions and changed the narrative to more neutral.

      Sully in Congress hearing underlined this big unknown.

      I hope EASA will really check it out how pitch-unstable or prone-to-stall 737 MAX is without MCAS working.

      So a misconception of this article is basing a statement on the assumption or the belief – on the unknown.

      • As a pilot I can say that once you have warning a stall is the easiest thing in the world to avoid.

        Your action is to push the nose down.

        My take on what he is saying is that you would have to pull harder on the Elevator to keep pushing it towards a stall.

        As you would be pushing forward anyway it is a smoothing action (if done right) that reflects an NG.

        Boeing’s lethal decisions on this has gotten mixed up in some peoples minds with all the other factors to include the MAX as lethal and that is wrong.

        I am betting a fire in the electrical compartment on a FBW would take that aircraft down where as a 737 could land (it would have to be soon)

        • FBW certification has thought of that.

          Triple -Triple Redundant 777 primary flight computer.
          Essentially they use multiple electrical bays and multiple pathways , hydraulics , electrical power.

          As described in a paper by Boeing

          from what I could see , the triple redundancy even went as far as 3 different micro processors by 3 different manufacturers for the PFC ( primary flight control) architecture.
          Intel 80486
          Motorola 68040
          AMD 29050

        • Comercial airplane can not enter to near stall condition with ease, and then it has to be enough margin to push a joke and avoid stall – and every stick shaker event has to be reported as incident thrn investigate.

          Pls stop Steel Cable vs FBW battle. And I don’t think you will convince anyone that in case of fire steel cable and pulleys will be fire resistant and dispersed FBW system over all aircraft not, uffff, so surreal. In case of fire you have to land as quickly as possible, anywhere – Swiss Air 111 proved that aircrafts are not fire resistant.

    • If you lose the trust of your audience, your audience is going to question anything you say.

      BA thought that their MCAS upgrade was ready, The FAA took a closer look, and found further issues which will now be addressed.

      Bashing any manufacturer is not the goal, asking sensible questions in pursuit of safety is appropriate.

      BA philosophy is that the pilot is always in control of the aircraft.
      In designing the MAX, they endeavoured to change as little as possible in order to maintain the common type certification.

      So why was the ‘aft column cutout’ functionality removed ?
      Why were the cut-out switches that on the NG controlled electric trim, and autopilot trim changed ?

      I’ve seen various arguments, which I will not go into, but I haven’t seen a convincing explanation yet.

      In the article you quoted, it is said “As mentioned, the biggest destabilizing element in any conventional aircraft design is the fuselage. The new nacelles and turbofans are not going to change that”

      What is not explained is the effect of the new nacelles, and engine size on the airflow over the wing at high angles of attack, and the potential loss of lift.

      I’m not suggesting that the MAX is stable or unstable, I’m just interested in understanding the issues.

      To regain public trust, issues such as the inability to manually trim the aircraft in some situations must be addressed. Falling back on the mantra that statistically manually trim hasn’t been necessary to save an aircraft doesn’t wash. Does anyone want to be on the aircraft that becomes the anomaly ?

      I would like to see the cut-out switches allow autopilot/sts/mcas to be turned off, and electric trim left to operate.

      I wouldn’t want to overwhelm any 737 pilots with too much information, I trust them to cope with the change from the standard runaway trim procedure of cut out both switches, to turn off a malfunction that points the aircraft at the ground or the sky, and use electric trim to get back to a sensible angle of attack.

      • I agree on getting an understanding of the issues.

        I don’t agree that people in general have a clue as is noted by postings and comments on this forum where generality its aviation knowledge people.

        Your throwing in stall issues on the wing with the engine setup when that has never been mentioned as an aspect is a case in point.

        Taking two separate item and then linking them with no support data and all supposition just makes a hard to understand situation another conspiracy aspect.

        In order to “understand it” you would have to be an aerodynamics expert who understand the math.

        At best you are going to get enough understanding to have a working knowledge (that includes me)

        You can’t explain how your cell phone works but you can operate it.

        That does not mean its black magic, it does mean there are some incredible aspect of computer and communication links involved.

        In this case you find people who do understand it (Bjorn – Peter Lemme) and go with what they assess. And they report there are aspects withing the details they don’t understand.

        Anyone who thinks they can grasp the entirety of a 737 and all its ops is and then presenting as an expert is fooling themselves beyond belief.

        • In saying “What is not explained is the effect of the new nacelles, and engine size on the airflow over the wing at high angles of attack, and the potential loss of lift.”…

          There is a link, the article said “The fuselage measuring roughly 39 meters is the biggest destabilizing element of the aircraft. The 3-4 meters nacelles with the 69.4 inch turbofan embedded are not providing moments sufficiently high to make the aircraft go from a stable aircraft to an unstable aircraft.”…

          All I am pointing out is that there is more to understanding what the issues are, you have to look at all elements of the system, including the aerodynamics of the wing/engines.

          You don’t discount the effects of the larger engines placed further forward, and higher up simply because the fuselage is a relatively larger destabilizing element.

          The article does points out “With the engines being placed higher, the moment caused by the higher thrust is possibly partially offset”, but the article doesn’t explain the other effects of the larger engines placed where they are.

          There are other aircraft with very large engines placed forward, and higher on the wing relative to some of the older aircraft, but in general they are fly-by-wire aircraft, and the systems are designed to ensure that the aircraft is kept safely within the flight envelope.

          “I am betting a fire in the electrical compartment on a FBW would take that aircraft down” an interesting thought, I would hope that the possibility has been properly thought through, I hope it never happens.

          Every time I fly in a 787 I am very aware of the ‘fix’ of the battery problem, I remember what happened to HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War … Metal can burn.

          • JakDak

            Fuselages being a destabilising element is daft. Anything can destabilise if designed incorrectly. There is nothing unusual about the fuselage of the 737. It’s a daft statement.

            Airplanes are a balance of forces. Providing the forces are balanced they fly. If they are not balanced they don’t fly. Exhibit 1: The Lion Air crash. Exhibit 2: The Ethiopian Airlines crash.

            By the way, I said the 737 MAX should be grounded after the Lion Air crash. Airplanes don’t do powered up dives into the sea unless unless the forces are way out of balance.

            By the way, I do understand the maths. So I know Seeking Alpha’s article is school boy stuff.

            Seeking Alpha has a history of supporting Boeing.

            But to return to the 737. Boeing need to explain the imbalance in the force. The most likely cause is the engine causing air that should be flowing under the wing to flow over the wing.

            With regard to imbalance of forces. Let the force be with you William for you clearly believe in the Order of the Sith.

  10. This is an outstanding example of pro active safety. One aircraft was found to have a problem, they grounded, inspected and returned those ok back into the air.

    “The Air Force has resumed flights of almost three-quarters of the transport planes that the service grounded last week after maintainers discovered unusual cracks in the wing joints of an Air National Guard C-130 Hercules aircraft.”

    That is true safety culture not lip service.

    • It is a good idea. Let’s hope it’s not necessary to teach the Yo-Yo manuever to maintain elevator authority.

      Please remember that although we are now being told that the 737 is a pilot’s airplane both crashes happened because Boeing refused to allow the pilots the option of flying the airplane.

      Moreover, Boeing gave the impression that the pilots were flying the airplane when they weren’t. As JakDak makes clear this comes to trust. Once lost, it’s hard to regain.

      A solution to MCAS is to turn it off. If a few hundred pilots are then allowed to fly it in all weathers, with full loads and less than optimal CoG positions, then perhaps it can be returned to service.

      • Unless they change the gearing or come up with a boost that satisifes redundancy , yo yo is back. simulator are being program to reflect how hard it is to use (clutch breakou7t over a seized motor is another aspect no on is talking about . Of course you have to be a technician to have picked that up.

        As yo yo has nothing to do with MCAS, its a whole different issue and affects at least the 737NG and MAX. How the dual stab motors worked may affect some of that with the 737 so called classic (Classic refers to the original so I don’t know how that sloppy terminology was allowed to propagate , much like Airbus and its dumb sharkelts)(anyone ever see a shgark with two fins 20 feet outboard of its body?)

        Currently you can’t just turn MCAS off though arguably eliminating it would be a great solution. Stall? dump the nose.

        Still a lot of other good work and things needing addressed is coming out of this. Its truly a tragedy it took 347 deaths to get there.

    • Interesting approach by FAA and presumably a problem for Boeing’s attempt to software attenuation without simulator retraining.
      IMO the handwriting is now on the wall that retraining WILL be mandated, either by FAA and/or the other alphabet regulators.
      Of course, the real question is:
      Will relatively novice pilots be able to solve the simulator problems within the “ four seconds” reportedly available?
      Will they have the strength – and available altitude – to yo-yo to recovery?
      As a betting proposition I believe Ladbroke’s would favor the negative side of the bet.

  11. It’s interesting there’s still all this concern about a penny ante trade war with China. Mark my words, we’ll be in a real, honest to God, shooting war with China in the next 3 to 5 over the South China Sea and/or Taiwan. Can’t stop it—it’s the “clash of empires”. And it’s much better for the U.S. sooner than later. The U.S. should be readying its air and sea forces now. Bring back Mattis, and follow his plan for 80% minimal op readiness! I haven’t read one word about how these idiot, globalist ceo types have any contingency plans for this eventuality. So sorry, Musk. LOL

Leave a Reply

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