Nov. 9, 2020, © Leeham News: Aircraft prices and lease rates are plunging as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to devastate the airline and manufacturing industries.
The Australian newspaper reports that Rex Airlines will pay A$60k/mo for its ex-Virgin Australia Boeing 737-800s, rising to A$100k after 12 months. This is US$43,600 to US$72,700.
Rex is a small regional airline that is leaping to a jet operator. It committed to take 10 737s.
The article says the airplanes are more than 10 years old.
Compare the rates to the rents listed Nov. 2 by Ishka, the UK-based appraisal and consultancy firm: US$115k/mo for a 15-year-old model.
Virgin’s airplanes date from 2003 to 2018. The oldest leased airplanes date to 2004.
It’s not especially surprising that swamped with excess airplanes that lessors will place airplanes for whatever they can get. Lessors are under great pressure to service their own debt.
Even Ishka’s estimates for 20-year old airplanes are higher than the Rex rates.
But the real story is what new airplanes are going for. And the prices are eye-popping low.
As long as anyone can remember, Boeing was firm about maintaining profit margins on its sales. The 737 family was the most profitable airplane for Boeing for decades.
Boeing desperately needs new orders and the cash flow that comes with deposits and progress payments. Recertification of the MAX is imminent. Deliveries follow shortly and production is underway at a low rate.
Wall Street aerospace analysts tell LNA that Boeing Chicago gave Boeing Seattle the greenlight to offer what it takes to sell the MAX.
LNA is aware of a current campaign of the 737-8 and 737-9 vs the A321neo. The customer has a split fleet of 737s and A320/321s. We’re reliably told Boeing’s offer for the 8 MAX is around $38m. The offer for the 9 MAX is around $41m. Airbus’ offer for the A321neo is the upper $40m range, arguing it has more seats and more range than the 9 MAX. The customer wants Airbus to price the airplane at $41m, the same as the less capable 9 MAX.
Normal pricing is well into the $40m range for the 8 MAX and into the $50m range for the 9 MAX and A321.
Sale-leasebacks also have been repriced in the pandemic environment. LNA is aware of one deal that was initially priced at $52m to $55m for A321neos. The lease rate was 0.61%.
When the deal fell apart, it was repriced at $44m with another lessor. The lease rate was not repriced off the failed deal. The lease rate factor became 0.72%. This indicates the pressure the airline was under to finance the airplanes.
Boeing faces another issue, not normally part of transactions.
It has, as we all know, more than 450 MAXes that were produced in 2019 following the grounding of the global fleet. Aviation Week previously estimated about 62 of these became white tails as customers went out of business or cancellations came through. One estimate concluds the number could go as high as 200.
These 62 airplanes are configured for the original customer. Configuration is more than just installing seats. Lavatory and galley locations may be different. Overhead bin features and in-flight entertainment systems may differ.
Reselling these airplanes almost certainly requires reconfiguring them. A typical cost is $5m-$7m. Who’s going to pay this?
Customers clearly will say Boeing needs to bear this cost, which should not be passed through to the airline in the price of the airplane.
Pricing a 737-8 at $38m compares with the list price of $121.6m. This equals a discount of about 69%. The $41m offer price of the 737-9 compares with a list price of $128.9m, or a discount of about 68%.
Airbus stopped publishing list prices after 2018. Based on the 2018 list and factoring in historical 3% hikes in each of 2019 and 2020, the $41m price the customer wants equals a 70% discount. The price Airbus wants represents a discount of 65%.
With the discounts Boeing will be forced to make under the present distressed circumstances, can it make money on the 737?
Our answer is yes, even if Boeing must absorb the reconfiguration costs. Leeham Co., our consulting arm, calculates the all-in production cost for the 737 (as well as other aircraft at Boeing, Airbus and other OEMs). We won’t reveal these numbers (after all, that’s what our consulting side gets paid for). But we can comfortably say Boeing will make money. The margin gets squeezed.
The one caveat: how much overhead gets allocated to the MAX. This is the real card between profit and loss.
Any feeling how sticky prices – ie how resistive to prices returning to(ward) prior levels – are likely to be on the eventual rebound Scott?
And with Biden taking over how long before China mops up some excess at fire sale prices? Assuming Biden and Jinping et along.
Margins on the max will drop seriously. The prices for airplanes in th backlog were predicated on high production rates of 50+ that will never be seen again. The build cost is going up dramatically. And Boeing has pinched every penny so hard already that Lincoln has a headache. There will be diminish cash flow until the program ends, and next to no profit per unit. Perhaps negative. I project a premature program termination.
Boeing’s factory infrastructure will suffer from lack of upkeep as those corners are cut to the bone.
And it’s factory worker skills base will be largely destroyed.
Don’t overlook the loss of institutional memory on the engineering, test flight etc, side of the manufacturing division.
Not everything is in the manuals, or is highlighted prominently.
An assembler/mechanic etc is not immediately interchangeable with the next one.
In this precarious environment, in which the whole industry is essentially on life support, if there’s the slightest disappointment with respect to the longed-for “silver bullet” vaccine — e.g. intro date, efficacy, breadth of utility, implementation — then a nasty tremor will be sent through the whole house of cards. And IATA/airlines still haven’t attempted to formulate a cogent “Plan B”.
Bear in mind that the WHO doesn’t expect ”young and healthy” people to get vaccinated until 2022 at the earliest. Yet that age group makes up a huge percentage of the flying public. Can the industry take another 15 months of severely depressed demand?
On another note: a friend of mine recently flew to Portugal for a fall vacation. At the time, it was one of the few EU destinations that didn’t have “orange status”. I asked how full the flight was and he said that every seat was taken. So there are plenty of people that aren’t afraid to fly.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the deer are still paralyzed in the middle of the road, staring into the headlights of the oblivion approaching them…
News today for the Pfizer/BioNTech Phase 3 vaccine trials. These are interim results for the first third waypoint of 64 infections out of a needed 164 for completion. The efficacy appears to be about 90% at this point.
The full results will be released later in November, and will have to undergo a full review before anything happens. But if they hold up, this should meet the criteria for EUA, perhaps with a fairly broad application group. Millions of doses are ready if EUA is approved.
If the at-risk groups can be vaccinated soon, then the health/death impact of COVID will be less, ad restrictions can be eased somewhat. There will still be a need to follow precautions for some time, but greater movement and opening of the economy should become possible.
As always, the devil is in the detail.
The study group concerned only received its second dose 2 months ago. So the only statement that can currently be made is that the efficacy *after two months* is 90%. We have no idea yet what the efficacy will be after a longer period, such as 4, 6 or 8 months. Even the antibody titer after CoViD infection lasts at least 3 months, before diminishing.
Furthermore, the statistics are meager at best!
It would be great if this works out well, but it’s *far* too early for trumpet calls. Where that’s concerned, today’s explosion in stock indices is greatly premature.
Bryce, no trumpet calls, but your characterization is inaccurate. This is a Phase 3 trial, so there are results from earlier phases that indicate the average longevity is at least 6 months, at this point.
The “meager” results focus on the reduction over time of the first responder antibodies, once they are not needed after the infection concludes. But as research has shown, a response lingers in the form of T-cells and specific antibodies developed in bone marrow.
So the body does have a memory response that can protect against, or lessen, future infection. Exactly how long that will be, we will learn with time. But we do have some idea now, that it is significant.
The phase 3 trials for this vaccine commenced at the end of July.
Since the two shots are 3-4 weeks apart, this means that participants only started to get their second shot at the end of August…which is 10 weeks ago. Since not all participants had enrolled in July, there are many participants who got their shots at a later date.
If you wish to believe that the 94 infections reported today all came from the relatively small phase 2 trial in May/June, then be my guest: you’ll still only arrive at 4-5 months, which is nothing to get excited about. And you’ll also have a much larger (and statistically improbable) incidence of infection, because only a few hundred subjects took part in the phase 2 trial.
As regard your assertion that “there are results from earlier phases that indicate the average longevity is at least 6 months”, can you provide a link for that in the case of this particular vaccine?
For various reasons Im pretty sure the vaccines being tested ‘will work’. But we know from existing vaccines that efficiency isnt equal for all the population, so the very old and the very young may not be so good. But that may not matter for a ‘travel vaccine’. The real crux for vaccines is will they cause other harms ( and Im not including the discredited anti-vaxxers views) in other wise healthy people.
Im also pretty sure mass vaccination of well tested vaccines will be accompanied by a big increase in reports of mystery illnesses, as the ‘mass psychogenic illness’ effect kicks in.
Bryce, we know this particular vaccine has a protection history of 4 or 5 months, throughout the phases. In addition we know from research that protection after COVID appears to be at least 6 months.
In addition we know from practical experience, that there are not large numbers of reinfections in the general population, even after 10 months. In addition we know that the vaccine manufacturers have estimated protection of at least a year, based on their results thus far.
We will need the full results of the trials to know for sure what the minimum longevity is, and will need a year or more of application to know the maximum longevity. But all indications are that it will be significant, as I said.
Also for the record, 90% of the 94 infections occurred in the placebo arm of the Phase 3 trial. Since time is required to establish longevity, the earlier trials offer more evidence for that right now, than the Phase 3 trials. But that will change over time.
As expected, lots of vague waffle, but no link.
No problem: lots of people cling to fantasy as a coping mechanism.
Meanwhile, experts on various sites are asking (as expected):
– What the age breakdown is of vaccine recipients that got infected;
– How severe those infections were;
– What the duration of the endowed immunity will be.
Thankfully, I’m not alone.
The manufacturer of the vaccine is recommending that early doses be reserved for the elderly and vulnerable, and that the vaccine should not be given to younger people until “the risks and benefits” are better understood.
That says a lot.
All these questions will be answered in the trials, the approval process, and subsequent application. No one involved in the development is dismissing or avoiding them.
But the questions don’t diminish what has been achieved, or the worth & value of the vaccine. And most that ask these questions do so to help assure success, recognizing that the outlook is favorable and success is desirable, not doubtful as you assert.
That is the critical point, and why development will continue with confidence, regardless of the naysayers. But we will see the results in time.
Other than various groups have shown different reaction to a Vaccine in the past, it just means due diligence.
Sick kids is PR nightmare and adult volunteers are not. I doubt they can even offer it to kids yet.
Adults volunteering their kids is not the same is it?
How about we see how this all plays out on approvals before we jump the gun ?
I am not an anti vaccer, I am pro vaccine, but the trials need to run and the assessments needs to be done.
Bryce, giving the vaccine first to the vulnerable population, was the plan from Day 1. It is not evidence of problems with the vaccine. It was always going to happen that way.
Eventually the decision will be made whether to give it to children, after the vulnerable are protected. Those distribution decisions will depend on a lot of factors yet to come, including safety within the general population, and are many months away yet.
Clinical data is available, the rest of the news is PR
Duke, that is not the clinical data, which has not been published yet. It’s the protocol that defines how the study must be conducted. It sets the requirements for evaluation and success in advance of the study.
The results given today were a summary based on the un-blinding of the study results so far, that was done on Sunday, as prerequisite to analysis. But those results have to be reviewed before publishing on the government clinical trial web site:
Your defence of the virtues of reason, caution and prudence are welcome in a PR world agog for the next newsflash
Cheering on deck at the presentation of a big pharma’s Press Report, so that’s yesterday’s war already, ok what’s next….
Next is the publishing of the clinical data, and review by the independent committee that controls the study (not Pfizer), the FDA, and the general public.
Assertions that this result is PR, big pharma, etc, belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the science and procedures involved. Pfizer cannot determine the success of the study, or of the vaccine. The study is specifically set up to prevent that, as are all clinical trials.
It’s important that confusion on this point, or refusal to accept the ethical independence of the work, or the consequent anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories, not be mistaken for the true facts and science involved. Those are indisputable, whatever the study results are.
If you read the protocol document that Duke posted, it makes all of this clear. The study is intentionally blinded to Pfizer and the researchers, and the review is conducted by an independent committee. It was they who determined that the preliminary efficacy was 90%. Pfizer announced this in a press release.
@ TW and Rob
Who said anything about “children”?
I said “younger people”, which in this case means “under 40s”…or, by some definitions, “under 50s”.
Under 40s are an insignificant component of the complications group when it comes to this virus.
When even Bloomberg counsels caution – we should not be so ready to cheer the latest Pharma Press Release
The hard part is yet to come
> …every seat was taken. So there are plenty of people that aren’t afraid to fly.
I also had a full flight recently. But that was after having the original flight cancelled and rebooked to a new time. The full flights mean airlines have trimmed capacity and are managing yield. Not that there are lots of people wanting to fly.
It does say people are willing to fly in a full cabin.
Flights from NL to Faro are run by Tui, Easyjet and Ryanair.
They all had a high load factor at the time in question, forcing the person in question to take his second choice of flight time. That sounds like a healthy demand to me.
Longhaul is a different matter.
More CoViD misery on Reuters:
“Norwegian Air suffers body blow as government rules out more support”
But, no need to worry: let’s just sit around and do absolutely nothing while we’re waiting (and waiting, and waiting) for a vaccine. After all, “prosperity is just around the corner”.
If the market price for the A321 would be $41m, the MAX-9 price would likely be $35m. Greenlight from Chicago will result in lower MAX prices.
If an airline is using 737 and A320family, much more important is the question about quality and passenger acception.
For Airbus it’s easy, don’t sell new planes if the price isn’t met. Think about pricing again in 2022.
Airbus did some financing recently. They could increase financing for good sale prices.
If so many MAX are white tails there must be a choice of different configurations. Not too bad for customers. There can’t be many different lavatory configurations.
Also Boeing got Pre Delivery Payments for those white tails already. They won’t lose much money.
There is money to earn taking white tails.
Long ago there was a market for inventory. There should be a market for white tail seats.
Greenlight from Chicago means no new SA planes, as expected.
Legal cancellation means the buyers get their money back.
Interior setup has to match not just lavs but mfg of lavs, galley and the interior colors and any flight entertainment stuff.
Otherwise you have an oddball bird that has to be dealt with as a one off. That costs.
No reason to pay for that when you make Boeing do it (which is part of the original sales package). Want to sell an airplane? Then make it what we order normally.
“”Legal cancellation means the buyers get their money back.
No reason to pay for that””
if the plane isn’t produced yet, the customer might get the money back, but if it’s already produced (white tail) I don’t think the customer will get the money back.
If an airline can save $5m with a different cabin configuration, it’s worth to check what’s available. The MAX is not about quality, only about price, same as buying a used plane. If you have a 15 years old 737 in your fleet it looks different than a MAX too. Airlines might only be interested because of this cheap offer, Alaska too.
How many different overheas bin and lavatory versions are used?
There is a difference between one that they took delivery on and those 450 sitting there.,
Those 450 have expired the clock on legal basis. The 63 can get their money back.
If you make one now (say for AK Airlines) then they have a legal obligations to take it (all that of course is worked out in negotiations).
But no, the 450 are now void though the takers in most of the cases look to have negotiated some kind of deal.
I think many of these are bankrupt airlines so I’d assume no more money paid but none refunded. It would be interesting to know how similar the different elements are behind the scenes but I’d assume it would mean a new safety card, crew training etc. I’d think if you are a small operator, getting a plane kitted out with nice BFE would actually be a win and you wouldn’t want Boeing to reconfigure. Would also be interesting to know which operators have abandoned their white tails (or painted white tails), to know if they’re a LCC config or full service
I think you’ll find that creditors will regard aircraft ordered by bankrupt operators as assets and will claim deposits and progress payments back from BA just like any other monies owed. Getting listed as a bad debter is the last thing BA needs just now.
Even for a small operator, having a few birds with a FE and some without is nothing a serious airline should be interested in.
The second point might be more important. Just having a screen in an aircraft mostly adds weight. But it also means that you need the backoffice support to provide content. You need contracts, selection of content, selling ads, etc. etc. And then you have to update/transfer/delete the content into the aircraft. Train the crew on using the system, update manuals, etc. It quickly becomes complicated and adds costs to the overhead. Now you have recurring costs, just because you got one or two cheap aircraft?
I doubt it would make sense unless you have the infrastructure to maintain that.
No creditor could list an unpaid order as an asset, that would amount to theft. Any payments that were made to Boeing would remain the property of Boeing, as long as the original contract provided for that outcome.
Bankruptcy does not permit a creditor to claw back prior payments, unless a refund policy permits that, or they can show the transaction was fraudulent.
For white tails I thought about bankrupt airlines. Those airlines won’t get the money back. If they paid 50% Pre Delivery Payments they would likely buy the plane and sell it again to not lose the full 50%.
Most of the other MAX which were cancelled negotiated a deal. Existing airlines want to buy from Boeing in the future again, though not Norwegian.
Pre Delivery Payments might also depend on configuration. If you order exotic features, i.e. without overwing exits, the PDP might be higher.
WB white tails are a bigger problem, much more different configurations possible.
In January China might buy all white tails.
But if the MAX-10 is delayed further, we might see MAX-10 cancelled too.
Just because a company goes bankrupt, doesn’t mean it disappears into thin air. The bankruptcy trustee will certainly fight hard to get every penny back on existing assets. So if there is a way to get the prepayments back, then he has the legal obligation to fight for that money. And he won’t be interested at all in some shady Boeing deal where he can get future discounts on other stuff. He will want hard, cold cash.
Within the terms of the original contract, if it provides for a refund, yes. But if Boeing has no obligation to refund in the contract, then a creditor might be very open to an alternate deal offered by Boeing. Something is better than nothing.
Any one here know just how much variation, if any, there is in cockpit and other aircraft systems between customers?
I don’t have access to MyBoeingFleet, this the correct name for Boeing digital maint data?
The airline customer would not permit an aircraft branded with their interior for which they paid a design consultancy big bucks to differentiate themselves to be sold to an-other carrier. It would all have to be stripped out.
How many leased Aircrafts are coming off lease 2021? That will increase the supply and effect prices.
At what point do lessors start to get into liquidity problems?
Financial analysts have warned for months that it’s only a matter of time before the CoViD crisis starts to turn into a banking crisis. How much fat do the most vulnerable lessors have on their bones? Fanny and Freddie come to mind, but in the case of the lessors there’ll be no government bailouts…
What a marvelous time has come, I’ll just wait few more months, then I’ll look for a change in my wallet and I’ll start my own airline. How hard would it be? Cheap, surely.
Selling below cost? Dumping? There is history around that.
Too bad Bombardier is not still in the Commercial Aerospace business. They could sue Boeing, take them to the WTO, the Trade Department, PETA, for selling below costs. Those guys that destroyed Boeing, will live on in business schools curriculum for decades in the textbook chapters about CEOs who made short term stock bonus motivated decisions.
read the end of the post , it says that Boeing is still selling above production costs.
Anyway the final decision for Boeing was that they lost the case over alleged dumping by Bombardier, hardly a reason for ‘the winner’ to re-litigate it !
@DoU: IIRC, Boeing’s program accounting works like magic, by pooling both rev. and cost over the block. I remember engine makers (see RR) report profit as engines are delivered even though engines are sold below cost. No different than during the go go years before subprime crisis, banks can create securities rated triple A from a pool of subprime mortgages.
Also completely different circumstances. Bombardier was selling below market rates in a market that wasn’t suppressed.
There was no dispute over that, the issue was whether there was competition with the MAX-7. Although the ruling at that time was no, at present there is obvious competition between the two aircraft.
Right now, the Boeing price is consistent with the existing suppressed market rates, so that is not dumping.
And what law says that dumping is allowed in situations involving “suppressed market rates”. Can you give us a link?
Technically, the sale price should also make a realistic effort to recuperate a fair portion of development costs — otherwise there’s an argument that a low-price sale constitutes dumping.
Bryce, you can’t dump into a market (suppressed or otherwise) where your prices are equivalent to others in the market. As Scott made clear, the price suppression has applied to all aircraft. Nor is it isolated to one market over another.
Hey guys, dumping is a US thing.
Boeing dumps as well (can you dump in the US market)
Reality was they took a law that does not apply to aircraft as they are alwyas dumped and tried to make it stick.
Boeing could sue Airbus for dumping A350 into the US market.
Sheese, let it go, its a gone deal.
A Dutch aviation website is indicating that:
– Etihad intends to ditch all its narrowbodies and concentrate on longhaul only. This means cancelling an order for 26 A321 neos, as well as dumping the current fleet of 20 A320s / 10 A321s.
– Air Canada has cancelled orders for 10 737 MAX 8s and 12 A220-300s.
$38M, how does the pricing of a 737-8 compare to one of the big Bizjets like the G700 or Global 8bazillion or whatever they are on now?
double the floor space, real headroom, engines designed for high use with little maintenance… would think it would be a pretty compelling choice…
Not comparable, its not efficient to use a much heavier plane and higher fuel consumption with a bigger floor area unless they really need to carry a larger number of people. And yes the purchase price might be $50 mill plus for a single plane, as bulk buys arent common.
The empty weight of the latest large business jet Global range is 25-30 tonnes, the BBJ8 is 125 tonnes.
Those special Boeing deals wont be for buyers who only want a single plane.
737-8 MTOW is only 82.2T, OEW is 49.8
Global 7500 MTOW is 57T and costs $72M (list)
G700 MTOW is 53.5T and costs $75M
at $38M, that leaves $37M for fuel and landing fees before you even get to the purchase price of the G700….
that is a lot of trips to Vegas, baby!
Landing fees anyone?
Cost to maintain?
The empty weight is what counts not mtow as most of that is fuel
It’s around half the empty weight.
Another disadvantage of the passenger jets is they are slow unless you move up to dual aisle types.
Don’t forget the interior. A Global or Gulfstream comes with a decent VIP cabin built in. If you buy a BBJ (or ACJ) you first have to invest another $+30M to get a decent cabin installed.
It’s certainly a good time if you have the cash to buy an aircraft. And those billionaires normally don’t care about efficiency too much. Bigger is better, cos if my jet is bigger than yours, that will certainly boost my ego a lot…
opps, wrong BBJ8 that was the 787, empty weight of Max 8 version is around 48 tonnnes
more to the point – the B737 is the ten-year-note of the aircraft industry as it informs the pricing of all other aircraft. What price an EMB195 now?
The REX aircraft came from Virgin Australia – not Virgin Atlantic
@Tim: of course. Sigh. Fixed.
“Mexico’s VivaAerobus returns to 100% of pre-covid capacity”
Am I the only one surprised about the fall in 737-800 values? I expected this to be the most in demand aircraft today, pushed up by life extensions forced upon airlines who had ‘lost’ abt 650 MAX deliveries prior to Covid. Why such a big drop?
Here’s the link:
The 20y value for the 737-800 is not low, closer to A321 than A320. The 15y value is very different, much closer to A320 as it should be.
It was in demand before Covid, that should be gone now.
That the 20y 777-200ER value is lower than A330-200 is a surprise. I think the A330-200 is very interesting and it seems I’m not alone.
It’s the drop in 15yo 737-800s between Ja and October which caught my eye, esp with the replacement grounded
I see that as of tomorrow Boeing Aircraft being delivered to the EU will be hit with a 15% duty. Didn’t know it was starting tomorrow. Bad timing for MAX Del’s to Ryanair & I guess any IAG MAXs ordered now will be BA only.
I seem to remember this website calculated that BA had more orders in EU than AB has in the US, so will be worse affected, or does my memory fail me?
And lessors are predicting that those tariffs will hurt MAX uptake in the EU:
Now’s the time for O’Leary to jump to the A321 😉
Remember that after 1. January BA is not in the EU.
Actually, the UK is currently not in the EU…all that changes on Jan 1 is that the Transition Agreement terminates.
So BA can still potentially take their MAXs without tariffs…assuming, of course, that they still want them. But it depends on where the owner (e.g. lessor) of the aircraft is located…and that can still be within the EU. Also, remember that Norwegian had an arm in Ireland, to avail of the attractive corporate climate there…not sure if BA has something similar. I do know that, in the absence of an aviation agreement between the EU and UK, BA will have curtailed flying rights within the EU unless it has a corporate arm in the EU.
Correct me if I am wrong, I believe tariff depends on which country the aircraft is registered.
U.S. imposed tariffs on scotch whiskey, British knitwear, camera parts, industrial microwave ovens, print books, sweet biscuits and waffles.
The EU is wise to use their tariff power, it gives the US an incentive to negotiate. The EU position is that they wish to return to no tariffs on either side. It’s likely now that with an administration change, saner heads will prevail and the nonsense can be ended. The constant Trump refrain of being treated unfairly has lost all credibility in his response to the election.
@Martin: You remember correctly–but that was before MAX was grounded and orders canceled. We haven’t done an update.
Un-addressed here is the even more important future value calculation that investors use to price long term deals. How are they informed by these data?
Scott, I was wondering if you could help out;
There’s a discussion going on, on an investing site I frequent, about the costs associated with reconfiguring a Max from one carrier to another. Since I value yours and Leeham’s input, I quoted the $5-7 million range.
An article was published where that was too high and in fact was closer to the $1-3 million range. I pushed back a little and the response I received was “…Leeham is not the Holy Grail. They get it wrong, too”
Looking around the ‘net, there isn’t a whole lot of information on what it costs to change an interior on a Max. Swiss did a blog on how it spent upwards of 100 million francs to do five A330’s.
Are your figures derived from your experience and knowledge in the industry or are there others (perhaps Aviation Week) that have quoted this cost range.
Thanks and keep up the good work. I enjoy reading your insights and stay safe.
@frank: A lessor provided me the quote. Let the investor website go argue with the leasing community.