HOTR: Narrowbody delivery recovery in 2025

By the Leeham News Team

Dec. 15, 2020, © Leeham News: “We do not expect Airbus or Boeing to get back to planned narrowbody deliveries (adjust for MAX grounding) before 2025, with widebody deliveries taking much longer.”

That’s the view of Bernstein Research in a note published Dec. 14. It is a pessimistic view that belies the hopes of others in the industry.


Boeing officials said they hope to deliver about half the ~450 stored MAXes in 2021. Most of the remaining stored aircraft will deliver in 2022. There will be some spillover into 2023, Boeing said.

On this basis, Bernstein’s forecast suggests Boeing will deliver about 208 new-production MAXes in 2021. This computes to a production rate of 17/mo. The current rate is 6/mo, according to a Wall Street analyst. A rate break to 10/mo is expected soon.

In 2022, the Bernstein data suggests Boeing will deliver about 378 new-production MAXes. This is a production rate of about 31/mo. Boeing said it hopes to be at rate 31 in “early 2022.”

Thai offers aircraft for sale

Currently under administration, Thai Airways International put a sizable number of aircraft up for sale on a dedicated website.

Among those are older aircraft that have been out of service for years, such as Boeing 737 Classics, an A300-600, and A340s. The most recent additions are Thai’s entire 747-400 (10 units) and 777 Classics fleets (18 units), but also two of the airline’s six A380s (more on that later).

Separately, the Armée de l’air (French Air Force) put two A340-200s previously used to transport high-level government employees for auction. Two A330-200s previously operated by Avianca Brasil will replace the A340-200s.

A quiet retirement from operations

The retirement of Airbus A380s and Boeing 747s have made significant headlines. However, airlines are also retiring significant numbers of A340s from operations.

After SAS’s A340-300 retirement, the last major full-service carrier to operate the type is the Lufthansa Group. The airline group uses the type at Lufthansa, Swiss, and Edelweiss. All other operators are ACMI, charter, leisure, or carriers operating in much smaller markets.

Superjumbo sized accounting charges

It took several months for Thai Airways after bankruptcy to put two Superjumbos for sale. One must wonder why the carrier did not do so earlier and why it does not sell all units. A probably contributing factor is the fact the airline owns its entire A380s fleet. Boeing young aircraft (delivered in 2012-13), selling or retiring them entails sizable accounting charges.

The Qantas Group took a $1.4bn Australian Dollars ($900m) impairment charge earlier this year, mostly due to its fleet of 12 A380s. Air France, Lufthansa, and Singapore Airlines also booked sizable impairments as they prematurely retired Superjumbos from operations. As Thai Airways tries to sell its A380s, the carrier will have to book significant impairments.

A380 accounting charges will also loom over Korean Air’s planned purchase of Asiana Airlines. Both Korean carriers operate a combined 16 A380s, which would make it the largest operator after Emirates (Singapore Airlines retired seven of its 19 units). The combined airline could have to book an impairment charge of around $1bn. Such impairment would eat up a significant portion of Korean Air’s planned 2.5 trillion Korean Won ($2.3bn) share issuance for next year.


220 Comments on “HOTR: Narrowbody delivery recovery in 2025

  1. Note that the Korean write off will be non-cash, so it will not affect the cash raised in the share issue (it will not “eat up” the cash). It may move the equity into negative equity, but that may or may not be an problem depending on the legal structure of the company and/or the rules in Korea.

  2. This analysis starts with the assumption that Airbus will deliver 34 aircrafts in december after doing double that in october and november. If they are not accurate in a 30 days timeframe, I wonder about a 5 years accuracy

    • As someone once said (Yogi Bera?). Predicting things is really hard, especially if its about the future!

      Managers hire forecasters to they can blame the failure on someone else.

      I was involved in a heating problem in mid winter and was limping it along and the manager looked at the forecast and said, we are fine.

      My response was, they can’t tell us its raining today (literally on more than one occasion) let alone 5 days form now.

      Well if its wrong we can just say we did the best we could and the forecast was wrong (the same one we knew would be wrong?) Amazing.

  3. The delivery forecast for the A380 in the table is 1 for 2021, 2 for 2022 and 0 for the subsequent years.

    The latest Airbus orders and deliveries spreadsheet says there are 8 in the backlog.

    What does it mean?
    The 251st A380 is already assembled.

  4. The forecast calls for 31 A220 in 2020. There are 37 Aircraft already delivered this year with two more still to come (one each for Air Canada and jetblue).
    So much for the accuracy of the “forecast” in the present…

    • I count 38 delivered, with JB and AC and one for Air Vanuatu (if they take it) in flight testing. Jetblue is taking theirs either later this week, or first thing next week – so I’m told.

  5. Bernstein is too negative on NB recovery. WB recovery is 7-8 years away and probably accurate.

    A220 already delivered 36 YTD till today, they estimate 31;
    A32x already delivered 405 YTD till today, they estimate 414.

    In both cases Airbus December push is still to come. Seeing the numbers, 2022 NB routes will be back to normal and demand will probably recover 1 year later…

  6. The 787 numbers seem aggressive considering the increasing issues with manufacturing “fit” – apparently focused at the new single location in the East- not to mention FOD.
    With client airlines likely to be very picky at delivery inspections there might be interesting times in SC…

  7. It is hard to predict as requirements for proof of vaccination probably will comes as an requirement for most international flights, hence the speed of vaccination of frequent fliers will determine revenue to the “normal” Airlines living on pax and cargo revenues to collect cash to pay for new Aircrafts. So many Airlines want to vaccine their “Diamond club” members so they can start flying as before. Different countries will determine the distribution of the vaccine they buy and small countries with successful “poaching” of neighbour pax like Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark will probably allocate vaccine to their Airlines to use on their most profitable customers. But if the Western World have vaccined 63% of their population by end of August the traffic sould boom for summer vacation travel as ´flights to friends and families will Catch up.

    • It’s likely that the question of whether or not a passenger is admitted onto a flight will be determined more by the policy of the destination country than by the policy of airlines. Since we currently have zero data regarding the ability of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines to prevent asymptomatic infection — with associated transmission risk — it is unlikely that zero-virus countries such as China, Taiwan, Singapore, NZ, Australia, and low-virus countries such as Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia, will be willing to admit incoming passengers until their own (entire) populations have been vaccinated. So it’s not really the “speed of vaccination” that will count, but rather the “degree of vaccination”.
      For the (nominal application of the) AZ/Oxford vaccine, we do have data regarding the ability to prevent asymptomatic infection — giving a total efficacy of 62%. That’s not a very promising figure when it comes to re-opening borders.

    • @ Claes

      ‘Vaccination’ is not as simple as that – for instance it appears most likely that the Pfizer jab will not reduce infection, just help with the symptoms

      Co ordinating protocols across many countries and many vaccines of varying ‘effectiveness’ will be an administrative nightmare – variable ‘science’ will produce even more variable politics will produce great varieties of administrative ‘plans’

      As far as I know the ECDC plans are yet very tentative, and other ‘plans’ merely three lines pitches

      As will persuading enough people to take a vaccine, business class might, but the others might not – polls in US EU show low take up intent, 40/60% only

      IATA and some airlines have proposed enforcing vaccination themselves, this is guaranteed not to work, they lack the skill the personnel and the cash to branch out into the medical business

      WHO and others are talking about years not months to get major % of global population vaccinated

      But some in Corporate support such private initiatives and are very optimistic – they claim to unleash market forces on hitherto inept gvmt and state management of this virus will bring a rapid end to woe

      Joyce at Qantas thinks he can enforce mandatory, O’L at Ryanair says the subject is for the politicos to solve – but the pols are objecting to China and Russia and……so it will be a very long song and dance

      • @ Gerrard
        When Alan Joyce floated the idea that Qantas would only carry vaccinated passengers, other airlines promptly responded by stating that such policy was a matter for countries rather than airlines. In addition, many commentators immediately raised questions regarding the legality of such a policy — because, although an airline can have it’s own *onboard* rules, the processes of ticket sales and boarding occur within individual jurisdictions, and are thus subject to the laws of those jurisdictions. Various experts expressed doubts regarding the legal attainability of such an approach, in light of anti-discrimination / self-determination / bodily integrity laws in most countries. That may be a reason why few (if any?) democracies have as yet indicated that vaccination will be mandatory.
        As you say: “a very long song and dance” for the hemorrhaging airline industry.

        • @Bryce

          You are right – JJ is just backdoor trialing for Aus gvmt policy, seeing if they can sneak through a mandatory by making it a ticket condition, part of a private contract JJ believes will overcome any objection, obfuscating the need for any ( supposed or apparent) gvmt involvement

          This is typical second rate corporate PR – as we have seen in a previous discussion here at Leeham this pretended privatisation of sovereign rights will not find general acceptance, certainly not in Asia, certainly not with the lawyers and law courts everywhere

          Yet other airlines have jumped on the idea, better to pretend to be doing something than actually to be caught thinking, perhaps : all hat and no cattle

          Every ‘plan’ turns out to be more PR than plan, and it appears CDC and ECDC have’nt worked up enough energy to propose any thing except ‘we must plan to do something’

          The IATA travel pass is blurry/waffly on the degree of gvmt involvement, but the WEF Bill Gates CommonPass scheme openly touts airlines as able to make decisions, previously the reserve of sovereign states, an aspect of neo-l globalismus and much in favour with Corporate Compliance

          It is hard to see any of the major EU, ME or RCEP international airlines actually participating, given the degree to which they all are controlled by their respective states

          Such private initiatives are only encouraged by western USEU gvmt laziness, incompetence and failure to come up with any project or plan

          As you remark these gvmts shy away from mandatory at home, they’d have to obtain machiavellian skills to persuade people that it’d be mandatory for a ride in a plane between two unmandatory countries

        • @Bryce

          Have you seen? The UK is refusing to publish vaccination figures, perhaps because they fear to reveal take up is poor, distribution clumsy, and delivery taking much longer than promised by PR

          Oh dear…..perhaps those two nurses’ bad reaction ? or just the usual incompetence, computers won’t work, etc

          Incidentally the report also confirms that african britishers are as reluctant almost as african americans to take the jab : but real africans, who live therefore in africa, have no need either to be polled or to take this drug

          @Rob please input – what is the view from Csuite?

          • If an all day long queue of people aged over 80 outside on a showery, cold winter day, simply waiting to get inside the centre t the rest of he queue and then their jabs, keeping vaccinators busy all day long is poor uptake, then I guess uptake is poor.


            Real Africans?

          • @ Gerrard
            Fascinating (but not surprising) about the lack of transparency with the UK vaccinations.

            The documents submitted by Pfizer to the FDA indicate that 4.6% of recipients experienced a severe (grade 3) reaction. Non-placebo participants in Phase 3 trials of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines showed an increased incidence of Bell’s Palsy, which involves partial paralysis of the face. I can imagine that reports of such effects will act as an impediment to a good uptake.

            On the subject of asymptomatic infection/transmission, it’s interesting to note a study of the AZ/Oxford vaccine performed in May on a group of Rhesus monkeys. Although the vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe symptomatic CoViD, all the non-placebo subjects became infected when challenged, and continued to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 in swabs from their upper respiratory tracts — which thus represents 0% efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection.

            Another interesting point: the official efficacy figure of 94.5% for the Moderna vaccine reduces to 86% for those over 65; in both cases, this figure just relates to the prevention of symptomatic CoViD.

            As we get more data in the coming weeks (assuming that it isn’t suppressed), we’ll be able to form a better image of the extent to which these vaccines are going to be able to restore international travel.

          • @Woody

            Thanks for your Christmas story in the snow – but where’s the data at? You can not have seen everybody

            Real africans are those unhyphenated who live in africa, rather than those who have left, even long ago – a distinction is indicated by the hyphen

            Just as there are descendants of africans in the US, called A-A, so there are in UK, called A-B, and so on and so on, some left voluntarily, some did not, but in this case distinction is less operated

            Obama is african-american, so is Frederick Douglass

          • @ Woody
            So the Brits aren’t organized enough to give people time slots for their jab? Having 80-year-olds standing for hours in the rain, as you describe, is going to cause a mass outbreak of colds, flu and worse. Why aren’t the Brits using converted warehouses (like the Germans are currently setting up) so that people don’t have to stand in the rain?

            It all sounds very chaotic!

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for this information, the details are new to me

            I did read about the AZ rhesus monkey test, but did not understand the significance – cold comfort that my ignorance is shared by most

            As you know it is not only ‘the vaccine’ that will make possible uptake in international travel, it is ‘vaccines’, and the administrative p&p and the mutual acceptance and agreement in between what seems to be ‘the vaccine blocs’ : Asia and EU/US and indeed Africa

            The current Huffing and puffing by JJ and others is not going anywhere

            The Woody post is about the Brits? Ha! From his snowbound carol tones I though he was up in somewhere the deep northern, telling tales from the old Klondike bust of yore

          • @ Gerrard
            On the extremely important subject of trials of multiple vaccines, researchers are calling for more trials to be conducted on (Rhesus) monkeys. Conducting trials on monkeys is less challenging than on humans, e.g. because various ethical issues are circumvented (such as deliberately infecting the monkeys, and conducting autopsies to thoroughly analyze virus distribution/damage in the lungs).
            Of course, if Big Pharma suspects that the outcome of such tests will be adverse to their commercial interests, then one can expect that resistance will be offered. As previously commented, there is a relatively short window of opportunity in which Pfizer/Moderna can pump out their vaccines before more detailed (and potentially disadvantageous) data becomes available and/or the much cheaper and easier AZ/Oxford vaccine comes online.


          • @Bryce

            It is painful to think just how far Pharma will go to avoid proper testing and trialing, indeed time is running out for Pfizer, is their CEO still there or….on the run

            In other news : I’m sure you have seen this – but it looks like this realistic Asian testing of international travel arrangements may be gaining in appeal in the ’West’, WEF presumably had nowhere else to go but Asia, despite their investment in the Gates CommonPass


          • There is no need for the “Real” part. African is African. Add a sub identifier (eg -American or Sub Saharan-) if desired or required.

            Bryce, yes they are organised enough to provide appointment times. To the exact minute actually. The issue is that this is being done in volume, at speed, 3 minutes per appointment (maybe 5 in places) and the medical centres are really designed for much lower throughput (I’d guess standard appointments are 10 minutes). So a centre designed for normal throughput experiences queues outside at the moment.

            To my mind they should really have selected eg leisure centres as they would have plenty of space inside and plenty of car parking. Don’t want already vulnerable eldery people ending up ill from standing in the cold and rain and wind.

            The IT system needed was also flaky initially.

            But, aside from a brief IT flakiness and venue choice, I’m impressed with how it is going.

          • @Bryce @woody

            You may be interested in this:

            The British are starting to ramp up vaccinations, and they will be using large recreational locations. (Current priority will be older people in care homes – not standing outside in the rain)


            1.) residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
            2.) all those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
            3.) all those 75 years of age and over
            4.) all those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals
            5.) all those 65 years of age and over
            6.) all individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
            7.) all those 60 years of age and over
            8.) all those 55 years of age and over
            9.) all those 50 years of age and over

            As far as time slots for vaccinations goes, they’re pretty specific, 9:43 am on a specific date good enough for you ?

            There are some things the UK Govt. has taken time to get right, and they are still working on improving. In March they didn’t have nearly enough PCR testing capability, but they’ve worked hard to improve, they’re now 17 th (717,266) in the world Tests / 1M pop
   sort by the Tests / 1M pop
            USA 18 th (683,062)
            Sweden 42 nd (393,890)

            They’ve just added a Weekly number of people receiving a PCR test and positivity (2nd graphic down) which is of interest to the official data site:

            I find this site useful:
            Specifically the data, and map (Past 7 Days Local Authority Map (per 100k pop)).

            Does anyone have any knowledge of similar sites for the USA ?

            Vaccination status is on the home page:

          • @Woody

            No need for ‘real’, but there is a need to hyphenation ?

            Ask an african before telling him what language to use – else you’ll be treated as neo colonialist

            In all such sensitive cases, as in your country with trans heing and sheing, it’s best to ask, if not keep your language to yourself –

            You relate the conventions in your country perhaps, but there is no reason to export them – when an a-a goes to africa he is called an american and treated as an american full stop, for he is held to be an american and in no way an african, this is especially true of a-a, a little less so with regard recent emigrants to european countries, but in all cases pronounced

            Obama found out the hard way when he went to Kenya

            To confuse skin colour with an appeal to origin is not something an african is much interested in : africans think according to tribe and clan, skin colour is a much less important issue, although it is used as a measure of social hierarchy, the lighter skinned coastal tribes were the slavers and sealed their deals with marriage

          • @ JakDak
            I’m delighted to hear it!
            Woody’s account of pensioners waiting in the rain was reminiscent of a third world country!

          • JakDak, stage 2 already began, possibly last week but certainly by early this week. Hence the 80+ year olds queueing outside to get into the vaccination centres. This is nothing at all to do with 1st, 2nd, 3rd world countries. It is simply to do with the operational requirement of high throughput vacccination against the operational architectural design of medium throughput health centres. The latter are NOT designed for the former.

            Will some local commissioning health authorities in the UK utilise eg leisure centres? Maybe. But not here they haven’t and, my guess, is most won’t. The health centre chosen here is not even the most appropriate, in terms of indoor space or of car parking, of the centres available for the area, but that is another matter and going well off topic.

            Gerard, you appear to be doing exactly what you accuse me of. You write “ask an African” as if all Africans are the same and have the same attitude/belief/opinion, which is simply not true. No more than all Americans (either in the USA sense or the broader continental sense) are all the same. But I have heard offence taken when people are called “not real” x, y or z on multiple occasions in multiple countries.

      • Just to counter the misinformation being put forth on the vaccines, the Phase 3 trials did not gather the needed data to differentiate between non-infection and asymptomatic infection. Therefore there is not data to positively affirm reduction of asymptomatic infection.

        However it remains extremely likely that this reduction exists, as there is no reason to believe the vaccine has a different effect on symptomatic vs asymptomatic infections. If it is 95% effective for symptomatic, it likely to be similar for asymptomatic.

        This a common argument being put forward, as it makes use of the truthful statements from experts that they don’t have the data to make a definitive statement. But the reason they did not collect this data, is that there was no reason to expect the rates would be different.

        Similar claims are made about transmission risk. That depends on virus shedding, and if infection is reduced, then it follows that shedding and transmission are also reduced. Further we know that vaccines are effective because they reduce the ultimate reservoir available to the virus, which necessarily reduces the transmission rate.

        The last claim revolves around longevity of protection. Again we do not yet have the data to establish this, we only have about 8 months of evidence thus far, but it indicates natural immunity from infection lasts at least that long. The vaccine evidence is only about 4 months along, but again the history of vaccines shows that immunity should be similar to that acquired naturally. Furthermore vaccines that have high efficacy typically have longer immunity, on the order of years rather than months.

        So again, all these claims revolve around lack of explicit data, due to the extraordinary pace of the last year, rather than the known history and behavior of vaccines, or the expected result. It’s important to make that distinction as you consider the competing pro & anti vaccine narratives.

        • I agree.

          At worst its like the flu we get yearly shots for it.

          We are seeing multi prong approaches including one that is room temp no issue.

          Take what we can get now, save lives, get economies moving, get it into the under developed world to save their lives and livings.

          In day by day we will know more. It will be years before we have the full picture.

          Unfortunately too many buy into the whiz bang thing that there is an instant fix.

          Progress is made by hard work. Somewhere behind all the whiz bang and tech is a lot of hard work.

          There is no APP that replaces hard work.

          And there is nothing that is perfect. The only guarantee we have is we all will die someday. I have put it off for quite some time and the vaccines are tools to do that.

      • Requiring vaccination cards for international travel is nothing new. One can argue of the effectivity of different approved vaccines in reducing risk of spreading and catching the covid-19 virus. Airlines will only push for vaccine of its biz travellers if the top destinations require it to let them in without quaranten.
        Still the FDA and other pretty qualified agencies have followed their routines and are approving some of the vaccine candidates after approved Phase-3 results that proves its effectivity of reducing catching covid-19 infection. The FDA seems to be more careful and systematic than the FAA (pre 737MAX).

        • @Claes E

          You will have noticed, maybe, that none of these various airtravel proposals call for ‘vaccination cards’

          For covid such are being issued by State or National authority, as in the US UK and more generally, and are simply a record of vaccination and are not intended for travel

          Perhaps you are referring to vaccination cards of the past used for international airtravel : historically these were issued by the WHO or under their authority : as you are aware this is not the case for Covid, and the US has in any case withdrawn from the WHO

          As for FDA EUA relevance to the incidence of transmission reduction, your statement is in correct – neither the Pharma producing the drug nor the FDA have pronounced on any ‘effectiveness’ regarding transmission – neither was the trialing designed to test for such

          Corporate Compliance and PR would wish for you think that the mrna vaccines are wonders which they ‘hope’ (they do a lot of ‘hope’) that their vaccines will reduce transmission, but they do not ‘know’

          Corporate is always ‘hopeful’ all’s well, until the crash, then they ‘hope’ to evade responsibility

          Perhaps you are aware of the debates surrounding some of the various proposals for a commonpass or a vaccination passport – if so you will know that none of these proposals has reached finalised definition – international gvmt approval and co ordination, let alone judicial/legal clearance, is likely to take some time, if not forever

          Governments may even come up with plans of their own, after all, and not allow such blatant regulatory capture by corporate : certainly will not be approved in Asia

          Pre Max crash many people thought the FAA were doing their job, too : generally speaking it does take a lot of deaths to wake people up to the incompetence caused by regulatory capture, the history of the Pharma and the FDA closely parallels the history of…the FAA and Boeing – let’s ’hope’ nothing goes wrong, why not, it’s easier than thinking, or doing the work

          While the US/EU do not know what they want, it appears likely that many Asian countries will move ahead with their own plans, indeed already have – in this way making even clearer the divide between competence and incompetence so far revealed or confirmed by more successful covid measures (Asia) and less or non existent (EU US)

          • Yes, the FDA and the corresponding EU authority has a tough job as to follow their certification procedures while people are dying globally from Covid-19 virus effects. The vaccine is also a “harmless virus” that triggers the body immune system against it and kills of Covid-19 as well, still it is very hard to know how a virus effects different people and you come up with what is the risk of harming innocent people vs. how many can we save and how do we compensate those who react “differently” with sometimes lifelong induced diseases from the vaccine. The vaccine should also have a short life not to mutate to something even worse. There is big chances that many countries reacts as the vaccine will solve “everything” and quickly opens up to get business and tax revenues flowing again.

          • @Claes E

            Yes a regulator has a tough job – but you will notice that many (manymany) less are dying in certain countries than in others, specifically the US

            That is almost totally nothing to do with the virus but all to do with the variety of human reactions by country

            Some countries have efficient administrations and health care while others do not

            In the FDA country they have gotten everything as badly wrong as it could be, so far – with that track record why so confident that, Bingo !, suddenly they now got it 100% right

            Reason history experience and common sense caution otherwise

            Remember that vaccines, in general, are always designed to counter diseases from which people are dying, this is no exception, it’s useless to say people are dying we must save them as if this is a brand new panick

            In the past, despite the fact that people were dying, vaccine developers took the time to make sure that the vaccines they were developing did not make matters worse and kill people : there is a great difference between a virus which comes out of as it were nowhere (it didn’t really, but) and kills, and between human poor invention and administration of an insufficient and deadly ‘cure’

            What’s with the ‘innocent’ people as if it were better or likeable that the virus killed only the ‘ guilty people’

            It is gradually becoming very obvious, even to Pfizer, even to FDA, even to Op Warp S, that this vaccine is the first of many attempts to contain this virus which will continue over very many years, and that there is no « solution », there’s just bad and very much worse bad

      • “‘Vaccination’ is not as simple as that – for instance it appears most likely that the Pfizer jab will not reduce infection, just help with the symptoms”

        IMU you’ve misunderstood something here.

        The Biontech ( with Pfizer the production partner) Vaccine is effective in the mid 90ties in preenting infection.

        Another German company is working on an ACT2 “muzzle”. But a certifiable product is not in direct range.
        That is supposed to help during an infection.

        • @ Uwe
          I’m afraid that you’re the one who’s minterpreting. The BioNTech vaccine is effective at preventing symptomatic CoViD, i.e. the pathological manifestation of an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Unfortunately, zero attempt was made during the clinical trials to determine to what extent the vaccine was capable of preventing asymptomatic infection.

        • @Uwe

          You are right, I left out the word asymptomatic – the figures you refer to are for symptomatic cases only

          The effectiveness regarding asymptomatic this is unknown – no data was collected

          « « Do the vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2?
          In addition to the Pfizer vaccine, regulators are poring over data from a similar vaccine made by Moderna of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a third produced by AstraZeneca of Cambridge, UK, and the University of Oxford, UK. All three have been tested in large clinical trials, and have shown promise in preventing disease symptoms.
          But none has demonstrated that it prevents infection altogether, or reduces the spread of the virus in a population. This leaves open the chance that those who are vaccinated could remain susceptible to asymptomatic infection — and could transmit that infection to others who remain vulnerable. “In the worst-case scenario, you have people walking around feeling fine, but shedding virus everywhere,” says virologist Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds, UK.
          Pfizer has said that its scientists are looking at ways to assess virus transmission in future studies » »

          • The sample vaccines work on training an immune repsonse against Covid19 virus.
            They are not designed to alleviate the symptomatic progression of an infecction.
            i.e. independent of how an infection would run its course on a person.
            Expectations are that it prohibits an infection symptomatic or asymptomatic.
            Finding expressive data on symptomatic infections is much easier than on asymptomatics.
            i.e. what you see today is not lack of function but lack of data.
            ( I don’ t quite get where people derive these funny notions. vaccines are not magic.)

        • I don’t know why people have such difficulty with this topic.
          The difference between CoViD-19 and SARS-CoV-2 is analogous to the difference between AIDS and HIV. For example:
          – Just as AIDS is the pathological/symptomatic expression of an infection with HIV, so too is CoViD-19 the pathological/symptomatic expression of an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
          – And just as it’s possible to be seropositive for HIV without having any manifestation of AIDS, so too is it possible to be seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 without having any manifestation of CoViD-19.
          – Importantly, just as somebody with asymptomatic HIV can infect others, so too can a person with asymptomatic CoViD-19 infect others; in fact, about 50% of the transmission in the USA is currently being caused by asymptomatic cases.
          – As set forth above in the study relating to Rhesus monkeys, the viral load in nasal swabs from asymptomatic vaccinated monkeys was just as high as the viral load from nasal swabs of infected non-vaccinated monkeys…meaning that, in that case, vaccination had zero effect on transmissibility, though it did stop the vaccinated monkeys from developing pneumonia.
          – This distinction is of crucial importance in the discussion of whether or not vaccination is going to restore mass travel.

          • No one disputes that asymptomatic infections can infect others. What’s disputed is that the vaccine provides no protection against asymptomatic infections.

            As I mentioned above, that claim intentionally misinterprets the trial results in order to support the basic argument that the vaccine doesn’t do what is claimed, or is ineffective.

            This is also a standard claim of the anti-vaxxers, so whether purposely or not, it argues on their side. Therefore it’s incumbent upon others to refute it in favor of the truth, which is that the vaccine very likely protects equally against both kinds of infection.

            That remains true even if not specifically tested for in the trials. As I mentioned above, it was not tested because there is no reason to believe it would not be true.

          • Regardless its the best shot (pun intended) and the best we can do.

            I will take whatever relief I can for the people of the world.

            Its like say my arm is sore, its bad, I won’t take it again etc.

            Miner prices to pay vs clogged hospital and 300,000+ deaths in the US alone. Daily we are loosing more people than 9/11.

            Final answers years away.

            We don’t need final answer we need relief and we can improve it from there.

  8. Scott, you seem to be treating 737Max deliveries and production the same. There will continue to be a disconnect between the two at least through 2022. I see no way for Boeing build 208 new Max’s in 2021 or an average of 31/month in 2022. For we suppliers, the production figure is what matters and Boeing has been tremendously elusive in providing accurate figures, especially for the short term (or even right now). The official numbers are just plain wrong. Hopefully by 2023 the figures will be nearly equal once the huge stockpile of completed plane inventory is worked off.

    • @Samuel: The data isn’t mine, it’s Bernstein. Note that we in the text separated deliveries from production. I’m skeptical of the data, but as I said, it’s not ours.

    • “hopefully by 2023 the figures will be nearly equal”
      “BOEING has been tremendously elusive in providing accurate figures to suppliers”
      these have been very ugly , nasty times for suppliers, already weakened by PFP programs.
      It is quite obvious that there will be blood here and there, and not easy to find approved second sources.
      the purchase dept is on a tough diet, as all other BOEING departments!
      to keep the supply chain reliably feeding the assembly line in this context will certainly be a challenge!
      only a strong purchasing organization can take care of suppliers health, and organize support when needed.
      i would be surprized if BOEING can do it with the required 100,00% efficiency!
      lots of suppliers are awfully weak and have been bleeding cash every day for nearly two years….!

  9. I struggle to see the 777X having 50 deliveries a year by 2025. It is just too much plane for the current circumstances – hence a niche product.

  10. Looking at the continued Airbus investments in A220, it seems the forecast is on the low side.

    Signals are further A220 sales are hampered by availability of early delivery slots. I expect Airbus goal is to push deliveries of the A220 towards 15-20 per month end of this decade.

    Eating into A319 and A320 sales is non-sense IMO. The A319 hardly has any sales to eat into & the A320 is sold out for a (too) long time. Converting some A320 slots into A220s might create some early NEO slots to strengthen sales cases.

    Looking at projected 737MAX sales, the backlog would be gone in a few years and substantial new orders will be required to keep the line going until 2030. What would those big new MAX orders be?

    • Equally, converting A320 to the A321 types frees up the lines and a much better return for something Boeing has no answer to.

      Production has been moving to more and more A321 types for a long time.

      South West has a big need for 700 replacement and they would be far better off with an A220 and not sole source Boeing (and get better deals like the much loathed but very successful Ryanair – you may not like OLeary but he is successful and he gets good deals)

    • The only thing keesje – is that Airbus has to share the pie with the Quebec gov’t, if they convert A320 orders to the A220. This will also make the gov’t % worth more.

      Once they gain the program outright, it will be a different story.

      • I don’t think Airbus is “afraid” of sharing the pie with the Quebec. They (the taxpayers) stepped up during a difficult time for BBD & will get compensated. Who can be against that?

      • A company will always share profits with it’s shareholders. The government of Quebec is not better or worse than other Airbus shareholders, like the governments of Germany or France.

        Buying out Bombardier is quite different, as Airbus took over their work packages. Bombardier had a competing business, while the government of Quebec is just an investment fond like all other investment fonds. Government owners a good and stable owners.

        • Airbus shares the pie with the UK, France, Germany and Spain on the A320 already.

          While they don’t have to its good PR to keep paying out so they do.

          Being a cynic of course it helps them get the next free launch.

    • Airbus must invest alot in the A220 to make it a profitable Product and reduce its “Mean time between failure” to A320 numbers. It is a pretty normal development and takes lots of experience, time and money that Canadair could not manage for several different Product lines. Airbus has the organisation and Money flow to do it.

  11. I hope Leeham can revisit Bernsteins estimates in a couple of years.

    When it comes to A380 and 747 estimates, I can’t get the numbers to add up. These numbers are already known, as the end of line frames are all in production. The 747 seems high, while the A380 numbers to low. I find it highly unlikely that Emirates won’t take their final A380 frames, as production of these is nearly completed.

    I also find it strange that they estimate that 737 delivery rate will surpass the combined delivery rate of the A320 and A220 families, even taking into consideration the produced, but not delivered, 737 frames. It is not production that is difficult in these times, but getting arlines to except delivery. Many 737 customers have the option to cancel or defer delivery due to contractual breaches related to the grounding. I think we will see many more airlines exercising that option.

    All widebody estimates seems optimistic. In 2025 Bernstein Research estimates the following monthly rate:

    787: 8
    A350: 7
    A330: 2
    777: 5
    767: 3

    Current 767 engines don’t fulfills noise requirements from 2025, so only 767 tankers can be delivered, not new freiters.

    777X production seems very high. There will be cancelled and deferred orders for the 777X, even in the post-covid world.

    • The airlines that had the contractual option to cancel for non-delivery due to grounding, have already either canceled or negotiated for compensation. Since the grounding order is now lifted, future non-delivery will be the choice of the airline, as with other aircraft models. New cancelations may still occur as a result of the continuing downturn.

      • I also agree with that statement.

        Add in negotiated for delay of delivery but holding those slots.

        Boeing will have language to protect itself from a sudden we want it now.

        Boeing might even benefit from holding the white tails and getting a better return (gamble) if there is a surge suddenly (I think there will be, I am NOT predicting how soon)

        People insanely want to travel (not need to – just look at Thanksgiving).

        They are even doing cruise ships again (not successfully but they sure are forcing it by trying).

        Unlike 2008, this has all the hallmarks of a rapid change once it sets in. I have one trip I want badly to make as does my wife (family/friends stuff put off far too long)

        I will be looking at it hard by next fall.

        Vaccines will be out in major levels in 3 months. Get enough people vaccinated and the so called Immunity Passports are irrelevant.

  12. Russia’s new Irkut MC-21 narrowbody made a test flight today with *Russian* engines:

    No doubt the Chinese will be very interested in this, in view of the continuing trade tensions between the US and China…I’m sure they’d love to engine their Comac C919 with something other than western turbofans. Iran will probably also be very interested as a potential customer.

    I don’t care how “inferior” (if at all) the engines are to state-of-the-art designs in the west: this is an important first step toward broadening the card game.

    • Its not as simple as you make it out to be.

      Engines are multi faceted. Economy is one aspect, but reliability as well as longevity are another.

      China only wants to steal designs . Russia will make calculations based on that. And each pair of engines sold separately means an MC-21 not sold.

      Iran is not and never will be a big market.

      Selling into the EU and US and Asian markets are big deals.

      But that goes beyond engines .

      No Airline is going to bet its life on Russian supply nor Chinese.

      They have an abysmal track record and sans a change in approach, that is not going away.

      • “They have an abysmal track record”

        A bit like the RR Trents?
        Or like the MAX?

        • Ouch.

          Ok, its a context issue. Apples and Hand Grenades comes to mind.

          Boeing and Airbus (as did other US mfs) successfully built and supported aircraft all over the world. Airbus need reliable spport. They get it form Boeing and Airbus (and yes there are ups and downs there). I know that the A300/310 support was lacking for one operator.

          Ask any military how well the Russians support their stuff. Really really badly. China can’t even get certified aircraft despite the open hand of the US and EU looked at it (where that is at I don’t know, its sure not progression)

          Airline in Mexico is dumping the Superjet due to issue and they were literally given them and extras for spare parts.

          Crashes are a separate issue. Not to be ignored but out of context for a viable world wide operation.

          Want to add up all the Russian crashes of their aircraft over the years vs Boeing even?

          And do you think China will investigate a crash of a C919 openly? Just like how they treated Hong Kong.

          • @TW

            you say apples and pears – what is this…

            “And do you think China will investigate a crash of a C919 openly? Just like how they treated Hong Kong”

            That’s like saying let’s invade Afghanistan ‘openly’, so no one can pretend we are hiding anything (or invade Irak, Iran, or Libya, or…well anywhere they grow apples why not, same difference)

          • @TW
            There’s absolutely no need for Russia + China to export their aviation products to the west: between the two of them, they already cover 20% of the world’s population and, in China’s case, that’s an increasingly affluent public that wants to fly. So they’ll have perfectly satisfactory turnover supplying their own airlines, together with some potential sales to their “sphere of influence” countries (like Cambodia and most of Africa), and the disenfranchised (like Iran).
            On a similar note: China doesn’t attempt to offload its (very reliable) high-speed trains to the west: it is content to use them domestically, with some export efforts to “sphere of influence” countries.

            However, any Russian engine fitted to a C919 or MC-21 represents one less western sale into Russian/China, which can put a nasty dent in Boeing’s/Airbus’ worldwide narrowbody sales.

            As regards the question: “will China investigate a C919 crash openly?”, I’d point out that the MAX was ungrounded even before the Ethopian Airlines final crash report was issued…and that the US was the last country to ground the MAX, and then only after political intervention. Also, to date, the FAA has refused to provide details of its re-certification tests. You know the saying about those who live in glass houses…

            It’s fashionable in the US to think that Russia and China are technologically inept…and yet, both countries recently caught the US off guard with their hypersonic ballistic missile programs. And when the space shuttle was decommissioned, Russian rockets were the only lifeline to the ISS. They’re not idiots.

          • @Bryce

            You are right about China – they do not try and sell their trains to the west because the west would not know what to do with them

            Witness the Brit high speed train HS2 in planning since 2009, as far as I know no track has been laid, completion a generation away, 2035, doubles in cost every few years

            China offered to help it seems but, as with Huawei, politics got in the way of ‘follow the science’

            Or the Californian, doubling in projected cost every few years, started in 2008 and so far only a few miles build, scheduled for completion in 2033

            This train is already a slow speed train, potters along mostly at 100mph, with max at 200, and by 2033 the Chinese may well have completed intercity very high speed up to 600k per hour maglev

            The American Society of Civil Engineers in 2017 awarded US infrastructure an overall D+ grade and advised that 4.6Trillion were necessary to get to even a semblance of acceptable


            An update of sorts from this year reported that little had been done in the meantime


            This looks too suspiciously like the inept failures of Boeing and the airlines to be a co incidence

          • @ Gerrard and TW
            Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
            “Having secured relative success in the domestic market for its ARJ21 regional jet programme, Chinese airframer Comac will inevitably turn its attention to its C919 narrowbody, as it hopes to complete certification and delivery in the new year.”

            It’s generally not a good idea to just dismiss the competition…especially when it concerns the Chinese.


          • First of all, getting help from China is like help with your fire insurance from the Mafia.

            You miss the fact that China wants to dominate the world. Can’t do that unless it sells stuff (or takes it over)

            China is a significant market, its not the world market though and self feeding frenzy then gets you what? No prestige or dominance, no sales. Death spiral of and for a non competitive product.

            Of course China has not tried to dominate 5G. That is just a rumored. As its Tibet, as is the South China Sea as are Killer Loans and takeovers as is the Uyghurs Gulags.

            Lack of high speed train sales is the same as Aircraft, no one trusts them for good reason and are not going to leave themselves exposed on a glaring public project.

            As for Russia, 130 million people and declining fast. Land Rich and people poor as well as a death spiral economy .

          • That is self certification and its 20 years behind.

            It won’t sell.

            You miss the reality that aircraft are not chips or apps you can redo over and over and over again until you get it right at low cost.

            I do not underestimate the Chinese. Nor are they 20 feet tall.

            Where they can dictate they do. Not so successful where they have to compete.

            You forget where they got the tech from, it was not inside China, its stolen from other countries or joint ventures.

            Soviets tried that route and failed badly. China too will fail.

            Not tomorrow, not next year, 40 years from now?

            Or they can go the Hermit Kingdom route which would be fine. There is nothing special in China.

            don’t make the mistake of the US having forked over its industry to them vs China being successful.

            When they are on their own and have to compete they will fail.

          • We love to downplay Chinese high speed train because it so clearly demonstrate the West’s failure to keep up on infrastructure. The amount of tracks, trains, passenger trips and speed with it was all realized, are mind boggling.

            Now they are flooding Africa with powerplants, railways, ICT, school and highways and soft loans. We are watching & downplaying.

            China doesn’t want to dominate the world, they need markets, resources to maintain & grow their nations 1.4B people income / welfare.

            Many books written about China, it seems their collectivism (most feel their community / country is more important than individual needs) is scoring points against our individualism.

          • @Keesje
            100% correct. Although “mocking” China seems to be a purely US habit: in contrast, here in Europe, we take China very seriously.
            Case in point: the Chinese lunar capsule successfully returned to earth last night, making China the third country in the world to collect lunar rocks.

            As I said above, the Chinese + Russian domestic market comprises 20% of the world population. So any product that they develop can be limited purely to internal market use and still be an astounding commercial success. Concurrently, it will be a cold shower for western aircraft OEMs, who are increasingly dependent on the Chinese market for new sales. Even if the C919 never ventures outside China, if it can fly with Russian engines then it will (ultimately) terminate most (or all) western narrowbody sales into China.

          • You miss a very important point.

            Mocking China is not the goal and in serious circles they are not underestimated.

            Equally, they are not 900 feet tall.

            But yes, they are out for pure domination. Getting there with taking over other countries and putting them severely in debt is major part of the approach .

            What got them the money to do all this is desire at all cost for the Developed Countries to shuck their jobs and industry and intellectual property into the China Maw.

            They did not do it on their own and they use captive market and regardless of cost such as the Trains.

            That does not mean they are not capable and in focused areas. Russians were as well.

            But if anyone thinks that China intends to stop at the South China sea they are deluding themselves.

            Ironically, its reverse Imperialism they suffered under but as we have see so often, its a great thing to whine about but given the opportunity, the shoe fits comfortably on the other foot to do it to someone else.

            China in the past has been a powerful nation and going back to the days of the Mongolian Hoards after they took over China and went to the gates of Europe in conquest.

            The Dragon is unleashed and fending it off is the only way Asia short term survives as is long term for the rest of the world.

            When you start building Gulags the rest of the world is in trouble.

            The US found this out in WWII when it built concentration camps for its own citizens of Japanese ancestry.

            We continue to deal with our issues of racism. China has NO limits on what they think they can do. That is bad for the world as well its its citizens. Ask Hong Kong and more so the Uhgyurs

          • TW I think to keep up in the future, we need to step over the old school cold war doctrines and be bluntly honest, without free cards for or own thinking and behaviour.

    • It is very hard from the outside to judge the PD-14’s performance. The name points to 14tons of thrust and looking at some Russian/Soviet engines its cold section is pretty well designed including gearboxes but the hot sction used to be its Achilles heel together with military fighter philosophy of short life in combat. The 3-red line and type testing should show its qualities and you then need more money and time to improved the design getting to 15 000-20 000 cycles on wing with the aircraft being able to do 12-15 cycles per day 6 days a week with just planned maintenance on Sundays.. In addition you need good manuals and effective repair schemes that does not copy drawing tolerances but includes service wear limits and if exceeded referencing a standard practices manual that in detail specifies the repair processes of different parts of the aircraft and to keep it updated with never /better qualified products and processes that cost you money to qualify. If you have similar materials and requirements from your military customers it will help, but if they differ you are on your own with AOG customers “everywhere” screaming.

    • Iran’s first mass produced fighter jet who is totally not based on an old American design has as main new feature an Iranian board computer. They also build their own jet engines and IIRC assemble Ukrainian airplanes so expecting Iran to build their own jets is not unheard of. I don’t think Russia and China can depend on the Iranian market

      • That is what 3 aircraft that are cut and paste cardboard?

        If you want a good laugh look at Iran weapons claims (well any claims)

        Nothing wrong with Iranians, but the government (ugh) the same one that shoots down civilian airliners.

        • > but the government (ugh) the same one that shoots down civilian airliners.

          No need to bring up Iran Air Flight 655. That was during a tense time, long ago and is off topic.

        • True, those weapons are designed and made in Yemen.

          Iran has the advantage that they can make an absolute dog of a plane and it will sell because they can’t buy a secondhand A310 with the danger that one of the components is good enough to compete with Western components

  13. While this often is a not very good site tech wise, this is a good write up on the Dry Ice situation

    I do have some familiarity with the Coolers themselves. One division tried to make us monitor a group of 6 (think they missed the transfer, it only happened once).

    Our division refused. We made sure they had power, where to plug in and how to get us fast if CB tripped, but no, we support, you provide the over watch.

    We had been through it one other time, saved their rear ends twice and they refused to replace an electronic thermometer we were using that got left on the load.

    They also did not acknowledge the major effort we put into saving their shipment when it was not our job nor did we have the refrigeration area or van to do it (it took some slick work on my part using outside air flow and heaters balancing out to a 5 degree window) – they took all the credit. Nice bunch.

    • @TW

      Tech wise – the ultra cooler required for Pfizer is out of this world expensive logistical night mare, especially at local and rural state level

      Please comment

      • I am not talking the Ultra Cooler. Its saving of Dry Ice evaporation.

        And we just need the coolers to work for a short time, other vaccines are on the way that will negate the nbeed for the ultra cold temps as well.

        Ultra Cooler you throw away if it fails and your buying system has more in line.

        There is huge bucks here and throwing something away is a tiny cost vs gain.

  14. More detail on the 787 pile up.

    For Rob:

    “The flaws in the skin smoothness “cannot be identified by visual inspection,” Kowal said. The flatness of the fuselage skin where the join occurs has to be within 0.005 inches of the engineering specification, “no more than the thickness of a human hair,” she added. ”

    Management is responsible for quality control. This is a management debacle on a biblical scale, sadly, nothing new for Boeing nor the 787 program (seems to be a trend here)

    There are many paths to quality control. Walking away with no process of quality control of course is not one of them.

    • Quality control is a shared responsibility between workers and management. When both uphold their ends, there is success. If either drops the ball, there is failure. Ideally, each also serves as a check on the other. We don’t know the allocation of responsibility for these failures, but they surely are not attributable solely to one side or the other.

      I have no special knowledge or insight into this case, but after a long career as first worker and then manager, my guess is it’s likely that the small variations involved were something that was subject to loss & drift & slippage over time, and with turnover.

      The failure to be aware of this and enforce the necessary rigor for inspection and discovery, lies mostly with management. These are process escapes that should have been caught both by assembly workers and inspectors, as well as management audits of manufacturing and assembly records. The latter apparently did happen, but not until it became a specific concern.

      Here is a detailed description of the 787 assembly. It shows that the line workers are aware of tolerances and potential impacts. Also how different the composite construction methods are from traditional aircraft assembly, and how that has resulted in a new generation & breed of workers.

      Here is a Boeing presentation on the 787 program dimensional management controls. It’s an extremely complex system that requires a high level of integration between engineering, management, and workers.

      • @Rob

        Please inform yourself as to corporation law and practice in your country; ignorance is no excuse in law

        Corporate responsibility is quite simple – the Directors are responsible for all actions and consequences of the company, except in minutely detail exceptions, and this includes responsibility for any actions of their employee, or let’s better say workers, apart for the obvious exceptions criminal intent etc

        Not no one else, nor the workers

        Blamegame the workers is what corporate tries to PR, before off shoring to China – are Boeing offshoring to China CC?

        If current BA management can not understand the ‘very complex’ engineering of their products nor succeed in building their products correctly, they have only their stupidity and their laziness to blame, or they can go build tractors or pitchforks instead

      • @Rob

        Boeing could always dilute, attempt to dilute, responsibility by claiming protection under the proposed and soon to be passed doubtlessly corporation covid no responsibility no liability law – as they, you will love this

        “”: “[The bill would] empower the United States Attorney General to deem coronavirus-related lawsuits from workers, customers and attorneys ‘meritless’ and then file civil actions against them as retribution. In order to ‘vindicate the public interest,’ courts would be allowed to fine respondents up to $50,000.”””

        Please report on this gamechanger legal product and how Boeing (as other corporations) may best extract max benefit, and that is not a play on words

        • Gerrard, my understanding of the proposed law is that it provides a temporary window of civil compensatory relief from the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the pandemic, and only the pandemic.

          It’s not meant to be permanent or to be used outside circumstances involving the pandemic. It will be up to the court to decide whether it applies to a given situation.

          Already there have been lawsuits from workers and patrons regarding contraction of COVID from business locations. The sheer potential volume of those cases would overwhelm the legal system, and the exposure for businesses that serve the public, or have large numbers of employees, would necessitate closure.

          In the situations for which the law is intended, the business could not reasonably insure protection from other workers or patrons. Or even be able to establish the source of infection with any certainty.

          The per-instance penalty is retained to ensure businesses still comply with health guidelines and practices. Those are also still enforced by other agencies.

          A worker or patron could still file complaints with OSHA or public health. They also could still file for Workman’s Compensation and their HR benefit claims. But they would have no tort opportunity for COVID-related incidents under this law.

          • @Rob

            This law, as far as I know, has no time limit written into it – to do so would be hazardous given that how long this pandemic will last is anyone’s guess and the long term manifestations and sequels of infection doubtless appear later or last much longer : to define it ‘over’ when people are still suffering from it would appear a moral and logical not to say legal hazard

            The relevant quote

            « for at least one year, or until the pandemic is over «

            This is expansive, not limiting

            Some even say Covid is never going away : even if he does, Covid Two will take his place, because you are not solving (you can not you care not to) your ind ag problems because, guess what, covid – and ind ag – is very profitable for WS (check out your stock market)

            As you remark : just as covid has overwhelmed every aspect of life in your country, from hospitals to Disneyland….it has or will threaten to overwhelm your legal system

            Such abject failure is not an excuse for or an opportunity to declare lawlessness the only solution, as if you were invading Irak, or any other of those countries you enjoy invading, as if when all else fails shoot to kill

            It is true that businesses, in general, in your country are unable to function correctly, now more than ever, but that no reason to allow them absolution from their failures, at the expense of their workers, just as they have been bailed out with another porkbarrel of money ( $17B more for those failing airlines in the pipeline) and the workers….zilch (this time round)

            Like Tractor Man, he landed his company in a ditch and walked off unscathed with.. what was it…$63M ? Who needs legislation ?

          • @Rob
            Apart from wonderful new no liability laws-

            Please address the problem of Boeing corporate responsibility for 787 disasters

            What would happen if this went to court, or if they put us through another Max re cert merry go round

            Or are they off shoring to China?

          • Just like R&D is a shared responsibility and its the workers fault when management cuts it! Bwwwwhhhhhhaaaaaa

            Yep, its the worker on the line who can’t even see the tolerances that flies to Chicago and smacks Calhoun alongside the head and tells him he needs to do it right!

            Like a Dictatorships, a Corporation is top down.

            You can’t tell the difference between Employee owned and a Corporation.

            This is much like the logic of Trump. I think cheating went on and they have to prove it didn’t. Huh?

      • “Quality control is a shared responsibility between workers and management. When both uphold their ends, there is success. If either drops the ball, there is failure.”

        Amusing. ( and the expected path of argument … )

        Management / workforce in a way life in a fealty exchange of obligations.
        Boeing management has dropped their part of “fealty” long ago. ( Do they actually understand this bidirectional concept of loyalty or do they see it as badly designed (to their wishes) form of slavery.

        • I think the statement is delusional vs amusing but the end result is the same.

          Its a shame that good tech details can be wiped out by bizarre as well as outlandish statements.

          Yep, they stole the election. Prove they did not?

          Its the workers fault the sun rises in the East.

    • The flatness of the fuselage skin where the join occurs has to be within 0.005 inches of the engineering specification, “no more than the thickness of a human hair,” she added. ”

      That sounds perception management again. It only a very very small problem. Probably there are much bigger problems, which she doesn’t deny btw..

      • It’s amazing how many bending and warping problems you can get with carbon fibre composites, as well as slight shrinkage. Equally amazing is the trouble you can get into joining large diameter tubes, because any problems are magnified by the enormous circumference.
        I am wondering if this problem is largely because of barrel sections.If the section is divided, so are the problems. With super stiff carbon, if you end up with even a tiny bit of spare circumference, there is no where for it to go.
        OK, this is harder to explain than I thought it would be, but I hope you get the picture.

        • Grubbie, your basic point is correct. The tolerances for composites are close enough that even temperature stabilization is critically important in assembly. One of the differences from building with aluminum.

          Very small gaps (as from smoothness tolerances) allow minute flexures in the join that use up the fatigue cycle margin over time. Larger gaps (as with the oversize shims) introduce stress concentrations that lower the overall strength of the join. These problems are amplified by the stiffness and properties of composites, which rely on the distribution of stress throughout the many plys & layers of different materials.

          • Rob,

            I’ve heard of a number of 787s with a bunch of speed tape on the wings, apparently covering up fairly large areas of exposed carbon where the paint has come off. Are you are of this, if so is this a uniquely 787 issue, is it only on the wings, does this happen to the same extent on the A350 or A220 I wonder ?

            I would have thought that carbon composites had been around long enough that we’d understand how to paint them ?

            Apparently a tech at an MRO confirmed the speed tape was to protect the carbon composite as the paint had come off completely.

            If it’s just on the wings is it due to them flexing ?

            I’m intrigued to know / understand what’s going on.

            I did find a photo by way of an example:

            As this photo is captioned American, it may be the 787 that went through a hail storm, I understand they used speed tape on the underside of the wing on that one.

          • JakDak, so far as I know, the speed tape is used as a temporary repair for minor damage until permanent repairs can be made. The aircraft you referenced was reputed to have hail damage.

            I’m not aware of speed tape being used to cover up paint loss. I suspect that was someone’s guess.

        • They had the same issues ( circumference misfits ) on the 777 from day one. Fix: a big hydraulic press.

          At the core is lack of manufacturing precission and a tendency to “quick fix stuff on the work floor”. hobbyist approach.

          • Uwe, the complexity of the 787 processes and tooling belies your claim of a hobbyist approach. In fact it’s the exact opposite of this, as is clear from even a cursory review of the methods and the technology. The links I’ve given would be a good start.

          • Because of safety reasons I wouldn’t click links on this website.

          • Rob, history shows that this issue is not dependent on Boeing Best of Breed Super Tech Solutions.
            ( and my tentative guess is you’ll never see a non-derivative one piece barrel design from Boeing ever again. what ever overreaching production competence you show in “mastering” this solution a different solution would put that energy spent to better use. 🙂

      • It doesn’t matter how small the error is: there is a specified range of acceptable deviation, and the current manufacturing process is producing results outside that range – period. Other OEMs don’t appear to be having this problem, so we can conclude that the fault lies with Boeing and/or its supply chain, not with the size of the tolerances.

        • The one-piece barrel construction and assembly process is unique to Boeing and the 787. Airbus and the A350 use this method only for the tail section, the rest of the fuselage uses composite panels that have a more traditional assembly.

          Boeing pioneered the one-piece processes and proved they were possible. Now they have experienced some slippage in the high quality control required, but it’s a solvable and manageable problem.

          Spirit provides fuselage components for both aircraft, but uses entirely different processes and tooling for each. So it’s feasible that a tolerance problem could arise for one but not the other.

        • My point is not whether the parts conform or not, but how much harder it is.If you have you have 4 pieces, then you have 4 opportunities to deal with deviation. If something circular is made in one piece, there can be no deviation. I am presuming that is the reason for the shims. I can imagine that the chain of tolerances is much tighter and life just gets much more complicated.I’ve been there!

          • Bryce:

            Boeing is responsible for any of it, INCLUDING the supply chain.

            As the OEM, their job is to ensure that a supplier has a process to guarantees the parts meet the quality. There are statistician measures to do that.

            Equally they are responsible for having a process that ensures the fits are within specification.

            There are many ways to achieve that, the best is to have your control quality so high that it can’t escape the tolerances or even come close (your emissions on your car is like that, if you ever got a reading you will have seen they beat the spec by leaps and bounds )

            If its a guy with a feeler gauge, you then have other people with feeler gauges checking the guy with the feeler gauge. You log it all, you then have random samples checked by another group to ensure the process is on track and withing spec.

            I had one mfg that just matched up parts. All were off, but pairs were close enough for the spec, they matched up pistons and sleeves (and I assume any that were outside that were pitched).

            Its not a good way as its time consuming and its man power costly, but it can work.

            Rob can’t wrap his mind around that fact that workers do what they are told. Shades of Alice gong down the Rabbit hole.

          • Grubbie, your point is well taken.

            TW, please note the people you reference above are all workers of one kind or another. So Boeing is engaging with it’s workforces to address the quality control issues.

            That is a function of both management and workers. The links I gave above show the level of integration that exists between them. You can’t produce a quality product without cooperation from both. That’s obvious enough to have been codified in most industries.

            Your comments remind me of the American autoworker view from the 70’s and 80’s, when they lost massive market share to the Japanese over quality issues. They did not recover until both management and workers began to take quality as seriously as the Japanese.

            Since then, it’s been more or less established doctrine that management works together with workers on quality issues. I have not heard your viewpoint expressed since then, but I guess there are still remnants of it out there.

          • Yep, Boeing is engaging, engaging, engaging, engaging, engaging.

            Rob is blaming the work force, blaming the work force, blaming the work force.

            Yep, them thar workers control it all, every single one of them agreed Calhoun should get stocks and a bonus for doing his job (MAX certified)

            So really, its all on the workers for not managing Boeing right. Who Knew?

            Anyone want to buy a Bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale?

          • TW, as always, there is no objection to assigning blame to management, nor is there an attempt to blame workers solely. That is your narrative, not mine. I’ve said that management and workers share responsibility for quality control.

            I’m not aware of any doctrine or theory that says otherwise, except for yours. If you can provide an example of such a theory that is commonly accepted, and not a conspiracy theory, please do.

          • Rob:

            Workers are not responsible for this.

            Boeing as a corporation is, its their name on the process and the control the process 100%.

            Saying workers share a responsibility is so far beyond the pale as to be in la lal land. Workers have no authority. nada, none.

            You clearly do not understand the different between authority and responsibility let alone accountability.

            Management controls the entire process and they setup the entire process. Workers have no say in it (certainly and clearly at Boeing, some companies do operate differently but Boeing is not one of them)

            You can nadder about until the cows come home, its no more true than Trump had the biggest crowd at his inauguration than Obama did (or he won the last election by a landslide). Repeating a lie does not make it the truth.

            So lay it out, exactly how does a worker who bolts section together without a tool set let alone a process know the quality is not there?

            You name me the process that does, don,t just spew cotton candy BS.

            Saying the workers are responsible is pure Male Cow feces.

            Part of the structure is that if a worker is NOT following a process, they be corrected or they get fired. Period. That is a management responsibility to have a process in place to ensure the quality is there.

            You do know that the purpose of a corporation is so that gets sued not the individuals?

            Boeing clearly has not even a quality check in place.

            The worker has NO control over what Boeing does.

            When you screw up over and over and over again as has Boeing management you are supposed to get fired.

            Until Boeing take accountability for its actions, we will continue to see these failures.

            If Boeing does not want to be responsible they should quit the aircraft building business.

            Its the Boeing Corporation signature on the certifiable and they are the legal responsible party, not John Smiths tightener of bolts on the line.

          • Workers have a voice in quality control, both in groups charged with that responsibility, and in their direct actions. This is true at Boeing as at any other company.

            I’m not aware of any business that has the medieval philosophy you insist is present at Boeing. There is no evidence of this at all. In fact the evidence is all to the contrary, workers have a strong role controlling assembly quality, in accordance with the numerus links I’ve posted.

            You have not provided ay evidence for your opinion, so I invite you once again to please do so.

          • Rob:

            What you are citing is the so called Management Blarney.

            Having been on the point end of the spear all my life, the reality is that even if they say it, they don’t mean it.

            I once nailed Honeywell to the wall on a major bust of treatment. The response is, yes you are right, but those are only guidelines and we have changed it now so you don’t have a leg to stand on.

            Or we can look at the Washington Footbal team. It reeks of toxicity and back stabbing by the current owner.

            A minority owner (percentage wise) is Fred Smith. Now Fred is widely lauded for his diverse work force (which I have seen). Even seen some people get sent to the gulag to get Reeducated.

            But Fred has not said anything about the widely and highly respect reporting on the Football team operate and in fact is trying to sell out.

            So, speaketh with Forked Tongue. SOP for corporations.

            Corporate Statements in fact are propaganda and not facts. Selectively applied.

      • I thought that there must be other problems long ago.
        The shim issue was easy, just don’t use bigger shims. But it didn’t fix the cause, now they have even bigger gaps to deal with.
        Checking all fuselage sections now … and checking them within a future major check, that seems to be an avalanche already rolling down. I thought they already checked them in the last 14 months.
        Who designed an 0.005 inch tolerance of an over 220 inch wide barrel and then fired most quality control engineers.
        Why didn’t Airbus choose this same design.
        Which sane airline would order 787 now?
        Which sane passenger would fly 787 now? Boeing said in March 2019 that the MAX was safe too.
        Only ISHKA might keep the 787 values up.
        Looking back at the Hawaiian deal when Boeing gave deep price cuts. Boeing will pay for it but still Hawaiian looks like a deer in headlight.
        Offering cheap 787 as MAX compensation will cost Boeing even more.
        MAX … 787 … 777X … at least it seems that Bernstein put money back into Boeing again so they make the Boeing PR drums loud again haha

        • Leon:

          I think we have a tech approach split here vs right or wrong for 7876 vs A350. Its possible that A350 is easier, that is in Bjorns area (I would have thought the Frame and Skin would be major inferior and he has said it is direly competitive – so much for what seems clear)

          Unlike Rob though, I worked the pointy end of the spear in making things work.

          For my own work, when I failed, it was due to lack of a quality check. That is acualy a tougher aspect as the work I did has not build in controls or check out processes. I had a manager replace a bearing on a fan one time and the whole things shifted and was rubbing badly.

          His take was maybe it was supposed to do that! Now he was and still is an idiot. He simply screwed up the installer (he did not understand how it worked or how to do it right)

          Its not that I did not make mistakes, I did, but I always had the attitude of looking for it not being right. If not, figuring out what was not right and how to correct it and ensure as best as possible no repeat.

          An industrial process is different. You have it right in front of you and you have numerous tools on how to either measure it or hold to such tight tolerances it can never fall outside it.

          Rob is delusional when he says its hard and that is the reason its gone off. Yea, so what? It has nothign to do with the issue, politicians call it a diversion. I am breathing (right now) so therefore that is why Boeing cannot build to tolerance is as relevant.

          What clearly has occurred is Boeing never got the mfg down to where it came out withing or below tolerance.

          That is where your quality control comes in. If you can’t ensure mfg to that tolerance, then you have quality checks (in this case you measure it).

          Rob blows a lot of baloney but has never presented a process of how its done or not done.

          Reality is that the process has failed.

          You don’t depend on a single worker so its not a worker issue.

          Clearly Boeing simply has not been checking and has no process in place to ensure the quality is maintained.

          Saying its a co responsible is delusional . If a worker fails (and it can happen) the process catches it and sans a worker training or correction, you fire the worker.

          No quality control process depends on a single point of failure, its contradictory of quality control.

          But in this cases, we are talking about thousands of people involved.

          Management has failed plainly and simply. Its their responsibly to set it in place and monitor it, not a workers.

          By Robs standard, we would still have McClain running the Union army and failing to beat the confederates, over and over and over again.

          • TW, the 787 assembly process is well documented online and I have posted links. Also well documented is the role of workers in maintaining quality. As I’ve said, it’s a responsibility they share with management, in all worlds but yours.

          • Some seem to not realize that at some point in time
            it would be better not sprout further commercial PR.

    • This is a bit off topic, but seeing 0,005 inch makes me think of the following question:

      Is a SAFRAN built engine for Airbus manafactured in metric systen and an engine for Boeing in inch system?

      It must be about time US and Liberia, as the last to countries in the world, change their medieval system to metric

      And TransWorld would you send me your email address as I would like to ask You something off the blog:

      • RSJ:

        On the way.

        The US is actuality on the metric system for mfg. We just do not acknowledge it! All car fasteners are Metric now. Diesel engine are metric.

        Actually some of the fiddly bits attached to the engines are US standard.

        Other stuff is US Standard, commercial fans, boilers, pumps.

        But Jet engines and any aircraft parts are going to be metric (I assume the Loo and galley as well, but I could be wrong)

        By the end of my career I had a complete set of Metric tools at work as well as my US standard.

        While I can’t prove it I strongly suspect all dimensions on a Boeing are metric and done to metric measurements.

        • @TW

          No dimensions on a Boeing drawing or CAD model are in metric units. Only US engineering.

          • Any cad drawing can be changed from metric to inch and back again.

            So a CAD model always offers both.

          • @ Jochum
            True. But there’ll be rounding errors. To how many decimal places will/should the converted figures be rendered?
            A nice, neat figure like 0.275 mm becomes 0.1082677165…inch.

          • A Jones:

            Can you site some attribution to that? That means Japan and Italy and any foreign supplier is also using US Standard (which in fact is British)

            You don’t swish between standards, its a recipe for disaster.

            I am totally skeptical that Boeing is not on the metric system as is much of US mfg.

        • Not completely. When pressured by the world to adopt metric, we did so for ammo primarily.

          • Had nothign to do with ammo. Ammo is simply a conversion (if its US orginal)

            A 30-06 is 7.62 x 63 but that is a description not a specification.

            7.5 Swiss and 6.5 Sweedish would be true metric though not sure they started out that way.

            US automotive went hat way as its a world wide industry and standards and you want a sole standard. As the US is a minority metric was used.

            The only US standard stuff now is because we don’t have to as fans are not exported.

            Pumps etc if from other places are metric even if made in the US.

  15. I guess this forecast is too pessimistic mainly for NB
    If you look to Boeing and Cirium last surveys for aircreft volume in next 10 and 20 years we get 18000 new aircrafts for next 10 years so an avearge of 1800 units a year!
    I believe we would recover 2019 level of 1750 units(including the 450 Max produced but not delivered) by 2023
    Don’t forget also that Regional jets from embraer and Comac aRj21 will be produced and also new NB Comac 919 and MC21 from 2023

  16. There has been mention in the discussion above of severe reactions to the COVID vaccine, as well as incidences of Bell’s palsy. So I wanted to give the true stats on all trial reactions, as published by the FDA:

    Note that the severe categorizations were in terms of only expected and accepted responses to vaccines. No unexpected reactions occurred. Of the expected responses, only fatigue was reported at levels near 5%. All others were well below.

    Injection site: redness, swelling, pain
    Systemic: fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, joint pain.

    Bell’s palsy was reported by 4 persons, but that level is below that which occurs naturally in the population. Additionally the effect occurred at varying lengths of time after vaccination, up to more than a month. Thus was found to be unrelated to the vaccine.

    There is and will be much disinformation circulated about the vaccine. However all the trial data for every vaccine is published on-line, so we can all check and evaluate the facts for ourselves.

    • Yep, we had a health care worker in Anchorage react.

      My wife got hit with a hornet last summer and had a reaction.

      I am still getting it ASAP.

      The fewer that take it the sooner I get it (and its a Red State so I should be up near the front of the line)

      My wife will get it as well as soon as we are eligible (well behind the mucky mucks, though as I recall we not only have an heir and a spare now but we have a backup (speaker of the house)

      As a worker I am used to being on the bottom of the heap.

      Well as a former worker. Now I just blow snow and such.

    • 2 health care workers became ill on the very first day of vaccine roll out in the UK .Full details are not available, but as a result it has been decided not to vaccinate people with a history of severe allergies for the time being.

      • They are working on isolating the components of the mRNA vaccine that produce the allergic reaction. That can be developed into a skin test before vaccination.

        This is done now for people with egg allergies, since most killed or weakened virus vaccines are developed with egg embryos. Other common allergenic components are gelatin and latex,

        If the skin test is positive, the person can still be vaccinated, but an allergist may alter the dosage to be better tolerated.

        • This brings the total to 4 cases of allergic reaction worldwide, out of well over a million vaccinations. That level is consistent with other vaccines. Inoculation sites have the equipment on hand to immediately treat allergic reactions, until the person can be checked out at a hospital.

          Here is the actual news report:

          “She was given epinephrine and Benadryl, admitted to the hospital, and put on an intravenous epinephrine drip. Her reaction was serious but not life threatening.”

          “During the whole time, she was still enthusiastic that she got the vaccine and the benefits that it would give her in the future,” Jones said. The hospital’s statement said she was “still encouraging her colleagues to get the vaccine.”

          “He felt completely back to normal within an hour and was released,” after treatment in the emergency department with epinephrine, Pepcid and Benadryl, according to the hospital, which noted: “He too does not want his experience to have a negative impact on his colleagues lining up for the vaccine.”

          The hospital’s Infection Preventionist, Charlee Gribbon, who is in charge of the staff vaccination program, said Bartlett had been “expecting these things and we had all the right systems in place.”

  17. Beginning next week, social media platforms will begin classifying posts about vaccines, in support of the public vaccine rollout and educational messaging campaigns.

    Posts determined to be objectively false will be deleted. This includes conspiracy theories or claims that vaccines are intrinsically harmful or dangerous.

    Posts determined to “advance unsubstantiated rumors, disputed claims, as well as incomplete or out-of-context information”, will be labeled as disputed or misleading.

    Posts that express concerns, ask questions, seek additional information on the vaccines, or encourage discussion, will be permitted. The goal is to prevent the online distribution of misinformation in the context of a public health crisis.

    • @Rob

      A double negative is the sign of a contorted argument that is turning in on itself

      Vaccines are tested and trialed to find out if they are effective as designed and safe, the trials are designed to establish fit for purpose – Basic Science #101

      « it was not tested because there is no reason to believe it would not be true »

      This is a contradiction in terms – the vaccine is developed and tested for a purpose, ‘belief’ that may or may not be held by the developer Pharma is irrelevant, yet measured evidence is

      Faith and hope have no place here – your beliefs are not tested in a lab, not indeed on other people in a serum – this discourse is one only used by the master race

      There is no reason to believe that the vaccine may not be yellow but we did not test for colour because… is equally as invalid idiotic as your statement, and equally as irrelevant

      As for private censorship on your SM platforms in your country this is the equivalent of your double negative and a sure sign of desperation – to ban debate is to admit no resolution and will provide you no protection against your public opinion and their disinclination to take this vaccine or anything else on offer from you

      Is also reg cap – censorship is the dubious privilege of national governments

      Such censorship reveals that the US is aping China, but as with US failed covid measures in the most inefficient and in effective ways

      Prior to covid was there no reason to not believe that the US would not prove to be the least successful country in the world to fail such a test, such a trial ?

      • @ Gerrard
        « it was not tested because there is no reason to believe it would not be true »

        On the subject of this truly ridiculous statement, it is interesting to note that manufacturers other than Pfizer *did* make efforts to test their vaccine’s ability to prevent asymptomatic infection. For example:
        – AZ/Oxford swabbed ALL phase 3 participants at weekly intervals…unlike Pfizer, which only tested symptomatic participants. This probably explains the much lower published AZ/Oxford efficacy figure (62%) versus the published Pfizer figure (95%).
        – Moderna has published an addendum to their Trial 3 data, in which they describe a limited before-and-after swab trial relating to the first jab of their vaccine. They found that 14 of the vaccine recipients developed asymptomatic CoViD, versus 38 of the placebo recipients. This gives a projected efficacy of 65%.
        – However, a problem with all these trials is that one has to wait until participants become naturally infected before they can be registered — i.e. participants can’t be deliberately infected like Rhesus monkeys. That means that it will take months before we achieve more realistic efficacy figures…whereas, in the case of Rhesus monkeys, the results take just weeks. And, as referred to above, the results from Rhesus monkeys were not promising.
        – Interestingly, it should be noted that these vaccines are being marketed as “CoViD-19” vaccines…not as “SARS-CoV-2” vaccines. This is fully consistent with targeting symptomatic disease rather than infection.

    • On the subject of censorship:
      What underpaid, under-educated cretin at Facebook/Twitter will be performing this audit of posted information?
      If a highly intelligent person such as Uwe went astray (see above) in grasping the meaning of the vaccine efficacy figures, then what hope is there that a 10-dollar-per-hour ex-Kmart datacenter worker is going to get it right?
      Will the ban be extended to any negative remarks made about Boeing? Or perhaps about the Democratic party?
      Talk about Chinese-style paranoia!

      On this aviation website, a discussion of the readily available facts regarding viral transmissability is highly relevant, since it has a huge effect on the extent to which a vaccine rollout can help international travel get re-started (or not). The fact that such data appears to be unpalatable to some commentators is completely irrelevant. Regardless of what one “hopes” or “expects”, the current *facts* are that there is zero human data regarding the ability of the Pfizer vaccine to prevent asymptomatic infection and transmission. Period.

      • Zero data for the Pfizer trial because it was not collected. The absence is picked up by the anti-vaxxers as proof of inefficacy for asymptomatic infections, and thus proof of continuing transmissivity.

        The Moderna trial tested for asymptomatic infections at the second dose, so obtained those results only for the first dose. But did show reduction in asymptomatic as well as symptomatic infections. More data is needed and forthcoming.

        The AstraZeneca trials also collected data on asymptomatic infections, and they were found to be reduced along with symptomatic infections. 60% asymptomatic efficacy was reported as opposed to 90% for symptomatic in the half-dose trials. The base asymptomatic case number was only 62, which did not meet the trial interim reporting protocol. So more data is still needed to confirm this result, as with Moderna.

        Note these results imply there is not a sterilizing vaccine immunity. It is possible and even likely that some transmission will still occur after vaccination. But notably, at a much lower rate. That is the key benefit.

        This result is also consistent with the Pfizer scientist Sahin prediction that we might see 50% reduction in transmissivity after vaccination. I think it will end up being better than that.

    • With regard to Bell’s Palsy:
      For those interested in the current, official narrative rather than the redacted, glossy representation presented above, Bell’s Palsy also cropped up during the Moderna clinical trials…again with more cases in the vaccine group than in the placebo group. This has promped the FDA to “recommend watching for Bell’s palsy in Moderna and Pfizer vaccine recipients”, saying that “there wasn’t enough data to tie the cases directly to the shots, but it warranted close scrutiny”.

      Another illustration that the current vaccination programs are effectively an extended Phase 3 trial.

      • No, this is disinformation. The FDA link I gave clearly states that the incidence of Bell’s palsy in the trials was below that of the general population. It’s also been fact-checked by other news publications and found to be unrelated to the vaccine.

        The FDA has recommended that incidences of Bell’s palsy be monitored and investigated the same as any other possible adverse effect. That is standard procedure. But does not imply that an elevated risk exists.

        This is a good example of the anti-vaxxer methods. The fact that a very few cases of Bell’s palsy are found in the vaccine arm, but not the placebo arm, is represented as proof of risk, when scientifically that is established to be untrue.

        Then, when the FDA follows standard procedure to monitor incidences of adverse reactions such as Bell’s palsy, that is taken as proof of the previous false conclusion.

        This is why action is needed on social media, otherwise these false claims will proliferate and discourage others from vaccination. They are an attempt to create and play on fear.

  18. @Scott

    In view of another wave of upcoming censorship, please might you clarify how this may or may not apply to those who comment on this site at Leeham

  19. Some news – good or bad?

    “”How it would take Britain a DECADE to vaccinate all of the 30million people on the priority list at current speed – as officials reveal 137,000 have had the jab
    In the first week NHS gave out vaccines at a rate of around 17,237 per day
    At the same rate it would take 3,481 days to vaccinate all 30m at-risk people
    But the speed is increasing with GP practices and pop-up centres now working
    And it will get even faster if Oxford/AstraZeneca jab approved, Chris Whitty said “”

    All is in the language ‘speed is increasing’ is perhaps better than ‘decreasing’ but increasing by how much is important

    Just as Pfizer PR does not know how to describe their belief and hope jabs, the Brits appear not to know how to distribute them widely and quickly

  20. @Rob

    Before I am censored – this from the UK on uptake

    Uptake figures will improve greatly once censorship is enforced and dissidents jailed – including one supposes rendition of international terrorists, excuse me, dissidents

    Look how well the war on terror worked out, and that was just Phase 2 Trial

    “”A recent survey by King’s College London researchers found that 54 per cent of people said they would get the coronavirus jab, while 20 per cent said they were unlikely to or definitely would not. The remainder were unsure.

    And Nadra Ahmed, chair of the National Care Association, said this week that as many as 40 per cent of social care workers might decide not to have it.

    She told BBC Radio 4: ‘We know that between 50 to 60 per cent, depending on individual services, the staff are actually saying they will definitely have the vaccine and are very keen.

    ‘We understand between about 17 to 20 per cent of staff in services are saying they definitely won’t have it, and then you have the rest who are waiting to see.

    ‘So we are looking at potentially 40 per cent who decide not to have it.'””

    • These numbers are consistent with current surveys in the US. About 60% want the vaccine, 15% don’t want it, and the remainder are waiting to see how things develop.

      If you assume that the remainder will refuse, that gets you to the 40% number, but that is very unlikely. The more likely outcome is that group may split along the same percentage lines. In that case you get 75% acceptance and 25% rejection.

      I believe the acceptance rate can be higher than that, with good educational messaging campaigns, and as positive experience with the vaccine builds. I am answering many questions on social media, and I notice many others are as well. A lot of people are well informed on this, having read the vaccine trial results for themselves. Much more so than with other technical issues.

      There is general awareness that the vaccine needs a high acceptance rate to be effective, so high motivation to help address concerns and fears. One of the messages for the undecided is that it’s ok to wait & see, and also ok to ask your doctor or healthcare professional. As long as the message stays positive, it should be possible to get the needed participation.

      Another strong message is that masks and other precautions are still needed after vaccination, and will be for at least another 6 months, probably longer. Yet another positive message will be high-profile people like Dr. Fauci being vaccinated.

      The purpose of the social media policies is to prevent the educational message from turning negative. If that happens due to bad outcomes with the vaccines, so be it. But it shouldn’t be introduced falsely or artificially.

      There seems to growing awareness of this as well, I’ve noticed people are moderating their criticisms of setbacks with the vaccines, so as not to send the wrong message or feed the anti-vaxxers.

      Tonight I had a discussion with an RN, she refused vaccination at her nursing home. Her view is that the immune system doesn’t need help, which is why so many people have asymptomatic infections. When I asked her about the hospitalization and death rate, she said it’s overblown, people are dying from many other causes and liberals are calling it COVID. That is a common theme among conservatives.

      So I pointed her to the CDC site on excess deaths, which does not distinguish deaths by cause, but shows a clear spike for each COVID wave. She agreed something is going on but is not prepared to say it’s COVID. So we left it at that, it’s important she have the right to dissent.

      Maybe over time and with more experience, she will come around. Others in the forum suggested she not be allowed to work in a nursing home. But she said she uses masks and precautions so at least she is still protecting herself and others. Just not with unnecessary vaccination, in her mind. She didn’t oppose the residents being vaccinated, and will vaccinate them with their permission. But didn’t want it for herself.

      • @ Rob

        Placing your faith and hope in the faith and hope of others- happy faith PRPfizer very hopeful Sahin, and so on – to give faith and hope to the doubting Thomas’s 40 maybe 50 in France 60% of the populations, is indeed a noble calling

        Never forget this site does not think highly of press releases and has as prime concern aviation, hence airtravel

        As has been pointed out to you, neither censorship (nor vaccination at polled levels) in one country will help re up international airtravel, the solution is only global, unless you intend to add to your list of profitable exports censorship to your very profitable export of war, and indeed of faithandhope

        Yet one must say -Why not forbid dissent, if faith hope will spring thereby ever stronger it is nobler by far to secure the misguided and weak on the path to Right – the sinner will repent

        Then there is the modern objective and impartial practice of science, since were talking about science and not faith or hope or Sahin

        So : analyse with patience and with all due care over the necessary length of time the vaccine or vaccines and debate the pros and cons

        Because you should not tumble into the well of deceit… any means of enforcement surveillance and censorship is a good means, and a pandemic is better than most

        Look how well the US has reacted behaved and contained the bug, and who could think you did not know what not to do, if you’ll spare me a shot of negatives, and how not to not do it

        We can hope or we could just ‘follow the science’ as once you used to say before you saw the light and abandoned that path to those of critical mind

        • @ Gerrard
          Of course this report and the associated petition would be censored, because any query that doesn’t suit the mainstream narrative is currently being branded as “anti-vaxxer”.
          It’s hilarious. The proponents of “follow the science” actually should change their mantra to “follow the most expeditious narrative”. As we’ve seen here:
          – When there’s a narrative-positive event in the vaccine group relative to the placebo group, then that’s to be trumpeted and defined as a great breakthrough;
          – But when there’s a narrative-negative event in the vaccine group relative to the placebo group, then that’s to be covered up and dismissed as fodder for anti-vaxxers.

          In particular, your referenced petition raises (as its first point) the issue of ADE — and this is an absolute “no-no” that the blind vaxxers have labelled as myth…so, on that point alone, censorship would be mandated.

          But don’t fret: with an ever-increasing number of (unsuspecting) people effectively participating in the extended Phase 3 trials, we should have a wealth of data soon enough.

          Getting back to aviation: Reuters indicated yesterday that it may be 2024 (!) before vaccines become available for widespread use in poor countries, due to “complications” in the COVAX system. So that’s going to complicate travel to a lot of top tourist destinations in Asia, Africa and South America.

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for this – the Reuters report is interesting confirmation what has been said sotto voce

            I think vaccine blocs will develope, Asia especially

            As to how to explain the panicked rush to PC repression of any criticism of the vaccine or indeed of anything else please find following quote

            « « The pandemic has revealed a growing affinity between Western institutional players and the authoritarian Chinese regime. It is easy to forget that the CCP was once a highly ideological organisation.

            Today it is basically a crime syndicate that looks upon the norms of “the international community” the way the Sinaloa Cartel might look upon the Girl Scouts.

            So the question is, will our ruling apparatus follow a similar trajectory as the pandemic gives them a taste of extended emergency power? At what point do the ceremonies of political correctness become a mere façade, a set of dogmas that nobody actually believes, but which make a useful instrument of social control? » »

            These Puritan Parades are inherent in the US, un containable, ineradicable, highly infections, never asymptomatic, usually deadly, always dreary

          • The ADE narrative is another area of anti-vaxxer activity. As of 12/15/20, the medical community position is:

            “Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) has not been identified as a concern related to SARS-CoV-2 infection or following COVID-19 vaccination. In fact, a body of evidence has suggested that ADE will not be a concern:

            First, most people have been infected with other coronaviruses in their lifetime, and ADE has not been identified as a result of these infections.

            Second, in human studies, people previously infected with coronavirus were infected with different types of coronavirus, and they did not experience enhanced disease.

            Third, experimental animals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 did not develop enhanced disease when challenged, or infected, with the virus.

            Finally, when people with COVID-19 received plasma containing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, they did not experience enhanced disease.

            For these reasons, ADE is not expected to be a concern for SARS-CoV-2 infections or vaccination.”

            As to criticism of the vaccine, there is no objection to criticism as long as it’s based on truthful representations. The problem only arises when misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda are put forward.

          • @ Rob
            There we go again: “the medical community position is…”
            That’s a pretty heady claim…to assert that you’re talking on behalf of “the medical community”.
            Can you provide us with links from which that quote was extracted?

            Remember that “following the science” means backing up your (very absolute) assertions using (equally absolute) data!
            Otherwise, you’re spreading fake news.

            When others make assertions here, we make an effort to qualify our statements, e.g. “X may be a possible issue”, or “Y has been identified as a potential problem”. But you’re not bothering with such subtleties, and are instead making broad, sweeping assertions, which you present as absolute. In so doing, you’re setting a VERY high burden of proof.

            So, where’s the data to back up this stance?

        • Gerrard, news of the petition would be permitted as long as not referenced as being legitimate or true. The claims made in the petition have been rejected, especially the one claiming sterilization of women.

          The authors are well-known members of the anti-vaxxer community. They similarly opposed the H1N1 vaccine. And they had earlier claimed the pandemic was effectively already over, so the vaccine was not necessary, which also had been their claim for H1N1.

          • “The claims made in the petition have been rejected”

            Can you provide links to back up that rather absolute assertion…for all 4 points raised in the petition?
            Bear in mind that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also bear in mind that “rejection” by one group of authors is not the same as “rejection” by the scientific community at large.

            The world waits with bated breath.

          • @Rob

            The report as printed will/would not be censored?

            So the petition is not legitimate? Would not be allowed?

            Is there an official Censor appointed to ‘reject claims made’ – is this Censor US only, or will every country have one appointed?

            As per general indemnities in the upcoming Senate corporate protection bill does the Censorship Act provide for automatic fines for every article censored ?

            None of us have nothing to hide, I mean none of us is hiding, but it’s better to find out what we are risking by thinking out loud

          • Bryce & Gerrard, this petition has been largely ignored by the scientific community as being un-substantive.

            However here is an article that gives a very deep & detailed refutation of both the authors and the claims, citing many experts.


            The last paragraph:

            “Same as it ever was. Cranks gonna crank, and quacks gonna quack. The sad thing is that this not-so-dynamic duo is stoking real fear that the new COVID-19 vaccines will make women infertile and is doing it based on speculative nonsense.”

          • @ Rob
            So the best you can provide to back up such a sweeping claim is a single article by a single author on “”?
            Seriously? That’s it?

            Pity Scott has asked us to drop this just as the weak data was being unmasked…

          • @Bryce: If the post was about COVID, then fine. This post was not. That’s the point.


  21. 737 Max’s will be delivered, new orders come in. But not as many, as profitable as required.

    I think by 2028, Boeing needs something 10% more efficient than a NEO/ A220-300/-500 covering 140-200 seats, up to 3000 NM. With options for AKH’s, next gen engines.

    Things could get really ugly in that (huge) segment for Boeing if they ignore or go for something bigger, heavier, costlier, such as an NMA.

    Even Dhierin Bechai is alarmed. And he proved a strong Boeing optimist over the years.

    • Writing is on the wall, the 737 is long in the tooth. Being on a WN flight yesterday with no middle seats blocked, the renewed fear and loathing of strangers in a triple was apparent. The E and C jets have shown a better path forward for extra per seat width in design.
      IMO of ten years ago and now, the MAX should have been a plan to buy ten years of design time for $3B. Launch the MAX with a re-engine in 2011, and then launch a new single aisle in 2021 with a 30B, decade long, well thought through investment.
      737 MAX, *sell by 2028. The clock will run out.

  22. Can we get back on topic, please?

    This post was not about COVID, censoring or anything else except what’s in the text of the post.


    • Scott, thank you for putting an end to this. I’d be fine with vaccines being banned as a topic on this site. But I doubt the unsolicited claims will stop.

      • noting that the last comment (now I did not say anything about the subject) was by Rob who then goes hides behind the teacher.

        • Good students always rely on the teacher for justice. Having been a teacher for a large part of my career, I have fulfilled that role many times.

          I’ve had several TW’s in my classes over the years. They sit in the back of the class and make obnoxious comments, insisting the class material is wrong based on their superior experience. All that was ever needed, was to invite them to the board and allow them to teach the material.

          I never had to do that more than once, for the class to understand what they were. Even if they accepted, the other students would quickly ask them to sit down, as they paid for an education, not a lecture from the class blowhard.

          In this venue, all I can do is ask TW to factually substantiate his claims, which he of course never does. Anything more is up to Scott, he moderates the forum here. I don’t ask for his intercessions but am grateful for them. As we all should be.

          • Rob:

            You provide no proof, though you claim corporate propaganda is proof.

            And yes I have listed sources.

            You then claim they are wrong. While in fact you produce no proof of any way shape or from.

            I too have experience arrogant know it all teachers, so nothing new there.

            If a teacher spouts bull then hides behind their position?

            Having worked on the pointy end of the spear we have a name for that though Scott would (rightfully ) ban me for presenting it.

            Lets just say it has to do with avian s and guano.

      • Gerald:

        The issue is right now its all tied back into Covd.

        Tough to impossible to separate.

        Scott does not (rightfully) want politics in the blog but the FAA is rife with it, so how do you separate it all out?

        Its pretty much mission impossible and bless Scott for doing his best and presenting an insightful blog and forum.

        • @TW

          You are right about covid being everywhere and dominant

          Politics too, The question is what sort of politics

          The politics of reason and debate is fine, it’s like double checking what is doable and agreeing how to do it – in this like any other reasonable process, engineering or health, decisions are the practice of informed consent and willing co operation

          The idealist and religious politics here as elsewhere being preached by one is against this spirit, depends on an unimpeachable appeal to a higher authority, is predicated on a truth revealed only to the chosen few & beyond the reach of the common people, to be imposed by force, and by the use of censorship

          (Disimissal of Congress reports)

          No questions are allowed, you the people have to take what you are told to do on ‘trust’, or else

          (FAA re cert)

          These religio-scientist politics are the exclusive domain of totalitarian theocracies whose goal is to institute a régime of permanent control and insecurity

          (Boeing’s future, no plans you can actually look at, it’s just not your business, the company belongs to WS, as per Pharma, as per…)

          Democracy is hard work, like engineering, these preachers and these corporate PR are lazy, one reply fits all

          (Calhoun/Muilenberg – no difference)

  23. In other news

    Perhaps the Biden nominee for transportation secretary will improve oversight and take an informed concern for upgrading transport infrastructure and be able to work with corporations as well as unions to improve conditions of production and avoid further off shoring

  24. I hope these reports are considered on topic –

    They deal with Boeing’s cash situation and it’s ability to invest in the future in any new programs, or even survive the predicted low years ahead

    « It’s all about Financial Engineering. When a company buys back its own shares, it pays cash for the shares. But the shares usually get canceled and are gone. As far as the company is concerned, the cash is gone too; someone else has it now. And “stockholder equity” – the difference between assets and liabilities, reflecting the company’s equity capital – drops by that amount.
    That’s not a huge problem for a cash-flow rich company, such as Apple. But it’s a potentially mortal problem for many companies when they encounter rough water.
    Share buybacks lower the share count, and so earnings are divided by fewer shares, to produce higher earnings per share (EPS) and a lower P/E ratio, and thereby hopefully a higher share price, without actually having to sell more or earn more.
    There is an opposite to share buybacks: Issuing new shares to raise cash. This strengthens a company’s capital position, but dilutes shareholders and earnings per share. Young companies do this routinely after their IPO, but for a big mature company, it’s generally anathema – except for Tesla, whose CEO walks on water.
    For example: The airlines, after buying back their shares at very high prices(the big four airlines bought back $44 billion of their shares between 2012 and early 2020) to drive prices up, entered this crisis in a precarious position. And to raise cash and survive, they not only issued tens of billions of dollars in new debt, but they also sold new shares, but at far lower prices. Buy high, sell low. »

    This is exactly what Boeing is trying to do –issue new shares to raise money to pay down debt incurred because they retained no cash in order to buy back shares

    They bought high then they now sell low, or plan to, if their WS masters will allow them

    The path of past and present failure of financial management casts doubts on their long term ability to invest in the company, rather than to sell out

  25. It looks as BA has learned nothing – and that the same old regulatory capture and cheating mentality persists, that the FAA is as corrupt as ever

    @Rob Please comment – surely this behaviour everyone is inclined to label as potentially criminal, or is it not of concern

    Those areas of corporate activity in America not up for censorship are up for purchase – which is better or is it same difference

    • Gerrard, this report is a compendium of whistleblower allegations, many of which concern matters other than the MAX. I cannot speak to those issues, other than that like the House report, this is not a technical report, but rather focuses on policy and political aspects of the FAA.

      With regard to the MAX, the allegation is that during a simulator test in July 2019, Boeing test pilots reminded FAA test pilots to “get right on that pickle switch” before the test, meaning use the column-mounted electric trim buttons to respond to runaway trim..

      This is alleged to be coaching of the FAA pilots to ensure that the 4-second design assumption response time would occur during the test. Further it’s alleged that the simulator was an NG model, which lacked the MCAS functionality.

      Since that test carried no particular weight in recertifying the MAX, and was followed by many other tests with many other pilots, including certification flight tests of the actual aircraft by multiple regulators, I don’t think it has much relevance.

      I personally don’t doubt that Boeing pilots would have made that statement, given that using those switches appropriately was a major factor in the accidents. Also the 4-second response time is represented in the report as being absolutely essential to recovery, which we know is not true, and is pointed out elsewhere in the report. It was used only as a design guideline. And the report also continues to reference the Forkner e-mails, when he has recanted and was referencing the simulator, not the aircraft itself.

      My guess is this will make a splash in the press, as the House report did, but as there is not substantial proof of wrongdoing with regard to the MAX, will not have a major impact.

      Here is the link to the report itself, for those who wish to read the source material.

      • @Rob

        It should be understood that the paramount administrative function of the FAA with regard in particular to Boeing has been the subject of much scrutiny

        As regards – Both the technical ability to exercise their mandate, as above all the ability to formulate an effective and un corrupt administrative oversight and regulation

        One is useless without the other – in the FAA both are paltry, starved

        That is to say the ‘technical’ importance of every detail of re certification is calibrated only insofar as an integral part of the whole process, which stands or falls via the overwhelming certainty of overall one might say universal efficiency, or say 100% ‘efficacy’

        Otherwise the FAA falls into the trap you do – that is to say they assign levels of validity and importance at random : Boeing at least, when they downplayed the role of MCAS last ume round, did so knowingly

        One might allow, or perhaps I should say one hopes and faiths, the FAA does so unwittingly, and is as surprised as you are that their neglect and their corrupt behaviours could be taken as worthy of comment – it is merely business as usual par for the course what’s up doc

        As always in your country it’s not so much the crime that matters, it’s the discovery of the cover up

        One thing we may be grateful for – that it is not yet a crime, nor even a hatecrime, to criticise or to bring reasoned analysis to the actions and statements of Boeing and the FAA

        Please comment of Boeing’s financial engineering prowess as opposed to their common engineering lack of, how both are sides of the same coin, how both accelerate destruction

        • Gerrard, as always, asked and answered. If you disagree that’s fine, you are welcome to your opinion.

          • @Rob

            I do try and give your opinion at the same time as I give mine, it is true, and I am glad that I have gotten both right, as it does obviate the need for extra comment

            It is important to understand what Corporate Compliance is up to, so I do try think what you’d think and I like to double check (unlike BA with MCAS)

            Still you do not reply concerning BA’s financial skills compared to engineering lack of

            I guess that you would opt for a carefully balanced in between, one- the financial engineering may better work in moderation and two -yes on the other they have made some mistakes but these are now corrected – still, please, do confirm

          • Gerald:

            I don’t think you can say the FAA is failure in oversight when they clearly have ignored their own experts. they know better.

            You can’t do that or have this occur without knowing you are corrupting your organization no matter how much the FAA (or Rob) contends otherwise.

            I had a teacher like Rob. The failure rate in his class was 80%.

            The administration knew that, they did nothign to deal with it.

            My saving grace was there was a second teacher in the same subject who was good that I got put in with after serving my penance.

            I failed out of the first class with a 40%. I got Bs and one A under the second teacher. Good for me as it was an area that I used in latter life extensively.

          • For what it’s worth, my engineering program at university was ranked #3 in the nation. Still ranked #5 today.

            I was ranked third in the department as adjutant instructor, in the mandatory student evaluations. Also won the top university teaching award, including a substantial fellowship. This was teaching the core 200 and 300 level engineering courses, including labs for which I designed the curriculum.

            I told my students I would match their desire to succeed, which meant long office hours and being available nights and weekends. I didn’t give up on them or fail them if that could be avoided by my effort.

            I say this not to brag, but to put my comments and TW’s in a truthful context. I speak from experience with thousands of students. Some of whom are now recognizable names.

            I take no credit for that, they were and are outstanding individuals. Many of them much smarter than me. But I did a good job and never needed to demean or belittle other people to do so.

          • Rob, which nation, Samoa? 🙂 Sounds like you are well versed in engineering, which makes me wonder why you give Boeing as much leeway as you do, but I guess to err is human even in a mighty organization.

        • Ted, that was a nasty and unnecessary comment, which I’m certain you know to be untruthful. But taking a shot is more important to you than truth. Like I said, sit in the back of the class and make obnoxious remarks. It’s a losing proposition, always has been.

          I’ve answered your technical questions here many times, always explaining in detail. Always have given truthful and factual answers. Never have I implied anything about your qualifications or motivation, even if we disagree.

          There’s no rational reason for that behavior. But it’s typical of many here. It makes me glad that I’ve spoken up forcefully against it. But I’m disappointed that you have made that decision, I had always respected your comments in the past.

          • Rob, I apologize. It was a joke since you didn’t specify the University, but provided a lot of detail otherwise. I have great respect for your teaching and qualifications.
            For 15 years I’ve been reading comments on Leeham, Boeing blog Randys Journal 1.0 and 2.0,, Verovenia, literally thousands of comments from KC135topboom, Keesje, and more recently TW and yourself. I really enjoy all of these perspectives over the years.
            My question is who are these people and what drives their passion behind their opinion on aircraft? I grew up in Denver where my father was a United pilot until he had a heart attack and had take medical retirement at 46. So I love aircraft, airports, 727s and DC-8s have grown up getting to fly on those. Then I went to CU Boulder for arch engineering and didn’t do so well, but was taught by a lot of WW2 vet professors who had little sympathy for error, and strove for excellence. So that’s what drives my desire to see Boeing succeed, and disillusionment of how things could go so wrong. I firmly believe that there is good design and bad design from auto climate controls to whatever. Is the linked sidestick on the CSeries and the Gulfstreams a step forward in safety over Airbus? Seems like it to me, otherwise why did they do it?
            What drives your generally pro-Boeing perspective?

          • @Rob

            That is why you should make sure not to publish sentimental anecdotes about your life which look like or read like vainglorious boasting –

            To brag about your x or y is to invite comment at a similar level

            Be careful – some commentors may prove to be nastier much more than @Ted, to my way of thinking he let you off lightly, you should thank him not act indignant

            Either that or grow a thicker skin

          • Ted, I thank you for your clarifying response, which acknowledges the value of knowledge and the pursuit of merit. That’s something I can well understand, and is far different from Gerrard’s more typical response, emphasizing his anger.

            These two responses stand as bookends of discussion, and also illustrate my motivation for the defense of Boeing. I came to Leeham looking for information and understanding about the MAX accidents, which for me as an engineer, were difficult to comprehend within the scope of most media reporting. Things just didn’t add up. I got that understanding from Bjorn’s articles, information posted here by others, and my own independent research.

            But I also saw a wealth of false information and extreme opinion being posted here, not just about the MAX, but Boeing in general. The level of villainy being attributed to Boeing was not realistic or truthful. It went way beyond what could be chalked up to normal mistaken information or perspective.

            That sense has been amplified and hardened by the resolution of the MAX certification. I thought that would settle many questions. Instead I saw the animus turned against the FAA, and in some cases even EASA, who did not make the determination that was desired here.

            This extended even to attacking the character of Steve Dickson, who was only trying to show his own commitment to a valid process. And this happened even though the recertification was widely anticipated and expected within the industry. It was the normal outcome of that process, yet represented here as an evil.

            So instead of resolution moving toward a more common narrative, the MAX certification only expanded the scope of attack. As I mentioned in an earlier post, that behavior characterizes a theory that has overtaken all reason and factual argument. In the face of those theories, it’s vital not to yield the field of discourse to those voices alone.

            I have no illusions that Boeing is perfect or has not made numerous errors. But I also believe the pitchfork & torches, scorched earth method of criticism is not helpful or valid. What is helpful, is to identify the problems in a truthful and realistic way, and propose valid solutions. False solutions are often worse than no solutions. Tearing down is rarely better than building up.

            And in doing this, we should recognize that multiple views exist, decisions are often trade-offs, and that people in the moment cannot see all ends. A mistake is still a mistake, and still needs to be corrected. But you don’t have to vilify the people that made them. If you are searching the Internet for reasons to criticize, you may have rounded the bend into your own theory, and lost sight of what is important and valuable. That is more or less the definition of confirmation bias.

            Boeing is still valuable to the industry, and to the people and communities it supports. It can do great things, has done great things. That is not the impossibility many here would suggest. But the impossibility becomes a certainty if it is torn down. And that points to the true motivation of those that would do so.

            I would also hope, that the current election would be an example for us all, of the dangers of pursuing a one-sided view in defiance of any and all evidence to the contrary. Each side has now retreated into a cocoon of information which only supports their view, and includes entire networks of news and information.

            Any intrusion into either cocoon by opposing information results in anger and insults. What’s lost in that process, is the establishment of fact or truth. This is done by a process of vilification that discredits the opposition, rather than their arguments or facts.

            Viewpoints can become so entrenched in their own narrative, that no other or shared narrative is possible. That’s never a good sign, and it can do a lot of damage. The damage being done now will last for decades.

          • @Rob

            A true confession

            The story of your life – this is indeed interesting as a version of a pilgrim’s progress

            In light of the loss of faith and the deception that Boeing’s recent history has spread very widely in those who contribute to this site, and into the wide american public-

            -You have hesitated and regained your faith which you proclaim and profess, most everyone else here has yet to regain their’s, and some it seems never will

            You fail to understand the depth of this deception – with nearly every new discovery of Boeing’s actions, then the FAA’s conduct, then of course the failures of Congress oversight and mandate, now just recently, perhaps, at last corrected

            You fail to understand the depth and extent of the anger at the behaviour on display by Boeing’s management – you should look around yourself a little more, there is a lot of anger in your country at the conduct of this managerial corporate class – you should not be so surprised

            Many fear it is too late for Boeing, articles here have noted just how much BA has fallen behind Airbus, just how poorly it is perceived world wide, just how faint are Boeing’s chances of re establishing it’s market in China

            Perhaps too late for the FAA, ditto : unless quickly they show some renewed energy re 787 and 777X

            You are welcome to your faith – but you should keep this out of aviation discussion – it is not for nothing that such comments attract such resentment for those who abide by the rule of reason

            Otherwise- your country has given itself over with great lack of restraint to a cultural civil war, mostly theatrics perhaps, but intended to obviate the building pressure for a real civil war

            I tend to laugh at you not to insult you – if you are speaking in public you should be prepared to be laughed at, and indeed worse – your idea of good behaviour is too delicate and well mannered for a forum – perhaps you might consider writing peer reviewed papers for publication rather than the rough and tumble : here you spend your time firefighting the fires you light and the flames you fan, for you are taken, not unreasonably, as BA’s mouthpiece, an ungrateful employment

            Still – Please do comment from time to time : as often remarked, your presence is indispensible, as a precise indicator indeed guarantor of the mentality of Boeing’s managers, given how uncommunicative they are

          • Gerrard, this response verifies and confirms my point, as your others have as well. Derision has no role in factual discussion, which is why you and others here attempt to employ it. You adopt the tactics that you pretend to oppose.

            You would disagree with Trump on the facts, but don’t hesitate to employ his methods if it suits your purpose. Like others here, you don’t understand that the character flaw lies in the selection of those methods. But this is on display in your posts, whether you realize it or not.

            And it’s not something that can be changed by discussion, as we’ve seen with Trump. There is really no point in argument by insult or discredit, but he will never stop, as you will never stop. So this is another pointless exchange.

            In the end, we can only look to reality to assess validity. The reality does not support your views at present. There is not much more to be said.

          • @Rob

            Calm down – I’m laughing at you not Trumping you out

            Stick to your role as BA management whisperer and you’ll find less to upset and to complain

          • @Gerrard, Stop it! Knock off the personal attacks. You’ve been warned several times. Continue, and your ability to comment will be revoked.


          • @ Gerrard
            Remember and draw example from the tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”: the vain emperor is the only one who refuses to see that he’s stark naked, and everyone around him is chuckling at his stubbornness.
            One can even draw an analogy between the fraudulent tailors and BA/FAA!
            There’s always lots of insight and wisdom in old literature 😏

          • The reference to a fairy tale is appropriate. Again we see the argument that seeks to discredit, rather than answer with facts.

            The problem is that the facts remain when the fairy tale and discrediting are over. MAX is back in service. Vaccines have successfully rolled out and will be of immense benefit. Boeing is still in business. FAA rulings backed up by regulators around the world. All the negative predictions and attacks have not been successful. But they will no doubt continue.

            Trump should be learning the same lesson, he can’t successfully answer the truth of the election, with attacks and attempts to discredit the results. That doesn’t work in the end.

            But he can rally the true believers to his side, and thus keep his narrative alive. And as long as he can surround himself with those people, he can maintain the illusion of infallibility. But again it won’t stand up to reality in the end.

    • @ Gerrard
      Not at all surprising: business as usual at The Old Boys’ Club.
      What makes it really hilarious is that, just this week, Reuters posted an article with some fresh quotes from Calhoun (see link):
      “The next chapter of our history will be built on a culture of excellence anchored by shared accountability and ownership”
      “I know we will emerge from this a better company, one that is recognized for safety, transparency and quality”

      What a load of superficial hot air! Behind the scenes, it’s just “The Same Old Tricks from the Same Old Dog”.

      Of course, the Chinese will love this: they can now point at the window-dressed, “cooked” procedure in the US and say: “Why should we bother to re-certify that product if you yourselves have to use fraud and subterfuge to get it in the air again?”

      You can’t make a silk purse from a pig’s ear!

      • @Bryce

        I like the link

        @Calhoun agrees with RoboBoeing, so that answers that – whatever the Law or the DoJ or even the MSM say is to be ignored in favour of faith and hope, an ideal which rises high beyond such petty considerations

        “Children in their games are wont to submit to rules which they have themselves established, and to punish misdemeanors which they have themselves defined.” Thus did Tocqueville marvel at Americans’ habit of self-government, and the temperament it both required and encouraged from a young age. “The same spirit,” he said, “pervades every act of social life.”

        The future for BA in China ? With the financial games reducing BA’s ability to raise cash, the obligation to pay back debt, the likely lack of funds for any new program, the DoJ investigations, the continued crisis in airtravel which does not look like easing up for a few years……what have I left out

        @Rob – please give a brief description of BA’s programs and plans over the 3/4 years to come, with the actual detail that Calhoun or no plan Stan declined to give, we are sure they have many

  26. And of course this is just another political hack job

    Funny how independent assessment keeps coming up with uglier and uglier actions.

    It just had to be those pilots who did it all on their own, nothing Boeing tried to pull wool over.

    And FAA supervisors overiding their , well, nothign to see here either.

    Pearl Harbor Dec 7 , 1941 was just some lost Japanese aviators who got a bit carriered (pun intended) away on a training exercise. You know how those pilots are.

    • Just to clarify, the many technical assessments and OIG reports were independent, the House and Senate reports are mostly political in nature.

      An outstanding feature of both is unhappiness with the responsiveness of the FAA to requests for information. However the laws that govern this are written by the same people who are complaining. If they choose, they can alter the law to remove the protections for confidentiality that FAA has followed. But you will never see them do this, as it would be political suicide.

      Notably they have not done this in either of the proposed FAA bills. Nor does that legislation address most of the alleged ills that are cited in the reports. They do address issues that most people would find reasonable and prudent.

      Also Congress has very carefully not addressed their own role in establishing the existing system, which they point to as failing. The blame is placed entirely on the FAA, not on those who wrote and passed those laws. Nor do they address this in the new legislation, or overturn any substantial part of those laws.

      So setting aside the Kabuki theater and hypocrisy that has been the running theme of Congressional hearings and reports, and looking instead at the substance of their actions, one can derive a true non-political version of their position. One that is intended for the lawbooks rather than popular consumption.

      This is why both reports will be a flash in the pan, which is all they are intended to be. They have a lot more to with appearances than reality. But that has been regularly true of criticisms of the MAX and Boeing, as I have pointed out here many times.

        • TW, all allegations as we’ve seen. No factual evidence, as per the usual. As I’ve said,, that’s a necessary precondition of these criticisms. Require facts, and they fade away, as these will as well.

        • @ TW
          Indeed. Typical, amusing double standards. Claims made against Boeing have to meet a gold standard of verification…but loose assumptions made by a pharma company are accepted at face value 😂

          • Ouch again.

            Oddly, Pharma has data they have supplied and its been reviewed.

            I think its reasonably accurate

            I do note that its the review of the data I trust not the Pharma end. We have all seen Pharma try to pull the wool.

            What I find is that Rob can present what I think is good data in one case and be totally devoid of facts in the other and exist side by side in his own mind.

        • Pedro:

          I am sorry, you just don’t understand. That is just politics. Or the phase of the moon, or tidal action.

          You just have to accept Boeing is fixing it. Trust me.

        • Yes, and those results I will accept, regardless of the outcome, because they are likely to be apolitical and just. As the technical reports, investigations, and recertification process also were fair and just.

          If the conclusion is that Boeing engaged in criminal behavior, I will support it. If that should occur, Boeing will have their day in court, and the process will be fair. Very far removed from the processes underway here.

          The 4-second assumption continues to be a misleading focus. The accident results did not depend on reacting within 4 seconds. Nor is that consistent with the operation and function of MCAS, which played out over 10, then 5 more, then an additional 10 seconds (or combinations thereof).

          It played no role in the recertification either, apart from the mandatory training which will emphasize runaway trim and recovery procedures.

          • @Rob

            It is better than you are not so explicit about your politics – this is an aviation site – please try and stay on topic : the questions raised which you seek to answer with political commentary,were concerning BA, FAA oversight, financial capacity for the future plans and planes and so on

            If you stick to the facts you will stay calm and not get so tangled up in invective and feel the need to tell the story of your life

            (Still– in brackets – Your dismissal of the legislature of your country is a sign of evasion : of the lawlessness you preach, yet also complain of – if your country is corrupt you should not exploit such for your own benefit but attempt reform first of your own speech and conduct then of your companies and above all of your democratic procedures and administrations

            Kabuki theatre is a peculiarly badly chosen image, an misunderstood attempt at culture theft ; for that theatre is a feudal Asian survival and is without proper speech – the legislature in your country is dedicated to significant speech and is what little there is that remains of the practice of democracy in your country

            But that your mindset is totalitarian is no surprise – corporatism is the enemy of democracy – and that you now rely on corporate controlled censorship is proof of your success, or is it failure

            To refer constantly to so called ‘facts’ as if they were independent of and beyond politics and perception is to attempt to evade discussion and responsibility by an appeal to a religious idealism

            Do I have to remind you of the nature of past régimes in history which based their actions on your appeal to ‘science’ and the ‘facts’ ? Clue, your country went to war with many of them : end of bracket)

            So, back on topic – Please give a brief description of BA’s programs and plans over the 3/4 years to come, with the actual detail that Calhoun or no plan Stan have declined to give, we are sure they have many

            What are the chances of an NMA or any clean sheet ? What is the optics of WS control over Boeing ? When is international airtravel and plane sales coming back

            These are topics on which you may find something useful to remark

    • @TW

      The lack of respect even interest shown by @RoboBoeing for the reports from Congress indicate the extent to which lack of reform of the FAA has made them confident that the company will suffer so consequences from the legislature, nor any other legal process within the US, DoJ etc

      To dismiss the legislature of your country as ‘politics’ is not only stupid it is contempt : to dismiss the people’s representatives is to dismiss the people – it shows a ‘globalist’ corporate mindset which rises above respect for the nation and the people

      They have sold their soul to the devil – WStreet – and their only concern is to whether WS will give them enough play money to survive and to buy new toys, or will pump and dump and leave the defense rump to the DoD, and make them learn Mandarin

      • And, as indicated above, what makes it worse is that it is highly selective disrespect. So:
        – When the legislature does its job and the result is bad news for Boeing, then the legislature is to be mocked and dismissed.
        – But if the legislature were to propose censorship of “certain topics” on social media, for example, then it would be lauded and celebrated.

        Anyway, one thing the report does unequivocally achieve is even more bad PR for Boeing. I wonder what EASA’s or Transport Canada’s reaction will be? If they had any backbone, they’d suspend/rescind re-certification until the allegations in the report have been fully investigated. After all, in the current climate of uncertainty, public certification bodies must be seen to be stringent and uncorrupt.

        • Just to clarify, there is no legislation to increase or promote censorship. That is another wild claim made here.

          There is a movement in the social media platforms to prevent the spread of disinformation about vaccines. Just as there continues to be for disinformation about the election.

          This is a matter of social responsibility for those platforms, they were never intended for the purpose of disinforming the public. Nor do they wish to support censorship.

          So they have settled on the label “disputed” if the facts are in question. If the facts are not in question but are shown to be false, or related to conspiracy theories, those may be deleted.

          I suspect EASA and Canada will treat the Senate report as they did the House report, as an internal political matter for the US, with no bearing on their own substantive and careful technical analysis of the MAX.

          • @Rob

            No one has suggested that Congress is considering censorship laws : to say this is to invent what you lot call fake news, fake news is not welcome on this site

            Whenever you invent fake news it is a sign you are fraying – please calm down before Scott once again has to intervene

            Get back on topic : the future chances of Max re cert in light of a continuing stream of revelations about the corruption of the re cert process

            Undoubtedly the EU Canada and China will conduct their own tests – however it is in the light of these revelations and Congress reports that they will operate – how may one trust this company’s engineering when this company has bought certification

            For BA to refute the charges brought by Congress is one, page by page, for Boeing to descry and demean Congress reports and others re Max as disinformation is infantile

            The parallel is plain – reg cap FAA/FDA and Private Corporation control of censorship

            The owners of the SM wish to privatise censorship in accordance to their corporatist calling and to protect their commercial interests

            It is news to no one except you that in your country large corporations exercise regulatory capture – and the private primary media enforcement of censorship is to capture the democratic process and privilege of the legislature – because you take it for as much granted as the corporations do, what’s up doc

            That is your purpose here – to perform as stand in for the interests of Boeing, Pharma and Corporate Censorship (was once Corporate Compliance)

        • @Bryce

          I am certain that the PMC/Nerd class makes sure that all efforts are made to elect representatives to Congress who are members of their class and favourable to their interests

          Indeed many members of Congress already belong – especially those from cherished idpol victim groups

          Not yet in a majority they are able to dismiss Congress as un representative, un ‘scientific’, not worthy of respect, mere ‘politicians’ and not high priests

          The rest of the world is treated with equal disdain – whether the EU/EASA or Canada has the strength of autonomy is in doubt, but it is clear that China does, hence the warmongering of the RoboCops

          The peculiar nature of PMC is to view the world though their narrow eyes and think the rest of the world is obliged to applaud and to follow suite, this is their form of imperialist intervention

  27. Not my intention to prompt another discussion of CoViD — I’m posting this purely from an aviation viewpoint.

    The Netherlands suspended all passenger-carrying (commercial) aviation to/from the UK at 6:00 this morning, in response to the outbreak of the new, highly-infectious SARS-CoV-2 (VUI 202012/01) variant in southeast England. No other countries have taken similar action as yet. No sign of a cessation of US-EU or Asia-EU aviation as yet. Interestingly (and bewilderingly), the Netherlands has not (yet) suspended other forms of transport, such as ferries.

    The new variant appears to be (at least) 70% more infectious than previous variants. Currently unknown whether it is more deadly (assumed not, at present), but that is of little relevance at the moment: a further explosion of cases will put further pressure on hospital systems that are already strained.

    Again, interestingly, the new variant has been in the UK since September, and there was at least one instance in the Netherlands at the start of December. But the flood gates are only now being closed. We haven’t learned much in the past 12 months, it seems.

    Anyway, there you go: potentially another slap in the face for attempts to re-start international travel.

    • Additional info:
      Belgium has now also suspended passenger air traffic from the UK, though preliminarily for just 24 hours. The Dutch ban is foreseen to last until Jan 1.
      Belgium has also suspended Eurostar train services into Belgium, and extra road checks are being put in place along the French border so as to intercept non-commercial road traffic from the UK.

      • Further update (17:00 CET) [news on this subject is currently somewhat limited on sites outside Europe]:
        Italy has now joined the group of countries announcing a ban on flights from the UK. Germany, France and Austria are contemplating similar measures. There is currently teleconferencing going on between the EU Commission and major EU countries. The WHO is now in on the game, and is calling on European countries to act swiftly.
        Interestingly, Germany is also proposing banning traffic from South Africa, because of the new variant that surfaced there this week, and which seems to have a greater effect on younger people:

        This is impressive: although potentially too late, it’s good to see that someone is actually awake on the watch.

        Next question: will the US ban passenger travel from Europe? Under the circumstances such action would be prudent.

    • @Bryce

      Thanks for bringing new problems in airtravel to notice

      That is to say, whatever the vaccine or vaccines invented, such new strains will always, or maybe should always, provoke travel restrictions

      This not the first mutation, will not be the last

      A lot more work has to be done as to travel protocols, as you mention hardly any has – pax airtravel is forbidden at the expense of other forms of travel, which is simply virtue signalling, as in ‘’ we are doing something, we think, but we do not know what it is ‘’– rather like, on topic ! No plan Stan talking, Faith and Hope Pfizer we do not know but we…

      That’s to say – they have all been rendered stupid or more stupider, by bug panick

      This partial travel ban must be due, in part at least, to the same old cargo problem – how to distribute the vaccines or ok let’s say food, if travel is suspended, by which we mean travel involving humans, whether classified as air-t, essential, or other

      I’ll respond to your previous, the subject is complex, makes me long for RoboBoeing’s simplisms

    • @Bryce

      New travel restrictions in panick stricken Sydney, the other states closing their frontiers again to NSW

      JJ at Qantas is crying in his soup – he was talking, if you remember about a mandatory vaccine for international travel, because…well he was not thinking much


      New variant in SA

      FDA investigating… a Max style re cert on the cards?

      • @ Gerrard
        Yes, that’s a slap in the face for domestic Australian aviation…and for the (planned) travel bubble between Aus and NZ. Poor JJ is learning that real-world problems are better tackled by grown-ups…there’s no such thing as an easy fix 🙄

        At this rate, it will be a long time before anyone places an order for a widebody 🤔

        • @Bryce

          JJ’s business plan was to build up domestic air travel

          (With regard to this) He did not, in the reports I have seen, mention any need for vaccination, nor any tests of controls etc etc per domestic – these were, merely, to assist in prevention of Aus brain drain ex Australia and help avoid the import of deplorables

          He did not take into consideration the fact that this virus has better logistics than he has – the more or less constant trickle of outbreaks in Aus will eventually oblige a review of their ‘go in hard’ tough guy tactics

          It’s akin to their forest fires, not much point spending every summer fire fighting until there’s no forest not much else left

          How about FAA style legislation for the FDA – re up of airtravel not to mention normal life requires overhaul across the board of the tame regulators – any world wide programs must involve vaccination or testing plan/certificates and needs Government not private company attention

          The FAA legislation is the first piece of good news in this ridiculous litany of death and destruction wrought by Boeing and despite their every attempt at evasion and denial

          As per the incident on United the other day – no more death is the skies is a good policy – TSA and the airlines are obviously incompetent

          • @Bryce

            Further to the EU ban on pax airtravel issue – I think this has been extended to all travel, and – at last – to cargo ‘travel’, freighter trucks

            It’s not just passenger travel the problem, also cargo flights and trucks carry humans who…..

            In Europe I understand that maqny cargo trucks carry ‘illegal’ immigrants, humans who may in turn carry….

            As even some international airtravel cargo travel, well perhaps this is largely confined to africa

            In any case, both for JJ and for the rest, to distribute vaccines by air first you are going to have to think of how to do this without importing the bug with the vaccines in the same plane, in in the hold the other in the humans

            This involves a secure international health security system – perhaps Congress would like to instruct sorry legislate the Health Department? ECDC got anything?

            Any ideas anyone? @Rob! What do you think

          • @ Gerrard
            Although various ferry services have now been suspended (which thus stops movement of container trucks), and the French have banned any “human handled” cargo from the UK (e.g. parcels/post), it seems that an exception is being made for medical supplies and staff. One solution might be for Pharma / the UK to use dedicated charter/cargo flights for this purpose.

            As regards possible resistance of this new variant to vaccines: the variant has 23 mutations — 8 of them on the spike protein, and 3 of these have “potential biological effects” (e.g. on vaccine efficacy, and the ability to infect rodents). Although virologists are not saying outright that the new strain is vaccine-resistant, they are saying that it will probably reduce vaccine efficacy, and are already talking about the possible need for vaccine editing. One way or another, they seem to be somewhat alarmed, because they’re calling for the vaccination program in the EU to be urgently accelerated.

            For those interested, here’s a very technical overview of the new strain:

            Doubtless, we’ll soon be treated to some third-rate denialist opinion from the amateuristic “yardsale site”

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for transport update and information on the new ‘strain’ which it seems will blow up all comfortable chatter ‘the end is nigh’, I mean the ‘good end is in sight’, that that CC&PR have been facebooking all over (the link had me lost)

            Do not even dedicated flights require quite a lot of human intervention ? What fool proof protocols have been invented for such ?

            They say in Aus that international flight crews not Qantas but others bring in the bug, doubtlessly the new strain bug as well – well they would say that – it looks as if they have not worked out how to keep incomers from infecting the natives

            Has anyone worked out a 100% effective unbeatable protocol ?

            Why do not they just put them all in Hazmat suits, or if those will not do ask Elon for some of his Mars Mission suits ?

            They (CDC, FDA, ECDC, WHO, all western governments) are using up a lot of time and putting a lot of effort into not thinking

        • @Bryce

          Update on travel and the new virus strain

          This new strain has reached Australia – JJ on Red Alert

          If Aus there is no logical reason to ‘assume’ (their word) that it has not reached the US, already

          It is unclear whether this strain may weaken the ‘efficacity’ or be entirely resistant to the current crop of vaccines : as per the Danish mink variant

          But, guess what, ‘scientists’ (this is the term the news reporters use without citation) are ‘hopeful’ , or are talking about ‘working assumptions’, both of which reminds me of someone who is not a scientist but is always hopeful, Sahin ? Or….help me out here please

          This is Boeing like doublespeak about their engineering

          If in doubt…

          Or shut down all domestic and international air travel further, including cargo flights?

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for transport update and information on the new ‘strain’ which it seems will blow up all comfortable chatter ‘the end is nigh’, I mean the ‘good end is in sight’, that that CC&PR have been facebooking all over

            Your technical link had me lost, as always RoboVax will break it down

            Do not even dedicated flights require quite a lot of human intervention ? What fool proof protocols have been invented for such ?

            They say in Aus that international flight crews not Qantas but others bring in the bug, doubtlessly the new strain bug as well – well they would say that – it looks as if they have not worked out how to keep incomers from infecting the natives

            Has anyone worked out a 100% effective unbeatable protocol ?

            Why do not they just put them all in Hazmat suits, or if those will not do ask Elon for some of his Mars Mission suits ?

            They (CDC, FDA, ECDC, WHO, all western governments) are using up a lot of time and putting a lot of effort into not thinking

            Please keep updating

          • @ Gerrard
            Sorry about the heavy technical link…but it is the most detailed publication at the moment.
            Here’s a more digestible alternative:

            Interestingly, it seems plausible/probable that this variant emerged in a chronically infected, immunosuppressed patient who received antibody treatment. If that is the case, then compassion for the plight of one person has resulted in misery for millions. Another example of the complexities of fighting outbreaks.

            At the moment, EU representatives are discussing mechanisms for restoring freight traffic to/from the UK. Apparently, there will be “robust checks” in place. Sounds a bit fudgy at this stage. But at least they’re not waiting for vaccine rollout to solve the problem. JJ could learn a lesson from that 😉

  28. As Scott tweeted above, the FAA reform legislation has been included in the spending bill that will be signed into law today. These are good changes and I’m glad they were able to reach agreement between House and Senate bills, which were very similar, and will make them quickly into law. They will make the FAA delegation system stronger and more effective.

  29. This reform is welcome and long overdue, and refutes those PR types or CC people who have expressed belief that the legislature is as toothless and as irrelevant as the regulator

    The bill provides for many of the weaknesses remarked on at this site and in the Congress reports

    Crucially it extends Congress continuous oversight of the FAA

    Politics is something after all – perhaps next up Congress will address the issue of FDA regulatory capture

    Boeing has shown refusal to reform, it may be forced to

    « « According to details of the bill obtained by The Seattle Times, the legislation strengthens the FAA’s direct oversight of the Boeing engineers who conduct safety assessments on behalf of the agency.
    And it creates new penalties for supervisors who exert undue pressure on employees raising safety concerns, establishes new whistleblower protections, and sets up safety reporting mechanisms for FAA’s front-line technical staff.
    Additionally, the bill authorizes new funding to build up technical expertise at the FAA and to conduct more human factors research into how pilots interact with automated flight control systems.
    And it boosts congressional oversight of the FAA, requiring the agency to provide Capitol Hill with reports, briefings and disclosures on how it’s meeting the goals laid out in the bill. » »

  30. Looks like B is discounting VERY deeply the MAX 9 for Alaska in the deal just announced. No cash payment at all on the first batch … talk about a cash flow incentive.
    Smart marketing or sign of desperation?

Leave a Reply

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