HOTR: Putting the 2020 Delivery Slump into historical perspective

By the Leeham News Team

March 16, 2021, © Leeham News: OEMs delivered 743 jet-powered passenger aircraft to airlines last year, compared with 1,684 at this cycle’s peak in 2018. The below chart shows the total for all OEMs as well as Airbus and Boeing (including McDonnell-Douglas).

The last year with an overall lower delivery figure for passenger jets was 1997, with 641 units. For Airbus and Boeing combined, it was 2005. Airbus, with a total of 561 in 2020, needs to go back to 2011 to have a lower delivery figure, while the tally for the combined Boeing and McDonnell Douglas (a total of 86 passenger aircraft in 2020) goes back to 1963.

Below is a summary of the major slumps in passenger jet aircraft since the beginning of the jet age:

In terms of nominal deliveries, the current slump is more than twice as large as the 1991-95 one in the aftermath of the Gulf War (941 vs. 430). However, it isn’t for now the largest slump in relative terms. The largest slump occurred over the 1960-63 period (65% vs. the current 56%).

There were 609 single-aisle and 134 twin-aisle jet passenger aircraft deliveries in 2020, respectively. The last time deliveries were lower was 1997 for narrowbody and 2005 for widebody aircraft.

Below is a breakdown of last year’s passenger deliveries by OEM:

In-service passenger A330ceo fleet dips below 1,000

The COVID-19 pandemic has led many airlines to retire aircraft early. The retirements of quad-jet aircraft caught most of the media’s attention. However, there have also been numerous A330ceo retirements. Below is a summary of the twin-aisle passenger fleet changes between January 2020 and March 2021:

110 Comments on “HOTR: Putting the 2020 Delivery Slump into historical perspective

  1. How many seats/capacity has been retired? If it is 20% it would mean 80% demand of 2019 would already fill most available capacity…

    • Not quite.
      Average load factor in the past was about 75% (with notable exceptions, such as Ryanair), so there was always a considerable amount of slack in the worldwide fleet.

    • I just made an rough calculation: out of ~1.520.000 seats ~176.000 are retired, 12% more or less. 88% capacity remains in the system while demand is 15% of 2019; big ouch. The numbers of it all keeps flabbergasting me…

      • I think you need an era to era apples to oranges.

        65% of 1684 value and impact wise is not the same as 264.


        Averages are just that, you can have 10 carbines 100% full (no slack) and 5 50% slack but there is a reason that route only carries 50%

  2. Remove the MAX and 787 delivery holdup / crisis.

    Would the availability of (more) Boeing aircraft have had an impact on Airbus or not?
    i.e. would overall deliveries have been significantly higher or
    just a percentage shift from A to B?

    • On the subject of the MAX, an article on a Dutch-language aviation site is indicating this morning that “Russia is in no hurry to re-certify the MAX”.

      “According to Rosaviatsiya director Alexander Neradko, MAX re-cert requires a large number of specialists to fly to various locations in Russia. “We can’t at this time risk their health by moving them around in this manner. We need to wait until the situation has normalized”, Neradko said to press agency TASS.”

      The same site is indicating that the founder of Norwegian — Bjorn Kjos — wants to give longhaul another shot. Together with 2 companions, he’s setting up an airline to offer budget transatlantic flights in 787s.

      • [Deleted. Off topic.] … and they are worried about moving a few specialists well spaced on an aircraft of their choice.

        Tell a lie often enough.

        Vietnam is considering transit rights for MAX.

        Singapore I believe has approved MAX.

      • I guess leasers will be talking to Kjós, & any other likely parties, in an attempt to get ex Norwegian & other returned aircraft back in service.

      • @ TW
        Of course nobody believes the excuse given by the Russians: the point is that, in Russia — just like in China, most of Asia-Pacific, and Africa — the 737MAX has become irrelevant. Whatever the FAA says or thinks about it is of no longer of any consequence.

        Singapore has not re-certified the MAX. SIA / Silk Air is withdrawing its small fleet one-by-one from storage in Australia and moving them to Singapore for revision.

        • Shrug, same logic says the A320 ditto.

          Stay tuned. Russia is not a big market.

          China, yes, but the logic is completely faulty. Equally good reasons for China not to tick the neighborhood off more as well.

      • [Deleted. Off topic.]

        We know that Russia has at least one fairly new airliner, AFAIK a reasonably good one.

        So no surprise that Russia wants to play NIH with improvements to the 737MAX.

        And I note that there is much to learn about safety standards and certification from dialogue with FAA and Boeing.

    • I think the delivery numbers are highly influenced by the MAX grounding. Detract 400 MAX planes from the slump number and you will see that the slump percentage would be around 30% which makes it seem less drastic. I think this is what they call a double whammy…

      • Don’t forget there are reports of 737 MAX white tails available (fire sale undergoing).

        • LHN Nov 9

          It has, as we all know, more than 450 MAXes that were produced in 2019 following the grounding of the global fleet. Aviation Week previously estimated about 62 of these became white tails as customers went out of business or cancellations came through. One estimate concluds[sic] the number could go as high as 200.

  3. Any signs that Emirates may be planning to buy unwanted A380s from other airlines? Although it goes against the grain of the standard Emirates business model, it would give them an extra capacity boost at a very low price (+ costs for interior revision)…particularly seeing as the 777X has been delayed to 2024.

    There are indications that BA may use widebodies on shorthaul sun routes this summer. If that’s any indication of the demand to come, then Emirates can use all the capacity it can get.

    • Long term?

      MA has been trying to dump late build A380 for a long time. They even have Clarks preferred (now) Unicorn engine!

  4. Question: the 2% of MHI is for the last CJR, correct? What was counted for UAC, the SSJ any known deliveries of IL or TU?

    • Correct, MHI is the last CRJs. For UAC we counted the SSJ. No know pax deliveries of IL or TU

  5. I think Boeing is hit so hard, it’s a miracle they are still standing. Airbus is so much stronger today, I feel it would be justified to bail out Boeing to restore some sort of duopoly this and next decade.

    • Boeing is “still standing” because it’s been able to garner more than $60 billion in loans; in that regard, perhaps “still alive, but on life support” would be more accurate than “still standing”.

      Interestingly, the LNA article below this one (on China’s hollow recovery) puts its finger precisely on Boeing’s problem for the next few years, namely that there’s little-to-no virtue in sales unless those sales have an adequate margin. Boeing’s sky-high debt servicing costs just exacerbate this problem.

      If you want a duopoly, watch out for COMAC. BCA has had its time. In this article (posted by @Bill7 in another LNA article below), Emirates CEO Tim Clark wipes the floor with Boeing.

      • COMAC as has been noted repeatedly is not, cannot and will not be a competitor.

        You should note more and more airlines are picking up their MAX orders and some are new.

        Just as MAX currently cannot fly in China, 919 will never fly anywhere China to outside of China routes.

        • > COMAC as has been noted repeatedly is not, cannot and will not be a competitor.

          Not this week, or next week; but dismissing COMAC seems like a substantial mistake to me. The same
          was said about Japanese cars when I was a kid-
          then, suddenly..

          • Bill:

            A surface scan is not an in depth and there was far more to the story of Japan and cars than the myth.

            I was in California in 1971, you saw it there. Yes they were smaller but there was no lack of quality. Honda did it with the first 750 cc cycle in 1969 that was a smash hit for a reason (Brit stuff was junk,) and that was after 20 years of trying. But they got what would sell. Prior to that, either complicated (450) or a unreliable carb system that sunk it (305 dream something or the other).

            In short, they did the hard work, figured out where there were holes in the market and hit them hard. The did killer a few years latter during the gas shortage for just that reason.

            China is not going to break big into cares either, too many established competitors that know the game and no one is caught low and slow like the US auto industry was.

            But, cars are made in the hundreds of thousands. Electronics more so, goof it up and next week you have a fix.

            Boeing may be lame management wise at the top, but they still have the support system and a base of good products.

            If your Chinese electronics fails you throw it away and buy a new one. You can’t do that with aircraft.

            You see two different quality classes out of China. Cheap and spec.

            Equally you see government controlled and inept that can’t get out of its own way and non.

            If Cat makes a product in China, its built to Cat specs and a match for anything in the world. They own it or they control it.

            General spec? Pure crap shoot and both pirating and copies abound. Its a reason fake stuff gets into the system.

            Japan did knock off and copy, but they did not do piracy. Until Piracy and fakes are dealt with, China gets a deserved black eye.

            And I challenge you, what leading edge has China done yet?

            Vaccine was old tech, may even be decently done though they won’t
            release the data on the trials.

            Aircraft are 30 year investments. They require a wide spread infrastructure of support. China does not have that and with government involvement they won’t get it.

            They just tried to buy a Ukrainian engine mfg because they can’t build a reliable jet engine. While I don’t blame them, it also shows they have not put the engineering resources into solving those issues on their own. They want a quick fix and they are not going to get it.

          • Haha I guess you never heard of DJI (which appears to scared the xx out of U.S. government) or bitmain. Oh btw ask those in the know which are the leading telecom equipment providers in the world (don’t repeat to me heresay or anything without proof).

      • On recovery, many expect a price war to stoke demand (leisure). It won’t be a phenomenon unique to China.

        • Without the return of bussiness travel, rpm would be seriously depressed as a result.

      • It was the frankness of Clark’s language that was telling, to me; one doesn’t say that stuff in public unless it’s absolutely
        necessary, I think. An important interview.

        • @Bill7

          Tim C is a well paid servant to the oligarchs, and is conveying a message on their behalf

          Perhaps offshoring BA to UAE is in the air?

          • Tim C can be downright stupid

            He moved Emirates from a very very good GP engine to a pie in the sky RR offering with claims a snake oil salesmen would blush at.

            His view of Boeing is not invalid but he is also no saint of tech assessment.

            As much about blowing his own horn as anything.

      • ““still alive, but on life support” would be more accurate”
        Totally incorrect , as its been pointed Boeings gearing ratio to assets is 60% where other major industrial companies like GE at 700%.
        Thats the reason the bonds issued by Boeing have been snapped up , some for 25 or more years at historically low interest rates.
        Even some US airlines that are thought to have huge borrowings like American are still at the 60% level.

        • @DoU: Nope. BA has negative equity. On the contrary, GE, still has positive equity. Difference of nite and day.

          • That’s correct, Pedro.
            $60 billion in debt, only $25 in cash, huge cash burn without meaningful revenue, heavily suppressed margins, just one notch above junk status, borrowing rates @ 200 basis points (= 2%) above US Treasury levels for similar duration, all current programs grounded/stalled/delayed, more than 100 ongoing lawsuits.
            That’s a truly stellar situation to be in 😉

          • My numbers are based on ‘assets to lending’ ratio. Which is the one that counts when lending for bonds or loans

            Yours has something to do with value of shares …which is pointless unless buying shares for long term investment…the day trading volumes are still well up on previous years, so much for the negative equity line that presumes share value follows that

          • @DoU: Nope. My number has nothing to do with “value” of shares. They are what’s in their books.

            Using the same metric as yours, then there’s no way GE’s gearing would exceed 1 (or 100%).

            GE’s # incorporates GE Capital (which functions as a financial institution). For example: GECAS’s assets are mostly lease receivables, secured by jets/engines etc. In case leasees are in financial difficulties, leasor like GECAS could take back the jets etc. Therefore the jets/engines give additional protection to leasors (and therefore their creditors).

            Unlike GECAS, if BA runs into major financial difficulty, there’s little protection (or additional security) for the benefit of its creditors.

        • Furthermore, whoever snapped up BA’s long term debt last year are sitting on substantial losses!!

  6. What catches my eye is the rise of the regional jets starting in the late 90’s and how they have been squeezed out. There is now basically nobody left delivering aircraft but for Boeing and Airbus.

    • Squeezed out is not quite the right term as it is active and jets are or will be delivered in it. Scope is not gone.

      Clearly its a much smaller market than the LSA and with C Series that is smaller still.

      Embraer is still delivering Aircraft, but they are the last regional left. Not sure what kind of a future.

      • By that graph, in 2003 there were over 400 non-Boeing/AB deliveries. At this point there are almost none. As for the future, Mitsubishi has packed it in, CRJ is gone, E2 is not really selling. A few E1’s are selling but not many and airlines are up-gauging.

        Do you know does scope only apply to jets? If, as muted, Embraer builds a large turbo-prop based on the E2 will that be scope compliance no matter the number of seats and MTW?

      • How big is the chance that Embraer will merge with Comac or UAC when Lula is president again?

        • They bring nothing to the table for Brazil. Also dont forget most of the systems and structures for E series is made outside of Brazil in well known western suppliers, including at Everett in the Triumph factory.
          The best deal for UAC would be for Embraer to have a final assembly line for licence production of the MC-21 and compete with Airbus and Boeing in the large single ailse market , but that would face a lot of opposition from Airbus and Boeing like you have never seen before.

          Then there is the IL-114 a low wing turboprop with 64 pass, who knows what Embraer could do with that?

          • COMAC brings money to the table — lots of it.
            COMAC brings access to the world’s fastest-growing aviation market to the table.

            What would Boeing have brought to the table? At the time, it was said that Boeing just wanted to tap Embraer’s engineering workforce so as to compensate for its own upcoming wave of retirements.

          • @Bryce

            100% Correct

            I would only add

            COMAC brings in the future – Boeing brings Bankruptcy

          • “COMAC brings in the future –”

            Hows the weather today in Shenzhen ?

          • China want to own it lock, stock and Tomahawk and there is no place for Embraer in their scheme.

            If you want it gone yes.

            These are not Independence businesses we are talking about, COMAC is owned by the Imperialist Government and has an agenda that is purely political. That never ends well.

      • TW: “They [Communist China] just tried to buy a Ukrainian engine mfg because they can’t build a reliable jet engine.”

        Putin would like that – NOT. He wants power, CC is a threat.

        (Believed to be much aero knowledge in Russia and former Soviet places, but people must be aging out of availability. Good mathematicians and like in some of those places, note at least two prominent anti-malware software companies have their programming done there.

        Meanwhile, a “Travel Pass” is being pushed by IATA, in trials with several airlines including ANZ but mostly authoritarian-biased countries.

  7. An article on yesterday indicates that the 737MAX backlog at the end of 2020 had evaporated to just 3,282 (!). At its peak in 2018, the order tally was 5005. Since only 387 had been delivered up to the end of 2020, there seem to have been 1336 cancellations (real and/or ASC606) up to the end of 2020. This trend seems to be continuing in 2021: in February, for example, there were 39 orders…and 32 cancellations.

  8. I think that Boeing needs to 1) launch a new aircraft program quite soon that is not PR vaporware; and 2) appoint someone
    of the stature of a Capt. Chesley Sullenberger to their board,
    to show they really have turned over a new leaf, rather than
    (recent-hire) accountants and the like.

    Watching with interest.

    “Culpability for the culture, strategy, direction, priority of that company rests with the Boeing board and nobody else. And that’s where the buck should stop. And that’s where they need to get themselves sorted out,” he said. “So going forward, the relationships that airlines have with the likes of Boeing will be conditioned by what they see they are doing to sort out their internal problems.” -Sir Tim Clark

    • The Emirates Tim Clark interview linked above discusses the fact that, because Boeing forces huge discounts from its suppliers, it’s inevitable that quality will suffer…

      80 (!) 787s sitting in the desert…my oh my…

      • @Bryce

        This is well noted

        Successful OEMs like Toyota take care of their suppliers

        BA is squeezing the lemon dry

        • You clearly have not read what Toyota has done to its suppliers.

          They also keep an eye on them to ensure it does not go off the rails.

    • The complex form windows have been an issue from day one.
      ( start with Boeing cockpit windows(+heater) showing more failures than the competitors in general. )

      Question: is Boeing’s history showing a higher load of tech issues with the fine difference of them not getting equivalent press visibility? ( Bit like GE engine issues causing a shit storm for RR 😉

      Where is ROB when you need him?

        • “The emergence of yet another potential glitch comes as Boeing’s mechanics and engineers work furiously to try and restart 787 Dreamliner deliveries by the end of this month, in line with what executives promised during a January earnings call.”

          Note that the agenda is being set by what the execs promised in January…rather than by a drive to achieve optimal safety and quality.
          It appears that priorities haven’t changed at McB.

          • @Bryce

            FAA Wakes Up in a 787


            « « The Federal Aviation Administration has stripped Boeing’s (NYSE:BA) authority to inspect and sign off on several newly produced 787 Dreamliners, part of tighter regulatory scrutiny of production problems that has stopped deliveries of the widebody jets.

            The FAA says its own inspectors, not Boeing’s, will perform routine pre-delivery safety checks of four Dreamliners that the company has been unable for months to hand over to its airline customers while it copes with various quality lapses, and the agency says it could decide to have its own inspectors sign off on more Dreamliners.

            After halting deliveries in October, Boeing reportedly has built up an inventory of more than 80 newly produced, undelivered Dreamliners; the company has said it hopes to resume deliveries by the end of this month.
            « «

          • Any guess 787 delivery # in Q1?
            No wonder BA rushed out to raise a multi-billion two year facility from banks earlier this month.

            – While demand for Boeing’s debt has remained strong, the company’s investment-grade rating has come under pressure over the past year. The planemaker is now rated BBB-, the last rung before junk, by both S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings. Moody’s Investors Service rates it one step higher at Baa2.

            The undrawn fee on the new revolver is 40 basis points based on current rating levels, according to the people with knowledge of the deal. If the company draws the loan, Boeing will pay a spread of 200 basis points over the London interbank offered rate. Boeing must also pay banks an initial 40 basis point upfront fee when the loan is signed.


            Bloomberg Mar 16

            – The Federal Aviation Administration wrote to Boeing on Jan. 11, telling the company it was going to conduct Certificates of Airworthiness inspections on four 787s, according to a letter reviewed by Bloomberg News. The final review before an aircraft is handed over to buyers, known as an AC, has traditionally been delegated to Boeing’s own employees.

            – The AC approvals were being retained by FAA in this case as a result of the unspecified issues discovered on the 787 production lines, FAA said.

          • “”One of the actions is retaining the authority to issue ACs for four specific aircraft””

            Could these 4 be those 787 Boeing wanted to deliver this month?
            Boeing repaired the shims but what about the bigger gaps?
            As Udvar-Hazy said, there is no solution, the specs can’t be met and it will be as-is. Time for the FAA to reduce the payload to meet out of spec conditions. Airlines would not accept that. Boeing will stop 787 production soon, stupid to build planes they can’t deliver.

            Did R.o.B. lost his job and is taking his last vacation days or is he doing QC now?

          • Yesterday’s news that the FAA has stripped Boeing of the right to issue ACs on 4 (and potentially more) of its 787s is just the latest in a long line of severe “loss of face” episodes for the company. And Boeing has also (irreparably) damaged the credibility of the FAA.
            I wonder if DC realizes the extent to which McB has become an acute national embarrassment to the US?

      • Is the problem with side or front windows?

        The 767 followed Douglas’ lead with flat front windshields and plastic curved side windows. to get reasonable aerodynamics but lighter less costly windshields. (Windshields take the brunt of bird strikes. Both types are laminates, front ones usually more glass than plastic. The PPG page gives a good description of construction but does not advise curvature.)

    • I wonder how many QC points are checked and keep being checked now. Under Muilenburg they fired many QC engineers and I assume they fired the most experienced. Hard to get the experience back. So who could check quality now. There was a reason they had so many QC engineers before and still they didn’t check all QC points before.

      • As per Tim Clark’s interview above: price-pressured suppliers will always be temped to take shortcuts.
        So, in answer to your question: how many suppliers are involved in the 787 program? It might be prudent to check all their products…

        “Penny pinching, pound foolish”

      • QC? What QC??

        – A whistleblower who worked for Boeing for almost 30 years says he would not fly on the plane he helped build due to serious safety concerns.

        – Former Boeing quality manager John Barnett worked on the company’s flagship 787 Dreamliner in the United States but he does not consider any of the planes that left the company’s North Charleston factory airworthy.

        “I would not fly on a Dreamliner and I’ve asked my family and begged my family not to fly Dreamliners because I know, I know what’s under the skin,” he told 7.30.

        – The whistleblower also found damaged parts for the aircraft were being used to construct new aircraft, rather than being thrown out as they are supposed to be

        “If we have defective parts, and we don’t have any more new parts in stock, then the mechanic took a defective part and put it on airplane because they want to get their job done for that day, not thinking about the long-term ramifications of it,” Mr Barnett said.

        “This part was actually scrapped and thrown in the trash. And he dug it out and said, ‘go put it on the airplane.'”

  9. @DoU

    China ‘brings nothing to the table for Brazil’


    China is Brazil’s largest trading partner, import and export, and larger and larger with every year, especially this one

    China investment is yet to accelerate so hard, but what better way to start than with the spurned OEM, look how well AB did with the last forlorn Boeing Bride

    • @ Gerrard
      We continue to see that older generations — particularly in the US — tend to exhibit some sort of automatic “cold-war-remnant” dismissal of China’s success in the new world order. Accompanied by knee-jerk references to all sorts of Chinese malefactions — as if any of that somehow negates Chinese industrial prowess. It’s systemic denialism on a epic scale.
      The Chinese have a space program and a nuclear weapons/energy program. They built the world’s largest high-speed rail network from scratch in just 20 years. Their past aerospace efforts are irrelevant: now that they’re devoting serious attention to being independent in aerospace, it’s only a matter of a few years before they achieve that goal — whether “the west” likes it or not.

    • “China is Brazil’s largest trading partner, import and export,”

      They bring nothing to the table as far as Embraer goes, who can design and certify their own jets using western- plus Japan/Korea suppliers. China is of course a major buyer of Brazils raw materials and of course Vale do Rio Doce isnt for sale to China either
      We are talking about a top level passenger , military airlifter and business jet builder already. China adds nothing to that.
      Indeed Brazil still remembers the licence build of the ERJ145 which just seemed to be an execise in IP theft after it fizzled out ‘after’ around 15 were not the much larger number projected.
      Ask Bombardier what China bought to the table when they were the supplier of the mid fuselage of Cseries, and caused huge delays because of quality and certification issues. A backup supplier was bought into the program

      • @DoU

        It’s the economy, ……..Embraer needs the money

        They were prepared to sell themselves to BA, a fate worse than death

        They need to raise funds for new planes, they need new markets

        Where is the money&market – Asia

      • @DoU: Who caused hugh delay in 787 roll out?? Boeing or its subcontractors? Or Alcoa for “bolt shortage”? LOL.

        • “Who caused hugh delay in 787 roll out?? Boeing or its subcontractors?”

          Some suppliers were stupid jerks, like the landing gear division of Smiths. Boeing was foolish in several respects including failing to listen to the advice of its military division that it is easy to fool yourself with program reviews.

          (Military division was publicly criticized in Washington DC by lead customer of the Wedgetail surveillance version of the B737. Which did eventually go into service and is working fine AFAIK, did get some use looking for MH370. Has other customers now, aka Boeing 737 AEW&C and E-7A.

          Boeing has a few B737 derivative programs that are selling, biggest is probably the P-8A sub patrol airplane, others like C40x utility airplanes are smaller quantities.)

        • f you order bespoke parts for delivery next quarter that have a hard and known production path / delivery horizon of better than 5 quarters no one except Boeing management could have been surprised ..

          They probably expected bargain pricing too.

    • …which is why Boeing would like to suppress it by raising its recent “concerns” about the new center fuel tank. How well would a new McB plane in this category perform…assuming that funding could somehow be scraped together?

  10. A new McB would have a hard time to compete.
    The A321LR with RCT can carry 8 pax more.

    A new McB isn’t possible.
    1st, nobody would pay top dollar for a brand in ashes.
    2nd, which supplier would sign a cheap contract.
    3rd, Boeing lost the know-how to build planes.
    4th, Boeing couldn’t compete with the FAA in the pocket, how can they compete now.
    5th, the next new Airbus will have a one pilot cockpit, can Boeing do that too.
    6th, for everything Boeing could offer, Airbus would have a better answer.
    7th, Airbus can produce quality in Mobile, Boeing has quality issues in Charleston.
    8th, Boeing still has a culture problem with the same board.
    9th, as you said, where is the funding, they have to pay to separate from Embraer.
    10th, if engineers were the reason to merge with Embraer, where will the engineers come from without them.

  11. Its not just the drip, FAA is now getting involved full time per the MAX.

    Certification means you do it the way yous said you would and Boeing clearly has not only not, they have no quality control in place to ensure it complies.

    You can loose your certification over that. While most think its a crash that is the trigger, its not (it always has been but that has to do with the incestuous relationship Boeing and the FAA have (had)

    The end result can be and is in the edge of, pulling the cert until Boeing proves they can and will do it by the book they signed and agreed to.

    That also means not removing lightening protections and then calling it a done deal (and got way with at least till now)

    You want to change the process you are supposed to get approval.

    Dickson’s job is in severe jeopardy so you see the moves being made now.

    • Now there’s an example of an country that would buy big time from COMAC if the C919/CR929 were ready.

      Perhaps the Iranian inquiry was intended as a nudge to Washington? After all, waving dollars around is always a good way to get attention 😉

      • Bryce:

        The term Vapor Ware applies here. Lots of talk, no product and no base on which to assess it but PR spin it to the MAX (pun intended).

        You can’t say that because you don’t know what routes Iran needs to serve.

        While they could fly internal, they could not fly anywhere external.

        Equally, they already have plenty of broken down aircart sitting on the ramp.

        A new shiny broken down airplane is more costly than an old dull one.

        Boeing has a huge issue in production. That is one major part of aircraft, but its far from the only one. Its the support side that is unseen that makes a plane a success of abject failure once produced.

        Boeing knows how to support aircrat world wide as does Airbus.

        China can send Guyana 6000,000 vaccines as a PR stunt, there are 39 million Guyanana’s, 600,000 is a start or a joke with no follow through.

        Airbus and Boeing are successful because they have follow through.

        • @ TW
          Let’s turn that around for a moment.
          (1) If Iran had 737MAXs at present, it could only use them domestically, since none of its neighbors have ungrounded the plane. Moreover, it would have had to put up with a 2-year grounding while McB created smokescreens rather than solving the problem.
          (2) If Iran had had the misfortune of having 787s with RR engines, it would have experienced the same “first-class” after sales service as Air New Zealand and Norwegian. Sure, this problem was an issue for the engine maker…but when these airlines approached McB and asked if some new-build engines could be diverted to them in order to get their planes back in the air, McB told them to go screw themselves.
          (3) China may have sent a “symbolic” number of vaccines to Guyana…but the US is sending zero vaccines to other countries. Zero.

          Old-fashioned notions of the USA’s place in the world need to be updated. Things have changed of late.

          • Bryce: [Deleted. Off topic.]

            I won’t generally defend Boeing, but they have contractual obligation that do not allow them to just grab an engine someone else has paid for.

            You saw the UK write contract to ensure that the Vaccine stayed in the UK for those same reasons, a customer was ensuring they got what they paid for.

            Boeing could not grab an ANA RR engine and give it to NZ.

            Those airlines made their choices and there were indicators RR was having issues. The one is purely on RR.

            [Deleted. Off topic.]

        • @TW: A casual search on the net can find Iran’s flag carrying carrier flies to almost forty countries. I can book flights from Cologne, Frankfurt and Hamburg.

          Vaccine nationalism will come back to bite your back. EU, in their hearts, know well who’s friend and who’s foe, like those who don’t mind to stab in the back.

      • [Deleted. Off topic.]

        Apparently Russian airliners are not good enough. (Historical relationships, present relationships may be tested in Syria, IIRC Russia provided air defense detection systems to Iran. In oil price fixing Russia is today more aligned with Saudi Arabia which is an enemy of Iran.)

        Iran was having considerable difficulty maintaining Boeing built airliners, parts shortages, but was also flying Airbus.

    • Boeing, Airbus, others are to blame, many suppliers, too. Why? They have all used American tax payer dollars to develop their products either directly (see space and defense) or indirectly, then they transfer all this technology freely by manufacturing or selling this equipment to anyone everywhere.

  12. @TW

    You miss the point – Boeing is working with China – their combat plane refueller can not fly in combat – they got other planes which are …. ? …er substandard is that the word

    This the failure to act you discuss – it is hostile but hidden as stupidity

    The same for all supply chain inefficiencies off shoring reliance on China and monopoly cartelisation the DoD complains about

    This is not a conspiracy, it is declaring defeat – the last time this happened was when the later Roman Emperors invited the Barbarians into Rome

  13. Aviation Money for Nothing Update

    Signs of some sort of revolt at the mast head not by the masses against all the free money for shareholders handed over to the airlines

    Chairman Cal – this includes you and your free 21M$

    The debate of the morality ethics and efficiency of free money is just starting, the article notes

    Boeing Corporate PR – Please comment

    • While traditional media want money too, as alternatives are reducing their role.

      And they claim they are more accurate. I’m ROFL at that. (NYT is proven biased.)

      Investing in ‘green’ things is good PR given the new federal government in US, and current federal government in Canada.

    • Note that jet deliveries in 2022. Proof that 1) the Chinese market is expanding, not just a state directed smoke and mirror show as painted by some, 2) there’s alternative to B737, 3) I haven’t seen Chinese airlines finalized their negotiation with BA about the grounding and delay of 737 MAX. More order cancellation to come??

      Hugh blow to BA.

      • The world doesn’t want the MAX any more — other than a few discount hunters. It’s like a CRT television in the age of FPDs. And it falls squarely into the category of (irreparably) tainted goods.

        • >The world doesn’t want the MAX any more

          Isn’t that a bit of an overarching claim? I myself think it’s
          not a great plane and an über-kludge, but a number of
          airlines seem to be OK with buying it.. and it might be safe enough now, after all the scrutiny. They do still have over 3000 orders, I think, though I wonder if they’ll recover
          their costs on them.

          767 and 777 were very solid planes and products- not much since, IMO. I still say re-engine (essentially) the former, but the MAX debacle probably made that path impossible.

  14. Everyone: What part of do not post Off Topic and No Politics don’t you understand?

    Comments are closed.