By the Leeham News Team
May 25, 2021, © Leeham News: Michael O’Leary may be royally pissed as Boeing, but he’s nevertheless in negotiations for a large order of 737-10 MAXes.
In the year-end earnings call last week and in an appearance on CNBC, O’Leary unloaded on Boeing’s Seattle management team over delivery delays for the 737-8200.
O’Leary, the CEO of Ryanair, didn’t mince words—he never does. This is, after all, the guy who at a press conference talked about his potential trans-Atlantic low fare operation providing blow jobs to business class travelers. Sitting next to him was his female translator, who clearly was nonplussed. (You can look it up on YouTube.)
“We hope to take delivery of the first [737-8200] aircraft in May of this year, although we are losing confidence in Boeing’s ability to deliver within that latest deadline,” O’Leary said.
“We have been disappointed by Boeing’s repeated moving back of the first delivery date. It was originally scheduled in early April when it was certified by the FAA and the EASA, but eight weeks later, we’re still to receive the first aircraft.”
However, O’Leary also said, “We’ve already confirmed that we’re in discussions with Boeing on a follow-on Max 10 order. Boeing has committed that we’ll be first in the queue, but we’re not there yet. The pricing isn’t yet right. But I would be reasonably hopeful that once we get the  aircraft delivery issues resolved, we can then focus our energies, and those of Boeing, on negotiating what I hope would be a follow-on order for MAX 10s, which would take us out into deliveries in the period from 2026 through to 2030,” according to the SeekingAlpha.com transcript of the earnings call. The full transcript may be found here.
O’Leary isn’t actually the first in the queue. There is an estimated 500+ orders for the MAX 10 already. (Boeing doesn’t break out orders by MAX sub-type.)
Little known is that the MAX 10 was designed specifically for Ryanair, according to a key ex-Boeing employee on the program at the time. But O’Leary, who loves bargain-basement pricing and to kick a dog when it’s down, didn’t place a launch order. With Boeing facing a long recovery because of the 21 months MAX grounding, exacerbated by the pandemic, now’s the time for O’Leary to go shopping. Ryanair, like so many other MAX customers, is owed a lot of handholding and discounts by Boeing.
Over Ryanair’s lifetime, it ordered 741 737s of all types. For comparison, Southwest Airlines—on which Ryanair was initially modeled—order 1,219 737s of all types.
If he is not happy with Boeing he should order Airbus aircraft.
Can you imagine him barefoot at Airbus doorstep.
.. 4 days in a row?
He does operate some A320 (in Lauda subsidiary). So up to this point he keeps things separated; Boeing for Ryanair brand and A320 in other brands.
The 737-10 flying the bulk of routes in EU and domestic US/Asia with its 3+3 seating, narrow hence light weight fuselage and modern wings, using the pretty long runways available should “on paper” be the most cost effective aircraft per seat. Still I would prefer flying 3+2 in a A220-300 if it is an option.
…particularly seeing as Airbus seems to be planning a range increase for the A220:
“PARIS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Airbus will go ahead with plans to increase the range of its smallest jet, the A220, its newest operator said, allowing airlines to open more niche routes internationally.
“We need to get up to 4,000 (nautical) miles,” Neeleman said. The A220-300 currently flies about 3,400 nm (6,300 km).”
Re: ““We need to get up to 4,000 (nautical) miles,” Neeleman said. The A220-300 currently flies about 3,400 nm (6,300 km).”
So this particular customer is looking for transoceanic range, as perhaps many are, but according to the quotes below from Alaska Airlines Senior VP Nathaniel Pieper who was “the driving force” behind Delta’s A330neo and A350 orders when he was at Delta, it is not what every customer is looking for in every purchase. In the US I see 737’s and A32X’s flying 500 nm or shorter routes far more often than I see them flying transcontinental or transoceanic routes. Is there some point beyond which additional range and the additional empty weight and purchase price that go with it, are not advantages for a customer shopping for aircraft that will spend much of their time flying shuttle flights between Los Angeles and San Francisco (338 sm), Seattle and San Francisco (678 sm), Houston and Dallas (248 sm), or Dallas and Austin (182 sm).
The quotes below are from the Skift article at the links after the quotes.
“The decision ultimately came down to “math,” as Pieper put it. While the A321neo offered slightly more seats and better performance on certain routes, the Max 9 was cheaper with a lower weight that offered operational savings on many of the airline’s routes.”
““The way that you get the best answer for your airline is, you find the airplane that matches the route network so that you’re using most of its range,” said Pieper. “It’s like having a Ferrari in a 30 mile-an-hour speed limit — it looks awesome but you’re never going to get to use the power and all of the other components of that car.”
“Alaska hired Pieper to, among other things, figure out its fleet puzzle. He joined the airline in August 2019 after a career at Delta Air Lines where he was the driving force behind the carrier’s landmark widebody jet order for Airbus A330neos and A350s in 2014. The planes are now the backbone of Delta’s widebody fleet since it opted to retire its Boeing 777s early amid Covid-related cuts.”
I agree that this type of range increase can be customer-specific. Still, every time that Airbus extends the range of one of its single aisle models, it attracts whole batches of new orders.
Remember that increased range doesn’t just mean “transatlantic”: it can also mean longer distances on thin routes within Asia, Africa and South America.
The interesting thing about the A220 range increases so fare is that they have occurred without changes to the aircraft. The first ones were simply an acknowledgment that the aircraft was more efficient than marketed. Then there has been at least one, perhaps two increases in MTO weight by certifying the aircraft to take advantage of the conservative margins originally build in. Finally P&W has some mid-life PIPs in the works for the engines. Those may add another 1-2%. None of these changes make the aircraft less efficient on shorter range missions.
The increase Neeleman wants is reportedly to be achieved by putting a fuel tank in one of the baggage holds similar to what was done for the A320XL. I believe the plan is that after a certain serial number plumbing will be in place on all aircraft allowing the future installation as a retro-fit. While this will add weight to those aircraft fitted with them again it will not substantially impact the type as whole.
As I recall reading, P&W felt that the GTF would increase efficiency 1% per year and it would wind up with 5%.
Of course that is an average, the PIPs usually get a 1-2%
They may be a bit conservative as they fully admitted that as it was new, they were still understanding the engine and what could be improved (going conservative to start is always a good move)
While the core and gear box did well they certainly has issues with seals and then some harmonic issues with certain throttle settings.
Overall its been impressive for an all new type of engine (of that size) as well as an all new engine from anyone.
The real issues were how the AHJ were allowing issue engines on aircraft when India put a stop to that to their credit.
“”it is not what every customer is looking for in every purchase””
Pieper, another bean counter!!!
How about thinking and caring about passenger safety???
“Alaska hired Pieper to, among other things, figure out its fleet puzzle ….”
According to Ray Conner, the former CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Boeing provided a $400 million loan, secured by Alaska’s commitments to purchase the 737 MAX.
How much room can Pieper maneuver? Can Alaska afford to repay $400 million tomorrow??
It depends on if you only fly your narrowbody city-jumping between large runways during daytime or if you schedule longer range flying especially overnight. Neeleman might look at flying South America non-stop to US airports not being served non-stop from countries like Brazil. Hence mix daytime flying in the US and long range over night flights if the A220 can take the brutal utilization or Airbus need to put some A321XLR’s as emergency spares.
I suspect Airbus will try to optimise the A321: splitting it into the Ar21XLR (and successors) versus a more conventional A321neo (or A322) derivative optimised for lightness and shorter flights. This could work for them given that they have the A220 handling the smaller end of the market.
There is a new (folding) wing in the making:
seems to have progressed beyond “press floaters”.
Depends on the airline size and strategy.
For example Pacific Western used its 737s on 30 minute shuttle flights then in night and weekends to their range limit chartering into Mexico. But that was a fleet of only a few dozen aircraft.
Today the extra weight of a longer range airplane may be more costly with fuel prices, though they have come down.
The A220-300 is nothing like the aircraft RyanAir flies. O’Leary packs 200 seats in a Max8 so the Max10s will probably have 220 or more. The exit limit is 230. An A220 can’t seat more than 160 in any configuration.
Who said anything about the A220 being a buy for Ryanair?
That having been said, it would actually be a potentially attractive aircraft for Ryanair’s thinner routes.
The entire article is about what RyanAir buys.
The comments diverge into branching subjects…in this case prompted by claes’ comment that he’d prefer flying in an A220…
Well, sounds like he’d be in the market for A321XLRs…
He would have to pay regular prices for them and he does not do that.
On top of that Airbus has a monopoly in the A321 size (no matter what Boeing can pack in) and they have no reason to bargain.
And Airbus will not deal with him.
They did initially but they switched to Boeing in the last minute on its first new aircraft order back then. Boeing selling cheap aircrafts to Ryanair did upset the rest of EU carriers that now flies Airbus A320 family aircrafts. Boeing sells the -8 in EU mainly to charter companies, Norwegian, Buzz, Lot, Icelandair, Smartwings and Turkey so far.
I find the A-220 a great aircraft in all measures.
Low fuel burn, low noise footprint, and very comfortable for passengers.
This aircraft gives the versatility that Airlines love.
They can comfortable fly JFK to BOS, or MIA to ANC.
The A220 is a very good aircraft.
But it also is limited in pax vs a 737 or an A320.
Its a very complex situation as to what works for who.
I hope for nothing but the best and success for the A220. Airbus has a great offering there in a new aircraft in the category.
Ryanair’s major competitor-LCCs in Europe (Easyjet, WizzAir) have all-Airbus fleets. They already have A321neos, with the potential to partially upgrade orders to the A321LR/XLR — thus opening the potential for longhaul operations.
Airbus has also announced development of a new, composite wing for the A320 family — potentially seeing its first deployment on an A322.
So Michael O’Leary is coming very late to the “large single aisle” party, and he’s getting a relatively lame duck compared to what his competitors have at their disposal.
Or the 737 suits Ryaniar to a T because the does not want to get into the long haul arena.
He may not be personable, but he has been successful, argue with that all day long and he is still the king of the hill in Europe.
O’Leary knows how his bread is buttered. The MAX10 will give him the best CASM especially considering capital costs. He would have no plans for LCLH, it’s not their core competency and honestly has proven to be a money pit for all who have tried. Wiz Air is also unlikely to do this, it’s again not core competency. He’s likely to have a significant advantage due to the pricing pressure on Boeing and it’s impact on capital costs for his fleet, if I were his competitors this would concern me a lot more than his planes range.
O’Leary – what a class act.
O’Leary (like most high IQ people) would be pretty funny if you got a chance to have dinner with him or be at the pub. He’s a bit of a comedian and knows how to say what most people have thought but felt the need to filter.
Another way to put this is if Boeing did not shoot itself in the foot (well feet now) O’Leary count not take advantage of them!
While I don’t think I would want to go to a Pub with him, I admire his ability to look at long term (and maybe Boeing specifically ) realize that Boeing would get in trouble and wait till they were to drive his deals.
It seems to me that South West and Alaska have been watching and did that on the latest orders.
It couldn’t happen to a nicer chap…
I thought the “blow jobs for business class travelers..” bit was just hilarious!
But we’re all one flip comment away from being canceled /
unpersoned, these days..
Airbus looks to upgrade the A320 aircraft family with new wing.
Airbus is now seeking to repeat the decade-old, fuel efficiency success with a new set of wings.
Thanks for that link. Looks like AB won’t be sitting still while
mcBoeing someday, someday, eventually “leapfrogs” them.
Who coulda knowed.
And I bet those wings will have been designed with an eye to mating them with a new fuselage. So once the A322 is out with the new wings the next project is a new fuselage. Incrementally ratcheting the A32x series up to an all new aircraft without ever building an all new aircraft.
“…up to an all new aircraft without ever building an all new aircraft.”
You mean like A350XWB?
And people gripe at Boeing for advancing the 737 over the years? And the 777X?
Ive been saying that for some time now , once Airbus got the Cseries into its portfolio there was a whole carbon fibre wing design that fell into its hands. The production is now with Spirit but they are a supplier who would be more than happen to duplicate the process for a tailored design for A320 series using existing tooling and automated machinery along with the autoclaves.
Yes Airbus could design and create the production process from scratch, at great cost and time to market- as Bombardier found out- but adapting an existing wing which is ‘about’ the right size- more wing area and tailored lift distribution- and span is the way to go.
It might be more than wings that are being redesigned to suit robotic build, hence most parts might get tweeked to suit a new FAL. Only wings might be visually different from the outside but there might be massive amount of changes coming under the skin certified under a revised Type Certificate.
Airbus knows Boeing will press the button on a A321 robotic built competitor once the 3 stars (volume, revenue and cost) lines up.
> ..Boeing will press the button on a A321 robotic built competitor once the 3 stars (volume, revenue and cost) lines up. <
Is there any evidence for this? Didn't BA quit the fuselage
robots on the 777-X?
Don’t think Alan&co did design the 777 for robots, it started as a bigger 767 and grew from there. Thanks to Tim at Emirates it grew into a new machine that killed both the 747 and A380 and forced Airbus to redo the A350-1000. It is a different story to robotize something designed in 2D early 3D AutoCAD or similar vs. what is avaible now that does parametric design, feed multiphysics analysis packages with system simulation tools to “fly the aircraft with 4D analysis in the computer” and work with manufacturing and quality control pretty seamless globally. Think Lockheed Martin and Northrop are there as well. As with a very powerful car it can do fantastic speed towards the finish line but a small misstake can very fast ruin everything as well (Lex Ruf Yellowbird). Skilled engineers are still needed and experienced managers not letting speed overtake the organisations capabilities.
You can’t just adapt a wing that is for a smaller aircraft.
The tech, method of build and assembly process yes.
The two center sections have nothign in common and the forces and weights involved on two totally different aircrat preclude that.
Equally meshing BBD engineering (and people if they are still there) into an Airbus design group is not easy.
And Airbus has its own design experience with the A350 wing.
The A220 tech may be the way to go but none of it is a given. You have to do the calculations and scaling and determine what is going to work for a larger aircraft.
> Skilled engineers are still needed and experienced managers not letting speed overtake the organisations capabilities <
Indeed, and that does not sound to me like present-day, financialized Boeing, at all.
All these Single Aisle Planes coming online to the mostly North Atlantic Market looks to really increase traffic or start a historic price war. The majors – Dal, AA, United, BA, AF, etc. – they will not be standing pat. This trend could put a number of relativity young planes in an early retirement.
Re: ““We hope to take delivery of the first [737-8200] aircraft in May of this year, although we are losing confidence in Boeing’s ability to deliver within that latest deadline,” O’Leary said.”
I can’t blame Mr O’Leary for being skeptical; however, the website at the link below shows 4 737-8200 “Ready for Delivery” to Ryanair, 9 in pre-flight prep, 2 in production testing, and 19 in short term storage at Moses Lake. Within the last week, 3 MAX’s were delivered to Southwest and 2 to Icelandair that were on this site’s ready for delivery list. Unless there is some hold up with EASA approvals, I strongly suspect that Ryanair will have some MAX 200’s by the end of May.
According to the website at the link below, the following MAX 200’s are “ready for delivery” to Ryanair.
Those 737-8200s have been “ready for delivery” for well over a month — since before the recent debacle with the electrical grounding problems. In the meantime, the FAA has announced an audit of manufacturing practices at Boeing, and Congress has also asked for documentation pertaining to this subject. So it’s possible that (issues pertaining to) these developments are causing a further hold-up of these aircraft. In this regard, O’Leary was bitching last week that he had sent a letter to management in Seattle and hadn’t received any reply (after 10 days)…so it seems that he’s being kept on a line for some reason.
While there may be specific inspections on the -8200, the whole program is in production and aircraft are being delivered.
So its not anything to do with the general FAA audit process and congress is not even in the picture yet.
How do you know?
Maybe BA took a shortcut with the extra emergency exit on the -8200 and they now have (or fear having) tbe FAA breathing down their necks. Maybe they’re trying to do damage control before Congress gets involved. Who can say?
I think TW is saying “don’t assume the worst as a default position”, though maybe he’ll correct me on that. I’d agree, except for there being so many
telltale not-good signs from that company.
Ditto, Bryce like to wildly speculate, that is exactly what I am saying, all we know is that deliverers are going ahead on other MAX.
Ergo, for right now its a -8200 specif aspect that only Boeing and Ryanair knows.
Theoretically for all the balderdash for Ryanair , they can’t train pilots for the max or slot the -82000.
Maybe he has spotted a Meteor inbound and life on the planet ends and he wants to go out with a bigger profit.
Maybe its space aliens or maybe……………………
Who’s assuming the worst?
I merely presented a possibility. Has anyone got a “better” possible explanation as to why BA is keeping O’L waiting, despity the fact that the first batch of planes is “ready to deliver”?
And you do not know either though you certainly think so.
Try using a mirror.
Quite often it is the paperwork for a unique version that holds up deliveries. Sometimes a unique version is forgotten in the myriad of manuals that are released and some have to be revised and approved including the 737-8200?
Maybe Ryanair charged Boeing a carry on bag fee for the Boeing test pilot’s flight bag and for toilet paper and hand soap used by the Boeing test crew on EI-HEN’s 5-23-21 customer acceptance flight, and Boeing is refusing to pay.
See below for date of last customer acceptance flight and delivery flight date for recently delivered MAX’s according to the website at the link below.
Airline / Reg #/ Last CA Flight Date / Delivery Flight Date
Southwest / N8814K / 4-13- 21 / 5-19 -21
Southwest / N8812Q / 4-15-21 / 5-20-21
Southwest / N8813Q / 5-5-21 / 5-24-21
Icelandair / TF-ICC / 5-12-21 5-24-21
Icelandair / TF-ICP / 5-13-21 /5-24-21
Fiji Airways / DQ-FAE / 4-30-21 / 5-25-21
Flair Airlines / C-FLEJ /5-20-21 / 5-26-21
Dates of last customer acceptance flight for 737-8200’s listed as “ready for delivery” by the website at the link below. Comparing these with the above list, May deliveries seem possible if there are not regulatory problems or problems with the final delivery payment having been received or agreed upon.
EI-HAT / 4-10-21
EI-HGG / 4-13-21
EI-HEZ / 5-20-21
EI-HEN / 5-23-21
It takes time to fix the latest electrical issues, two to three days for each jet. Awhile ago, FAA has taken back the authority of issuing AW cert. for new 737 MAX.
“While there may be specific inspections on the -8200, the whole program is in production and aircraft are being delivered.”
Which customer has taken delivery of 737 MAX 8-200??
His posts tend to be convoluted, to say the least.
I think he meant to convey that deliveries have resumed for the rest of the MAX-8 program, apart from the -8200.
Although — in view of the references to meteors, aliens and the -82000 (another new derivative?) — other interpretations are wide open.
Only one customer ordered the -8200.
And be carefully, the meteor could get you.
Not all deliveries issues are the end of the world for MAX
Re in my post above: “Unless there is some hold up with EASA approvals, I strongly suspect that Ryanair will have some MAX 200’s by the end of May.”
According the excerpt from the 6-3-21 Reutuers article at the link after the excerpt, O’Leary’s suspicions that Ryanair would not receive any MAX 200’s in May turned out to be correct; however, the problem is not EASA approvals as I speculated, but rather FAA approvals. Apparently, after being certified by the FAA the MAX 200 is somehow not yet certified by the FAA?
“Wilson, speaking to Reuters in an interview, said the delay was related to the certification of the MAX200 model, which has an extra door to allow more passengers than the standard model, and appeared to hinge on the relationship between Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration.
“The release of that aircraft … has to do with a fairly straightforward issue. And it’s how the interface between Boeing and the FAA is going to work in matters like that and they have to iron that out once and for all,” Wilson said.
Ryanair isn’t the only Boeing customer to be bitching in the press about deliveries: Emirates has also taken another swipe at Boeing in the past few days:
“Emirates president Sir Tim Clark has warned US plane manufacturer Boeing that the Dubai-based carrier will not accept any of the ordered 777X aeroplanes unless they are at 100 percent of what was agreed.
He added: “We should’ve had the first one delivered in June of last year. It looks as though they’ve said the back end of 2023, but we always read that as 2024. I’ve been with the business too long, when I hear manufacturers say something like that, they can’t give you a figure, they can’t give you a date for a tail number, then you know you’re shifting to the right, very often up to 18 months.”
Clark said: “We have a load of 777-300 ERs that are retiring. We had 171 of them, we’ve only for 146 now because we’ve been letting them go and eventually the 777-9 was going to replace those ERs, but we don’t have any visibility on that for the next three years.” ”
Clark should actually shut the hell up. If Boeing brought the planes today will he be able to take it? It’s delayed yes, boo Boeing. But please he should give it a rest. Will he even be here to receive it?
Dunno. Emirates will eventually run out of 777-300ERs to fly, so at some point they really are going to want those 777-9’s.
The unquantified delays are problematic. It’s hard to do fleet planning at the best of times, but when a manufacturer is wavering by several years, and looks like continuing to do so for the foreseeable future, it’s a real challenge.
The MAX scandal has exposed a lot of problems in how Boeing does engineering, and I doubt we’ve seen the last of certification problems yet. All it takes is one small oversight to be identified, and there could be major ramifications.
Thank you, TC is a windbag. His foolishness on the A380 made that abundantly clear. Now he has a split A380 fleet engine wise and a detriment to Emirates. Dumb, dumb , dumb.
Worse he spewed absolute lies about how wondrous the new and improved Trent 900 would be. No TC, the Sun does not revolve around the earth.
Boeing can’t tell him a delivery as the program has been put under deeper scrutiny. So yes they are telling him what they know.
So yes, Boeing has created its own issue.
TC knows Boeing issues and chose to deal with them.
So, if he does not like it, cancel the order and shut up.
The customer is always right? Not according to BCA.
I suspect that the attitude in Chicago may be along the lines of “you should consider it a privilege that we provide you with our products”.
Nobody is buying that nowadays.
[Deleted as violation of Reader Comment rules.]
Knowing Airbus with their surprise last-minute announcement of hidden performance margins of their planes etc, those wings are probably near ready to be 3D printed! We could also assume that the XLR will also have “surprise” built-in margins and likely will be able to fly further or carry more payload once the aircraft is tested.
Airbus has been working on the “wing of tomorrow” for years.
I want to see that thar 3D printed wing.
Scott, if Airbus do actually do this, do you think that Airbus might simply slot it into the production run of the current order book (which is years long), or do you think it’ll be for new orders? The Bloomberg article suggests, “Airbus’ wing project will be wrapped up in 2023”, which is a bit vague. But if that means “in-flight demo”, a “product launch” surely wouldn’t be so far behind, and there may still be years of A320neo backlog left to fulfil.
Getting neo’s with a CF wing instead of the expected aluminium one would be a prospect that customers would salivate over, if it were at all realistic. If Airbus get the manufacturing right, it could even save them money too.
Your provided scenario seems not unlikely to me.
Aren’t we getting a bit ahead of certification and testing? A wing of tomorrow will likely not go on any current production aircraft
Yes I guess so, but I think it interesting to look at the possible timing of all that versus the length of the current backlog. It might take 5, 6 years to get a A322necfo off the ground, but there’s about 10 years of backlog.
The suggestion is that the wing is for an A322, which might also have a new engine (an enecfo) . Fine, but that’s probably a stretch of an existing production aircraft. How tempting would it be to do a shrink of that and call it an A320necfo? Very tempting I should think.
If at that point there’s still a lot of neo’s to deliver, it might not make sense to run two production lines for two aircraft of essentially the same sort.
Not bringing forward a necfo design across the extant order backlog would also be inviting green criticism. Here in Europe that kind of criticism can have real political teeth these days. So any realistic opportunities to be seen to be “doing more”, even if that is big freebies for existing customers, is becoming more essential.
Airbus is converting the A380 production line to A320 production.
By 2024 production can be over 600 a year.
@Pedro, yes I know, but there’s an order book that is about 5700 aircraft long today. They could still have 5 to 7 year’s production by the time that extra line comes online, assuming that they don’t get any more orders in the meantime.
O’Leary (like most high IQ people) would be pretty funny if you got a chance to have dinner with him or be at the pub. He’s a bit of a comedian and knows how to say what most people have thought but felt the need to filter.
The MAX 8-200 sounds like a horror show, so the MAX 10-250 seems like commercial suicide. This makes me wonder if Ryanair is going to go 2 class.
No, I think Ryanair stick with no class (grin) .
You do know its the largest airline in Europe ( 50 mill pre covid) , how did it achieve such massive sustainable growth ?
I have flown Ryanair many times,they know what they are doing, it’s grim but cheap. My theory is that the MAX 8-200 is going to be so grim (especially for tall people) that it will persuade a proportion of Ryanairs passengers to pay a bit extra.Ryanair was modelled on Southwest, it’s interesting that they take such a different approach to seat pitch.Ryanair is the default choice for people looking for a cheap flight (and that’s most people), however it’s not actually always the cheapest or cheapest by very much, so the MAX 8 – 200 is going to encourage a few more minutes searching which could be bad news for MOL.
Ryanair’s advantage isn’t just price — it’s also proximity/choice.
Ryanair have 3 large hubs and 4 small ones within a 90 minute drive of where I live — including a large hub at my local airport. The legacy carriers are all concentrated at a smaller number of larger airports. And the other big LCCs (Easyjey/WizzAir) also have far fewer hubs near me.
I agree with your point regarding seat pitch. The current RYR 737-800s have 30″ pitch according to SeatGuru: this is relatively comfortable in a plane with slimline seats, but is very uncomfortable in a plane with more conventional seats. When pitch is reduced to 28″, even slimline seats aren’t going to provide much comfort. Once people have had a sufficiently horrid experience on their 4-hour flight to the Canaries, they’ll start paying more attention to the legroom offered by different airlines.
Re: “Ryanair have 3 large hubs and 4 small ones within a 90 minute drive of where I live — including a large hub at my local airport.”
Are these really all what are called “hubs” in the US, or just airports with a lot of Ryanair flights? The later would not be called hubs in the US.
For instance, within 100 miles of downtown Los Angeles Southwest serves the Los Angeles, Orange County, Hollywood-Burbank and Ontario airports. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 300 to 400 miles north from LA, Southwest serves the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose airports. Southwest has many many non-stop flights from all their LA area airports to all their SF area airports, as often as one per hour during the busy times of the day; however, no one calls these hubs. The flights from these airports are to popular destinations from these cities, not to a small number of “hubs” from which you can fly almost anywhere in the US or World. With the exception of United Airlines, the US Big 3 do not try very hard to compete with Southwest’s LA to SF shuttle flights, but rather mainly fly to their hubs from the smaller LA and SF area airports.
Southwest’s “point to point” system worked well for me when I lived about 90 miles from LA and often visited family near SF. Southwest had frequent flights from Ontario airport, only about 24 miles from where I lived, to the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose airports in the SF area.
For the last 10 years, during which I have been living in smaller cities, and now have family in similarly small cities across the US several hundred miles away the type of larger cites and metro areas that Southwest saturates with frequent non-stop flights to popular destinations, I have been much better served by the US big 3 and have rarely set foot on Southwest, which was the airline I mostly flew when living near LA.
For instance, I currently live near Idaho Falls, ID (population about 60,000) when not traveling for my temporary medical clinic coverage work. In Idaho Falls you have to drive 220 miles to Salt Lake City or 260 miles to Boise if you want to fly Southwest.
If you instead you want to fly Delta, you can drive across Idaho Falls to the Idaho Falls Airport, or 50 miles to the Pocatello, or 90 miles to Jackson Hole. Once you board a Delta Regional Jet at one of these airports, you can go non-stop to anywhere you want to go, as long as it is Delta’s hub in Salt Lake City; however, when you get to Salt Lake City you could, pre-pandemic, connect to a non-stop flight to dozens of destinations across the US, including many that are way too small to fit into Southwest’s business model, and non-stop to a number of international destinations, including London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Mexico City. Potato farm to Paris with one connection! This is what is called a “hub” in the US.
The Southwest system works well if you live 90 miles from LA and would rather fly from an airport only 20 miles away, rather than from LAX 90 miles away, to a popular destination.The US Big 3 system works better if you want to fly from a rural city of 50,000, far away from any big city, to either London, or Paris, or another rural city of 50,000 somewhere in the US. Probably much to the surprise of many inhabitants of large US coastal cites, I can report that there are many people in the US who do not live near large cities.
Hello Bryce and Grubbie,
Re: “The current RYR 737-800s have 30″ pitch according to SeatGuru: this is relatively comfortable in a plane with slimline seats, but is very uncomfortable in a plane with more conventional seats. When pitch is reduced to 28″, even slimline seats aren’t going to provide much comfort.”
By contrast, Southwest seat pitches for their single class are 31 to 33 inches, and they have spaced seats further apart on their newer aircraft. Seat pitches were 31 inches on their 737-700’s but were changed to 32 to 33 inches on their newer 737-800’s and 737-8s. See the link below.
In contrast to most airlines claiming to be inspired by Southwest, Southwest passengers often get MORE legroom than if they were flying economy on a legacy carrier, and have FEWER fees than on legacy carriers. Southwest passengers still are not charged for their first 2 checked bags. I suspect that for many passengers, these perks are more important than whether their seat is 17.5 inches or 18 inches wide.
I’m using the word “hub” in generic reference to a wheel structure in which many central spokes converge at a central structure. By analogy, at a Ryanair “hub”, one can fly to a substantial number of different destinations (e.g. 30+).
The antithesis of a hub is a terminal point, from which a carrier only offers flights to a single destination. An example for Ryanair is Amsterdam, from which one can only fly to Dublin (because of non-availability of further slots).
For Southwest’s one class cabin, the co.believes 175 pass. would be the optimal number for “cost purposes” in B737-800 and B737 MAX 8.
Like many comments, the pundits think of it in one off answers when in fact its a complex system.
So, model after South West to them reads, cheap.
But South West is point to point (which most model as well but as you noted, its left out)
After than, gouging people (who seem happy to get gouged) is not a South West part of the model as well as the seat pitch you note.
Ryanair also flipped their 737s (at least a one point) when the warranty was up. South West to the best of my knowledge never did that.
That is something Airbus would look at as a serious negative as they then can’t sell a new aircraft to someone buying a flipped one.
Boeing decided to live with it.
Its a more complex world than just pat answers
Authorities in Minsk have released an alleged transcript of the ATC conversation preceding the diversion of the Ryanair flight from Athens to Vilnius…
And why would we care about lies from a Dictator?
Yep, headlines, spread the lies and help the dictator.
Those who are not suffering from amnesia would certainly remember this:
Bolivian president’s plane forced to land in Austria in hunt for Snowden
“Snowden probably did not use a ticket he had to Havana on June 24, the analyst said, because his minders told him the United States would force the Aeroflot flight down when it flew over U.S. territory.”
The Guardian: Letters to the Editor
‘ US and European leaders have rightly condemned Belarus for forcing a Ryanair flight carrying an opposition activist to land in Minsk (Report, 23 May). Would these be the same European governments that, in 2013, forced a plane carrying the Bolivian president to divert and land in Austria because of suspicions that the whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board? The US didn’t condemn that, claiming it was “a matter for European authorities”.’
As Anger Toward Belarus Mounts, Recall the 2013 Forced Landing of Bolivia’s Plane to Find Snowden
SimpleFlying has an article on where the Ryanair MAX10s may be going:
“Ryanair’s Lauda Will Switch To All Boeing 737 Fleet”
“However, O’Leary seems to have fallen back on Boeing as aeroTELEGRAPH reports that the airline will phase out its Airbus aircraft over the next three to four years. In place of the Airbus fleet will be a brand-new fleet of 737 MAX 10s. Ryanair is reportedly in talks for 100 new 737 MAX 10s, and it looks like they will be going to Lauda.”
“Good news: Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection-
People who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last lifetime”:
That is good news. But I worry it is only a matter of time before there is another incident at the Wuhan lab.
Depends where Faucci outsources the banned in USA ‘gain of function’ research to next.
Well the CAN LAST A LIFETIME means they don’t know.
And I have yet to see a method to ensure you get mild vs in the hospital on a ventilator (or the various possibles in between)
and the human body is not all about anti bodies though they are a very important part of an infection fight.
Behind that are the long term memory (forget which cells) that know when to crank out defenses again if it sees it again.
A lot of unknowns as to the Vaccines being more broad spectrum and (possibly not a given) that they have your immune system tuned to variants (which will occur)
Its going to be years before we see how it all falls out.
Sadly, in many places, severe is more common now due to the variants that have taken place of the original strain.
@TW and the rest of you
To have an informed and informative discussion of the virus you have to take to another forum
Snapchats as above are designed for children, do nothing but attempt to score
Besides – Mr Hamilton has rules to not discussing covid unless exceptionally he raises the issue
Unlike seat configurations or composites the bug is designed to elude any competent knowledge or useful description by humans – it is always a step ahead
Uncle Sam is coming to try to steer Boeing out of its mire:
“First Biden budget to accelerate push toward Boeing 737 replacement”
“State aid”, anyone?
Bryce seems to be ignorant of the fact that NASA was at one time on the leading edge of Aeronautical reserved (before it got hi jacked to space)
NASA: National AERONAUTICAL and Space Administration ! (note space is second?)
And unless something has changed that research is available to anyone in the world.
While not focused on the military, NASA was a major factor in airfoil research as well as compressed air system for piston engines before jet engine and turbo props.
Well past time NASA was returned to its roots and the Space Administration is spun off into its own La La land (they have been singularly unsuccessful since Apollo)
You might also want to look at the EU so called Clean Sky’s that is the money being Airbus and hydrogen (which Airbus would never tackle on their own).
There are many agencies and entities involved in research directed to keeping the US in the tech game including extensive University. The RNA process that lead to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines came out of the US system.
Unlike China who owns COMAC and directs it, the US is not going to TELL Boeing what to do.
The “N” in NASA stands for “National”…not “International”.
[Deleted as violation of Reader Comment rules.]
“T” stands for “tantrum” 😉
Your antics are getting more and more like those of a “certain commenter” from the past. Going on convoluted verbal rampages against other commenters only serves to highlight your own lack of any meaningful contribution.
Perhaps you should stop lecturing to other commenters about what you think they don’t know and instead invest that effort in increasing your own knowledge base.
As regards the NASA article: if you’re upset about it, why not vent your frustration on TheAirCurrent.com and see how they react?
“… US is not going to TELL Boeing what to do.”
Wait, the Boeing 2707 was developed as a result of a government-funded contract to build an American supersonic airliner which was a panic reaction of the announcement of the joint effort on SST by BAC and Sud Aviation. FAA estimated the US would lose 50,000 jobs, $4 billion in income and $3 billion in capital as domestic carriers turned to “foreign” suppliers!!
The current admin. dangles $50 billion plus incentives to promote building domestic chip plants and research.
Free market?? What’s “free” market?
NASA generally makes an effort to publish publicly funded research, so it is available to the international community:
which isn’t different from other research institutes, universities.
Primary difference is that they stamp all and everything with NASA. Add that the US has a knack for “homesteading” inventions from abroad.
Minimal renaming and selling as their own.
( IN some domains really a boon: NASA seems to hold all copyright on mission data and is good at publishing those. hamstrung EASA is not so fortunate. Add that they are a bit hamfisted in the publishing domain.)
NASA has a huge patent portfolio, so not all its research is freely available for use by others. Just because something is published doesn’t mean that it’s not patented.
Any US entity that patents inventions arising from research funded by Uncle Sam is obliged to license that technology back to Uncle Sam, who moreover has the right to sub-license it (e.g. to Boeing). There’s no obligation to license the technology to others.
Very interesting — we already had this for cars, but now it’s coming for planes:
“EASA completes first CO2 Emissions Certification for Airbus A330-900”
“COLOGNE, May 26, 2021 – The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has for the first time certified an aircraft for CO2 emissions, applying a new process and methodology and so progressing towards its vision for an ever safer and greener civil aviation.
The new certification process provides an assessment of an aircraft’s fuel efficiency and therefore of the CO2 it emits while in operation. In precise terms, the fuel efficiency in cruise flight is certified, which is influenced by the engines, but also by the aircraft’s aerodynamic characteristics and weight. This certification is a key milestone on EASA’s roadmap to establish, by 2022, an environmental label for aviation. Amongst other values the label will use CO2 emissions data to provide a comprehensive assessment of the environmental performance of an aircraft.”
Are those the same EU regulation that the automakers use to cheat on and crated vastly more pollution?
I mean the day in day out cheating with the wink wink nod nod not the VW actions above and beyond that.
No, it’s the EU regulation that told BA to put a third AOA input into MCAS; in stark contrast to the half-ass FAA that was content with a two-input Bandaid 😏
When it comes to “day in, day out cheating”, the world now looks to the FAA as an eternalized example of corner-cutting 😒 Even the Chinese have higher standards than that.
[Deleted as violation of Reader Comment rules.]
TW, ratchet your comments back to conform to Reader Comment rules. You are heading for another suspension.
Wow. What an intelligent response!!
You don’t like the president? Tell him to move.
I have not seen TW’s supposedly offensive remarks because you censored them.
However I do point to the ongoing behaviour of Bryce and Gerard with smear tactics. Including that anyone who points to facts is in someone’s pay.
(I do not say that TW is always logical, he seems to have his nights on occasion, but I do not recall him trying to smear people as Bryce and Gerrard and fellow travellers do.)
Shell ordered to deepen carbon cuts in landmark climate case
Those who can’t think clearly would jump in as their reflex reaction. 🙂
Well, seeing as Mr. Biden recently announced very ambitious plans to cut CO2 emissions by the USA, one might have expected a warm reaction to news of EASA’s aircraft Emissions Certification — though one should never underestimate the ability of commenters from “red states” to go on a rant regarding anything that can even vaguely be labeled as “progressive”.
If more aircraft types get an EASA certification of this type, it will be interesting to see the results — both in terms of comparison of aircraft types mutually and in terms of comparison to other modes of transport.
Looking back the US is mostly planning for others what they will have to do.
Jovi gets an exemption as usual or they produce some hilarious cop out why US CO2 is different than Chinese CO2 🙂
i.e. I find it a bit rich to demand leadership in a domain where up to now not even a teeny weeny bit of “leading by action” could be seen.
Agreed regarding the US cop-out.
Both in terms of CO2 emission per capita and cumulative CO2 emission to date, the US is a much bigger polluter than China.
And Mr. Biden’s new goals are generally considered to be wildly over-optimistic.
Still, at least he’s put the subject on the US agenda.
Coming back to the CO2 emission from aircraft, apart from its engineering interest it might be useful data in countering attacks from the “Greta camp”. We already know that modern airliners only burn about 2.7L of fuel per passenger per 100km — which is stunningly more efficient than the average petrol-driven family car when carrying only one or two occupants. It would be interesting now to have the CO2 emissions figures also.
You’d have to compare to other mass transit.
Long distance coach, best of breed :
20l/100km for ~65 passengers. 🙂
( quite a bit better than the “Green GOD standard” rail transport too.)
Yes, buses/coaches are king where that’s concerned.
However, since most people get around by (single-occupancy) car, it’s still valid for an individual/couple to be able to show that going to a resort by plane is more environmentally friendly than going by car.
“The new requirement, adopted in 2017, has been developed by the UN’s ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) and is now being cascaded to certifying airworthiness authorities worldwide. Moreover, it complements existing aircraft noise and engine emissions standards and will be applicable both to New Type-Certified aircraft and to In-Production aircraft. *By January 2028 all aircraft being produced will need to comply with the ICAO CO2 standard.*”
AYUP, climate catastrophists are a huge threat to aviation, which is high profile and assumed to be elitist thus appeals to the neo-Marxist mentality behind such catastrophism.
Never mind that accurate temperatures sensors such as weather balloons and satellites, and government tide gages collated at PSMSL.org, show only continued slow warming since the end of a cool era circa 1750AD.
Never mind that the basic physics of ‘greenhouse gases’ limits the effect Co2 can have on climate temperature to a small amount most of which has already been realized.
Even the IPCC agrees the ‘saturation effect from overlap of spectra of carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide vapor, but theorizes a positive feedback cycle – never mind that climate was warmer in the MWP when Vikings farmed southwest Greenland yet climate was stable.
There’s an apocalyptic mentality that wants to tear civilization down.
According to the excerpt below from the Reuters article at the link after the excerpt, lessor SMBC has purchased 14 MAX white tails. Note that delivery is to start “later this year”. No better place to shop than than Boeing’s airplane parking lots if one has an immediate need for new or almost new narrowbody aircraft?
“Aircraft leasing business SMBC Aviation Capital has agreed to buy an additional 14 Boeing 737 MAX jets configured for low-cost carriers, with delivery starting later this year.
The company, a major Boeing (BA.N) customer, on Tuesday said the order is for jets that have already been built and will increase its MAX fleet to 121.”
Its more complex than that.
They had orders that they deferred or cancelled then picked up new orders
Overall they still want the aircraft long term, they just shuffled it around to get better prices.
I think your point is the MAX is a good machine, get the best prices you can with the current situation.
SMBC pulled an order of eight 737 MAX last month
That’s clever: pull (without penalty) previous orders that were closed at higher prices, and then replace them by bargains from the whitetail parking lot.
Next question: did the total order amount for the 14 whitetails correspond to the order amount for the 8 cancelled “regular” planes? 😉
Airbus has no new wings to be 3D printed.
They pursued a new, wide, full knowledge of new production methods for manufacturing complex CFRP pieces (with focus on wings) quickly and cheaply (compared to the old methods, obviously).
With robotic cells for fiber laydown, innovative tools for OOA production, research on thermoset and thermoplastic, laser focus on repeatability and integration.
And moreover, real world experience on production and assembly of CFRP wings on single aisle (acquired buying the C-series).
In 3-4 years Airbus will harvest what they sown starting from 2015.
One of the best samples of some of the new production methods:
Another incident of cutting off the nose to spite the face by trying to bankrupt BBD. Payback is a bitch.
3D printing is amazing but its not going to print a wing or anything close.
100 years from now, maybe. It can and does print discrete component that are then assembled with other systems.
Building an aircrat is going to continue to be a number of different systems that are an attempt to come up with the most efficient process.
Actually it’s been here for a while, when a robot lays down a stack of carbon, that’s 3D printing
No its not. It has to come out of a 3D printer, people have been laying down carbon (tires) forever.
To be picky, it is additive manufacturing not 3D printing.
All 3D printing is additive manufacturing, not all additive manufacturing is 3D printing.
Article on the robotic cell for fiber laydown:
Good point, its turned into shorthand reference.
Technically there is also UV or laser curing of a vat of liquid, and laser sintering of powder, albeit a layer at at a time AFAIK. (I think Canadian Forces have a laser sintering machine in the Maritimes as ship parts are often out of production (especially when you hang onto the ships for 40 years, though their steamer is gone – the Protecteur was driven by steam turbines).
Note that cutting of fibres could be by other methods, water cutting has advanced to where Viking Air sub-contractors use it for metal parts, perhaps useable for reinforcing fibres as well.
Another incident of cutting off the nose to spite the face by trying to bankrupt BBD. Payback is a bitch.
More Good News
“”Toulouse, 27 May 2021 – Airbus continues to expect the commercial aircraft market to recover to pre-COVID levels between 2023 and 2025, led by the single-aisle segment. The Company is therefore providing suppliers with an update of its production plans, giving visibility in order to schedule necessary investments and secure long term capacity and production rate readiness, in line with the expected recovery.
“The aviation sector is beginning to recover from the COVID-19 crisis”, said Guillaume Faury, Airbus CEO. “The message to our supplier community provides visibility to the entire industrial ecosystem to secure the necessary capabilities and be ready when market conditions call for it. In parallel, we are transforming our industrial system by optimising our aerostructures set-up and modernising our A320 Family production facilities. All these actions are set in motion to prepare our future.”
A320 Family: Airbus confirms an average A320 Family production rate of 45 aircraft per month in Q4 2021 and calls on suppliers to prepare for the future by securing a firm rate of 64 by Q2 2023. In anticipation of a continued recovering market, Airbus is also asking suppliers to enable a scenario of rate 70 by Q1 2024. Longer term, Airbus is investigating opportunities for rates as high as 75 by 2025.
A220 Family: Currently at around rate five aircraft per month from Mirabel and Mobile, the rate is confirmed to rise to around six in early 2022. Airbus is also envisaging a monthly production rate of 14 by the middle of the decade.
A350 Family: Currently at an average production rate of five per month, this is expected to increase to six by autumn 2022.
A330 Family: Production remains at an average monthly production rate of two per month.
Airbus is protecting its ability to further adapt as the market evolves.
In its latest monthly delivery update, Airbus reported that it delivered 45 jets in April while landing 48 new orders.
There it goes, AB gobbles up breakfast lunch and dinner of BA while the latter sleep-walks off the cliff.
Will be demoted from the primier league for awhile.
Always amusing the way stock traders bundle companies together in groups — because Airbus expects to do well, traders seem to think that Boeing will also:
“Boeing, General Electric Leap as Airbus Boosts Plane Production Targets”
“Boeing and General Electric shares jumped higher Thursday after the world’s biggest planemaker boosted its near-term production targets amid the ongoing post-pandemic recovery in global airline passenger traffic.
Airbus, which overtook Boeing’s lock on the global planemaking business last year, said it will produce 45 of its single-aisle A320neo aircraft by the end of the year, a 10% increase from current levels, with output rising to 64 each month by the middle of 2023.”
Wall Street as others are busy trying to sell the return to normal, so any indication that this might- just – happen is jumped on with greed and fear
Without any serious analysis of the advantages that AB enjoys over BA
A great amount is invested in an increasingly open and nationalistic hurrah of companies, champions and events, one un accompanied by any practical measures for industry (on shoring infrastructure) and devoid of any sense or realism in foreign policy
If anyone has been wondering when Airbus goes for the jugular, this may be it. By 2025 Airbus may be producing 90 single aisles per month covering off the sizes from below the Max7 to above the Max10. And at each size the Airbus models have:
* better range
* better field performance
* better passenger comfort
* more automated and lower work-load cockpits
* equivalent or better trip and seat costs
* higher sales cost and probably better margins
To compete across the entire range Boeing will need two families of new aircraft and to develop them needs cashflow. Originally the plan was to generate that cash from the 737Max. But given the above the may not be possible.
Just before the Max groundings Boeing was delivering about 48 737/month and Airbus was delivering 54 A32x&A220/month. For a total of 102/month between them.
If by 2025 Airbus is delivering 90 aircraft/month and say there are 1-2/month of the C319 then at least one of the following will be true:
1. 2025 deliveries are well above 2019 levels
2. Airbus falls well short of 90/month
3. Boing is left with very few deliveries
But it gets worse. To compete across the entire range Boeing will two families of new aircraft and to develop them needs cashflow. But airlines and lessors seem to see Boeing as a distressed seller and are negotiating very hard impacting Boeings ability to generate the needed revenue. I also expect Airbus will have better margins giving it resources to put into the development of its counter move to any Boeing move (Pip’d A220, A220-500 or an A322 or all of those) or drop prices if it wants to put more pressure on Boeing.
I surmised about the same from recent reporting, jbeeko:
AB looks to be in a very strong position. That along
with reportage of more regulatory woes for their competitor
does not bode well for the latter, IMO.
More Good News
The Dead Duck to fly maybe….
“The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, has been awarded a $101,730,845 modification (P00247) to contract FA8625-11-C-6600 for KC-46 engineering, manufacturing, and development contract. This modification provides for the exercise of Option Five for interim contractor support and the exercise of the options for logistics service representatives/field service representatives support for Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. Work will be performed in Seattle, Washington; and Seymour Johnson AFB, and is expected to be completed June 27, 2022. Fiscal 2021 aircraft procurement funds in the full amount are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, is the contracting activity.”
“….knows how to say what most people have thought but felt the need to filter.”
I like that, but sometimes people do not put brain in gear before mouth in motion – a certain outspoken politician lost an election last year in part because of that.
Not news, move on.
Such contracts are common, one reason is they give the customer some flexibility to get someone else to do work, and perhaps to do more themselves. (Such as have more tech experts of their own. Though previous supplier has an edge in bidding because they know the work.)
As an operator of commercial C-130s I was annoyed at USAF/Lockheed Georgia contracting practive of buying the total airplane in pieces, with testing and manuals and spares and improvements all add-ons.
I hope somewhat improved since, in this case it appears USAF are parsing the total program out (govtribe seems to show frequent extensions covering only immediate future, within a total program lasting many years). At least one item is simply exercising an option, one is funding redesign of boom mechanism which is interesting but I don’t have access to reasons, some appears to be for additional airplanes (IIRC not all of the intended ones were firmly ordered at the start ******).
(Lockheed would not improve reliability of systems like A/C and APU, because they wanted customer to fund improvements, USAF was depending on buckets of spare parts and a logistics system, and there were only two commercial operators capable of paying their bills regularly (us and IIRC Saturn). We at PW did design our own replacement of the APU with the unit from 727s, and licensed the design to another company. Decades later I noted several modifications that were available for the Herc, including APU, but I was too busy to learn the source of the designs.)
Not having access to the contract details …
Puget Sound Business Journals:
Boeing’s 737 Max chief systems engineer leaves jet maker
I wonder was he fired or did he resign?
One way or another, we can surmise either that he didn’t have a clue what he was doing or/and that his work was severely impeded by the system at BA.
Next question: will his replacement do any better?
More Bad News
BA on hold – no new plane once again as per the last twenty years, 787 blocked up, 737 still un re cert in the most important markets, the Dead Duck finally dead not quite buried…… but BA stock ticks up on Airbus production rate improvements?
This is a zombie
I continue to look on it as good news for the public, Boeing and the FAA.
First this has no affect on MAX, allowing it to fly in China is on hold as is India and some other markets. India may well be for massive issues with Covd and not a concern right now.
The FAA is finally doing their job, that is good for the public but its also good for Boeing.
No, you can’t just buzz this off.
Its good for Boeing as the process is being done right and that is the regulatory world Boeing should live in.
Don’t get me wrong, they should not screw things up. I worked with critial system and you always had a safety backup to the operating control. Large boilers had two totally different type low water safety (low water on a boiler is a cause fo them to blow up)
The FAA is the safety. I think it can be structured far better, but that is its role.
On, again all due credit to Opus, what is Boeing not doing ?
They are not screaming and hollering and threatening and making claims of, it back to normal next week. That is a change.
They are quietly complying, submitting and then resuming when the FAA gives its ok.
Anyone that has worked a problem with equipment knows that the mechanic supplies an answer. Sometimes its accepted, sometimes it is rejected. sometimes its question and more data is required.
When more data I would dig up the base sources or the books and, yes, this is not only allowed its normal.
The funniest one was, well you have to get the State to Agree. Ok, they could care less, these are factory delivered in that configuration but happy to do so. The state responded with, we don’t care. As long as you maintain an FM approved factory configuration you can do anything you want.
The manager had his reasons for the question that were out of context in that case. I had facts on my side and I got it done.
Now, the big questions are.
1. Is this an FAA change or is Dickson tyr9ng to keep his job in a new administration ?
2. Is Boeing just being good for now or are they changing? I won’t defend Boeing but it should be noted for facts sake (which too many ignore for the snap response that show ignorance) that those issues were from a while back (roughly a year).
Do we see new issues or is this still catching up of older ones?
Factually we do not know. As this moves forward we will see.
I worked with facts. Of course there is the Twit types that don’t care about facts, they just want some kind of smart ass response that is empty as Tofu.
And this puts it well
“Boeing still needs to show that its proposed inspection method would meet FAA’s federal safety regulations,” the regulator said in an email. Because the FAA hadn’t approved Boeing’s proposed system of compliance, the company chose to suspend shipments of the plane, the agency said.”
All good. Note that the FAA did not change anything on the MAX wiring issue fix, it just wanted to be sure it was valid and had the issues covered correctly.
How come good boy BA was allowed to deliver the 787 before the i’s dotted and t’s crossed??
Another slip in safety by both FAA and BA??
Back in March 2019, fact-based data-driven FAA defended not grounding the 737 MAX, saying ‘on [the day before it reversed its position] that it had seen “no systemic performance issues” that would prompt it to halt flights’. The rest, as they say, is history.
P.S. Our fact-based commentator spilled ink on why it’s “good news” before acknowledging near the very end “factually [he ?? doesn’t] know!! So the “fact-based” commentary is little different than speculation, or worse, spins!
A well-known “voice from the past” regularly talked about “opinion presented as fact”…remember? 😉
We’ve seen now repeatedly in the past few months that BA just “does its thing” until it gets slapped by the FAA, at which time it stops production for a few weeks/months while the storm blows over. Everything is reactive, there appears to be nothing proactive. There seems to be no self-checking. So, if the FAA misses something, it looks as if it will just slip through the net (again). Scary.
The context of the mess that BA has created for itself becomes clearer when one asks the question: “How often have Airbus or Embraer recently had to halt production due to quality concerns and/or heat from a regulator?” Everything BA does nowadays seems to be reactive…there’s little or no premptive behavior in evidence. At this rate, the dunce of the class is destined to retain that label indefinately: lauding the dunce because he’s such a cooperative dunce is not going to “un-dunce” him.
Grammar Coach says typos – wrong word in first sentence, wrong tense in last sentence.
Will there be a PIP or range extension for 737Max like there was for A220 which was just a paperwork exercise?
surely if it weren’t for the grounding there would have been a PIP now. Are Boeing not seeing that the planes are flying further than initially conservatively projected on a certain amount of fuel.