Pontifications: Two re-fleeting campaign give Airbus and Boeing each an edge

By Scott Hamilton

July 19, 2021, © Leeham News: There are two re-fleeting campaigns coming up that are significant and in which Airbus and Boeing each have the incumbent advantage.

The successor to Alitalia, Italia Trasporti Aereo (ITA), will restructure with a single aircraft provider. Airfinance Journal reported last week that ITA will begin operations with 52 aircraft: 45 single-aisle airplanes and seven twin-aisle aircraft, drawn from the Alitalia fleet. Another 26 aircraft will be added in 2022.

Airbus is the dominant incumbent aircraft provider. There are 12 Boeing 777 Classics that were with Alitalia.

This competition should be Airbus’s to lose.

KLM-Air France

KLM-Air France will run a competition for the KLM side of the group, including its Transavia European carrier. KLM and Transavia are Boeing 737 operators. The contestants will be the MAX against the A321neo. This should be Boeing’s to lose. (Air France favors Airbus for its single-aisle fleet.) KLM had more than 50 737s in its fleet last month. Transavia had 50 in its fleet at the end of last year. But the talks with Airbus and Boeing are for 160 jets, most likely reflecting the pre-pandemic replacement requirements.

Delta Air Lines is known to be interested in more single-aisle airplanes. Qatar Airways wants either Airbus A350 or Boeing 777-8 freighters, or both, if the two companies launch these programs. American and United still have room to place more orders. British Airways announced a memorandum of understanding at the Paris Air Show in 2019 for 200 737 MAXes, just months after the grounding. It has yet to be firmed up.

LNA will look at some of the re-fleeting requirements of the world’s airlines in a future post.

Aircraft retirements “grossly” understated

Credit Suisse analyst Rob Spingarn concludes that aircraft retirements are understated.

In a note published last week, Spingarn wrote:

We take a look at Boeing and Airbus passenger aircraft that have been in storage for at least a year. Per Cirium, 15.1% of the active narrow-body and wide-body passenger fleet has been in storage for at least one year.

In our view, this further supports our thesis that official aircraft retirement numbers are grossly underreported and that many aircraft currently classified as in storage are effectively retired and will not return to active service – although some may be converted to freighters or taken up by new ULCCs/LCCs.

When we hosted Dr. Kevin Michaels for a call on the commercial aftermarket, he was of the view that retirements are underreported because airlines are sitting on assets in anticipation of improved demand/pricing in the near future before making the official decision to sell a stored aircraft into the part-out market. Consequently, he expects aircraft part-outs to rise to 600/year by 2024/2025. This compares to the 350-400 part-outs his firm tracked in the peak year of 2012.

153 Comments on “Pontifications: Two re-fleeting campaign give Airbus and Boeing each an edge

  1. So confyoozing and complex..

    Glad I don’t have to do this for munny.


    • Agreed. And how to assess a fleet ops for size, range and keep it all organized in normal times let alone the various weather hits.

      Fleet decisions you are stuck with (and engine choices). Its got to have been seriously painful for NZ and ANA to shift to GE engines on the 787.

      Those people know what they are doing so they had faith in the product and you don’t know often until years into it good or bad or what.

  2. Mind you, on the other side of the discussion are carriers like Lufthansa, who are going to bring back 5-A340’s, aircraft we had thought were long gone and buried.

    Until the choppiness of the market recovery smooths out, I think you’ll see more of this – where more carriers use older aircraft that have been paid for, eating the increased fuel and maintenance costs while keeping capex spending under tight wraps until financials improve.

    I think it’s a given that the 787’s, A350’s & A220’s are guaranteed to return to service. The important details in those parked aircraft are what percentage of the A320 family & 737 family are in that zero to 10 year range which is pretty much a sure return to service thing.

    As usual, the devil is in the details

    • Frank:

      Any link to Lufthansa bringing back A340?

      There were some interesting contract terms on the A340 as far as airlines getting money back if they did not serve a full career. I don’t have the link for that article but it explains why Airbus would do a lot to keep them flying.

      Never heard it was a problem aircraft, just that the economics did not work. T

      • I know it seems surreal now but back in 2020 Lufthansa, as launch customer, was expecting first B777-9 delivery that year or at worst 2021. Back then the first stories about possible delays started surfacing.

  3. Very difficult to predict which way the AF-KLM order will go. These two airlines (and their underlying governments) are constantly bickering, and “divorce” has often been discussed in the Dutch press. Although logic and operating efficiency would dictate a single supplier — AF has a preference for Airbus — KLM has always had a soft spot for Boeing, and is unlikely to shift position without a fight.
    – Quaint complicating factor: the Dutch king has a 737 pilot’s license, and he gets to keep his flight hours up to scratch by regularly flying in KLM cockpits …a perk which would disappear if KLM were to capitulate and go for the A320/A321.
    – Price factor: KLM will probably get bargain-basement pricing from Boeing and, since KLM received CoViD state aid, it will probably argue that a Boeing order gives it (and the Dutch taxpayer) greatest value for money.
    – Route flexibility factor: both airlines have extensive longhaul networks, and the A321LR/XLR would allow them to serve thinner routes transatlantic and deep into Africa, the Middle East and central Asia.
    – Homegrown factor: Europeans haven’t forgotten the cold shoulder that they got during the Trump presidency, which has led to an increased sense of “buy European”.

  4. KLM will likely stay with Boeing. Alitalia is predominantly Airbus already except for the old 777’s (they also have more economical A330’s). The most ridiculous of all is the 737MAX order by British Airways.

    • As long as KLM is not after A321NEO I agree.

      I think Walsh was having problems with Airbus and deliveries and decided to branch out.

      How that plays out we have to see still. Lots changed, never firm.

      • Because British Airways has a large narrow body Airbus footprint already – lower cost compared to bringing a whole new aircraft in the mix. Furthermore, the MAX does not offer anything the A320/321 Neo doesn’t have or can’t do.

    • Is there anything in Alitalia worth saving? I mean you want to cleanse the place and that may mean getting rid of the people and start green fields.

  5. @Frank & @Bryce

    It looks premature for airlines to go on spending sprees

    It’s already astonishing that the US airlines lapped up bailout money by the Billion, with collective negative cashburn galore, is it not 50B and counting ? Another 50B on the way ? Just to maintain basic ops

    Yet these the very next moment place gigantic orders premised on very doubtful it’s going to be ‘alright’, ‘back to ..’ by 2023/2024/2025/2026/2027

    and on and on

    These are very hazardous commitments dependent on a number of what have been still are and promise to get far worse and even more unpredictable negative externalities over which they have zero control zero recourse, except being able to whisper thanks to Amtrak for being so insignificant

    All that may be assumed is that BA has given them such bargain basement once in a lifetime (pun intended) prices that their bankers could not say no, in spite of their better selves

    The EU airlines, apart from LCCs who soon will be, are already on life support, and threatened by climate change initiatives, dissolving vx programs turning out to be very much less useful and very much more expensive and turbulent to enforce

    Plus intra EU internal dissension, war with everyone, such as to prohibit any well thought out and funded long term program

    The only hope….pause for deep breath….is from Asia, or that part of Asia all eyes count/turn on….China : plus perhaps the Gulf Carriers & SIA have serious enough back up from their sovereign funds to see the chance to wipe the board of remaining USEU long haul to merit scaled up investment, another once in a lifetime opportunity (incl Africa grab)

    As for downunder…the less said the better

    And what or who is going to keep BA afloat, meanwhile?


    • It isn’t just a case of airlines buying new aircraft and enriching their shareholders with government payouts – the oems and their suppliers – and their suppliers down the chain are also benefitting. That’s surely better than just distributing the excess to their shareholders?

      • @Roger

        That’s a pretty corrupt business plan you outline

        If there’s a lack of demand for airtravel, as per 2020 and consequent pandemic part two through 2021 for how long, and failure of vx and international vx cert travel passes..

        Then to spend money the airlines do not have must borrow and can not pay back, most likely can not pay back, because the airlines are not selling tickets..

        Then to go build up industry wide unsustainable debt because it’ll keep a relatively small workforce employed for a while in jobs without a consequent future is …

        An infrastructure bill which is pork barrel guaranteed to short term failure, as per every instance over the last generation or three and which has rendered the airlines so weak that they are…..in the state they are now in almost permanently : in and out of bankruptcy as if it were a merry go round

        PS-should have included this link in original post
        Wave of protests and of Destructions of vx centres in France


        • Is vaccination failing? Look at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/. Yes, infections are rising but deaths are pretty well flatlining (sorry!) and hospitalisations are barely rising and the difference between now and the time of the first wave is that the majority of the adult population are now vaccinated. It doesn’t look to me to be much different to what one might see in annual flu outbreak.. Until another, more virulent, strain comes along I think that the UK has it reasonably well sorted – it’s not the number of cases that matters, it’s the outcome of those cases. If people in the rest of europe prefer conspiracy theories and resist vaccination then let Darwinian theory take its course!

          • @ Roger
            Vaccine uptake in (most of) the EU is as high as — or higher than — in the UK. However, travel between the UK and the rest of Europe is currently impeded due to the high case numbers in the UK: an illustration of this fact is that Heathrow is currently at 11th place on the list of busiest airports in Europe. Granted, the hospitalizations/deaths are (currently) relatively low, but border restrictions are presently determined by case numbers per 100,000 inhabitants — however unjust/impractical that may seem.

            Also, Israel is showing us that vaccine effectiveness can be expected to wane after just 6 months: the “real world”effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in Israel is just 64%, and booster shots are now being given to the elderly / weak.

            So the vaccination story is a domestic success for a handful of countries…but it’s not a silver bullet, it’s far from ideal, it’s frail, it’s relatively short-lived, and it’s very uneven on a world scale — particularly in the context of a resumption of normal international travel. Although there might be some hope of a resumption of North America — Europe flights within a few weeks/months, we can forget travel to/from Asia-Pacific for al least the rest of 2021 — except, perhaps, where Singapore is concerned.

          • Sky news July 19:

            -> [M]ost regions of England now have more coronavirus patients in hospital than at any point since mid-March.

            Two regions – south-west England and the combined area of north-east England and Yorkshire – are back to levels last seen more than four months ago.

            For England as a whole, there are now 3,813 patients in hospital with COVID-19 – the highest number since 24 March

            -> Sir Patrick also warned said there were “high levels of COVID and they are increasing”.

            He said the UK was quite close to the previous “winter wave” of infections.

            “In the winter wave, we were up to around 60,000 people testing positive per day,” he said.

            “We are now somewhere on towards 50,000. So we’re quite close to the size of the winter wave of infections and this is going to increase.”

          • Here is a good recent summary of research on vaccine durability, and the relative effects of age and new variants, which are the dominant variables:


            As discussed here in the past, antibodies decrease with time after vaccination, at different rates in different people. Thus there is wide variation in the results, but 6 to 8 months with significant antibody presence is more or less the norm.

            For longer periods, there is evidence that the body can regenerate antibodies if subsequent infections occur. They aren’t needed in the absence of infection. But the exact statistical response is unknown, and probably also varies by individual.

            Then there is also the immune response which the body learns through vaccination, involving T-cells. That response has remained strong in all the testing thus far.

            In elderly or immunocompromised people, the immune response is less active, and so the decline in antibodies is more concerning. They will likely be the first group to receive boosters, as they are needed.

            As new variants emerge, there is also a decline in effectiveness of the vaccines, but so far for all the variants tested, there is still significant protection, both in terms of avoiding infection, and in terms of severity of illness if infected.

            The overall conclusions, from UK experience with the delta variant, are that vaccination reduces infection by a factor of 20 for those under 50 years of age, but that drops to a factor of 2-to-3 for those over 50. There are similar reductions for hospitalization, if infected. And for death, if hospitalized.

            The UK data are not granularized beyond those two age divisions, but it’s likely that the sharpest reduction is most evident in those 70-to-80 and older.

            There’s been controversy over vaccinated people becoming infected at all, but that can be understood in terms of the results above. The infection can begin in some people with low antibody counts, but then the immune system response is sufficient to contain the infection, and to build another antibody response.

            Thus with vaccination, the virus behaves more like other chronic infectious diseases, with about the same morbidity rate in the under-50 group, but elevated morbidity in the older population. That can be partially addressed by boosters, but the morbidity rate will always be higher in this group.

            With vaccination rates increasing, the reservoir for the virus to produce new variants is also decreasing. This puts evolutionary pressure on the virus, so the rate of new variants may increase.

            The goal is to reduce the reservoir faster than the virus can evolve. So it is necessary that the wealthy nations recognize this and help the poorer nations to vaccinate. This is now beginning, with pledges from the donor nations totaling about 700 million. That rate should increase as some nations near their vaccination goals, as many nations have over-purchased for their populations.

            Here is an excellent site that tracks vaccine purchases, grants, donations, and loans, by nation. The donation section is about 2/3 down the page.


          • Nearly 70% of the UK has been vaccinated and of the remaining 30% modelling suggests that 20% have immunity from actually having had the virus. 10% can be confirmed cases and 20% is the modelling. So the UK is at about 75% counting cases of actual COVID as having the same level of immunity as a vaccination.

            It can get better but not much. About 20% of the vaccinated population need their second dose and maybe they can vaccinate another 10%.

            At some point life had to return to normal in the sense that apart from enhanced hygiene the lockdowns need to stop. If and when Australia gets to the same level of vaccination why should travel be restricted between the two countries?

            I think the original level for herd immunity with the original strains reproduction rate was 80% herd immunity was required. Given that the vaccines are working out at 65% effective and that Delta is highly contagious it may not even be possible.

          • @Roger

            No one prefers conspiracy theories as if they were a brand of biscuits, Continental style

            Vx Resistance/hesitancy may not casually be dismissed as ‘deplorable’ when civil unrest in conditions of natural disaster have in history led to human self inflicted damage and régime change

            Au contraire – the brits are so well pleased with lockdown that they wish major part of ‘em wish to stay put in lockdown – how’s that for fun ?

            The bug is more than two steps ahead, is very flexible, can variant much quicker than the human can vary the vx formula or even ramp up old vx production – Corona Classic or Corona Full Strength – plus you’d be wise to remember it’s ability to ‘hide out’ in animals, reformulate and return

            What death rate will each and every country ‘accept’ learn to live with? You can bet the bug will work this out long before you do, not that I’m saying it has your best interests at heart, it’s just that it is more capable

          • @Bryce

            Your points are valid – vx seems to prevent the worst of deaths and the most of deaths, but delta and delta plus are far from done yet, especially in the ‘go in hard eradicate’ Asia part of the world

            Transmission in the vaccinated is common getting commoner it seems

            Generally speaking variants work towards milderness, but that’s to forget Asia and deary me NZ/Aus where they tried to keep the bug out, failed, also failed to vaccinate, bug now ramping up production

            Pfizer are talking about a $200 a pop plus price for re boosters every six months (why not 3 or 4) plus logistics – at that price most countries will prefer Chinese/Russian vx & attempts at quarantine even if Pfizer could up to 8 or 18B units, which they can not

            Why import the failed US HealthCare panaceas and priorities ?

          • @William

            “20% have immunity”

            ‘Immunity’ is a pipe dream – just as is herd immunity a category error when applied to coronas

            Better to talk about palliative : vx break through, plus ordinary re catching of the virus, is common reality in Brit and elsewhere, though, for the moment, less of a killer than initially

            The word normal, used in reference to all the countries in the world, is in appropriate – a lot of change has occurred directly, more indirectly, what used to be the same is no longer the same

            The brits have taken to house arrest, is this normal ? or this not normal – there’s no such thing, or rather no use for the word

            Sydney, according to the AMA should be in indefinite lockdown : but that’s not the point- the point is that the Aus (current) variant may not be the (current) Brit variant may not be the Peru just developing variant – the bug will take awhile to get us all in sync signed up to one brand

          • @Roger : “Until another, more virulent, strain comes along I think that the UK has it reasonably well sorted”. The most useful person I find on TW for Covid analysis is @JamesWard73. If you check his posts you’ll see his modelling offers good insight both into the actuality and into the various models that inform UK govt actions. He’s also excellent to keep tabs on as he RTs/engages other tweeter with very solid analysis. Anyway, the modelling currently shows it is too early to know whether things will be ouch (significant hospitalisations but shorter stays and much lower CFR than waves 1 and 2/3) or shriek (hospital overload). On a +ve side, @victimofmaths shows the evidence that much of the spike was young male Euro 2020 related, as trends tracked in Scotland and England until Scotland were knocked out and have since declined there substantially. On a -ve side, the Netherlands experienced a loud shriek 800% per week exponential growth rate that they attributed to nightclubs, and English nightclubs are now open. So sorted or not isn’t known yet but should be clear by the end of next week. Either way, this is (as yet) most definitely not just like flu. Delta is far more infectious than any “normal” flu, nor have either the population or individuals yet had enough exposure.

            @Bryce: “Vaccine uptake in (most of) the EU is as high as — or higher than — in the UK”. Nonesense. There are standouts in the EEA (ie incl EU) such as Iceland, but the EEA tracker currently shows 66.4% of 18+ single jabbed, 49.2% double jabbed. For the UK (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations) it is 87.9% and 68.5%. Way higher than the EEA and no amount of error in population numbers (eg UK population estimates using NIMS and ONS data differ significantly) change the broad point.

            @Bryce / @Rob : vaccine efficacy. There appears to be some inconsistency in data between Israeli and UK experience of wane. One point I did see in a paper months back though was an apparent difference between Pfizer and AZ (and, the way I recall it, more generally between mRNA and adeno), in that Pfizer gave the stronger upfront antibody response but was not especially effective in generating T cell response, whereas AZ gave a weaker upfront antibody response but a significantly stronger T cell response. So booster likely more important for anyone who received Pfizer rather than AZ. As for the different age groups (the 20x for 50 yo) I’ve not seen this and actually I keep seeing results that counter it (such as the continuing vastly reduced CFR among older groups in the UK that to a significant extent must be down to the vaccine, rather than any non-mixing with under 40s).

            @William : modelling seems to suggest that the total “infected” (naturally or vaccinated) of 80% would have been enough for Alpha IIRC, and definitely for “Wuhan”. But isn’t enough for Delta.

            “Gerard : “immunity” is not a pipe dream. It is the inevitable end point absent effective test and trace and compliance. As for variants working toward mildness, there was an interesting paper I read a month or two back I think that indicated this is not true and more a misinterpretation of data/findings. Can’t remember what the paper was unfortunately but clearly the simple presence of much more severe flu strains every few seasons provides sufficient substantiation to expect worse C19 variants to come, while hoping they don’t. Finally, as for “the bug being two steps ahead”, at least with the quicker to design & manufacture mRNA vaccines there has been work to second guess future variants and produce vaccine in advance. I think this was the Curevac/UK approach.

          • Here’s a very relevant illustration of the difference between a feelgood domestic narrative of “the vaccines are working just fine here in the UK” and the real-world travel-related consequences of rising case numbers:

            “Washington (CNN) — The State Department is warning Americans against traveling to the United Kingdom as the country grapples with a rise in Covid-19 cases.
            The department on Monday raised its travel advisory level for the UK to “Level 4: Do not travel” due to Covid-19. The decision, which aligns with a separate US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention update, comes the same day that Prime Minister Boris Johnson lifted most of England’s remaining pandemic-related restrictions.”


          • @Woody

            Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but so far the current corona is tending towards milder but quicker

            When I say two steps ahead this is figurative, it could two or three hundred

            A reversal of the above trend may appear tomorrow, or may not : point is no one knows, and by the time they do it’ll be long past too late

            There is very little indeed we know we know, compared to what we know we do not know, to make anything like ‘scientific’ deductions forecasts or anything more than guesses

            Which guesses are unusually feeble ones, open debate about the extent of the lack of useful knowledge and palliatives is largely foregone in favour of the broadcast of optimistic expertise, and enforced ‘measures’

            Better said- political advantage is taken of the pronounced ignorance of the health experts

            Not hindered by any sneaking feeling that only a general reform of industrial diet and lifestyle will provide any kind of comprehensive solution, unwelcome and to be not considered ; although at some stage an alliance will be made with the climate change crowd better to promote and enforce austerity

            To second guess an old and well known friend or faintly hostile cousin is a popular pass-time, allowable for a generally mild illness as the flu’, but to second guess a brand new corona is only an admission of defeat, a desperate last gasp

            As for immunity, there is no such thing when it comes to coronas, everyone has the lesser or fewer times caught colds and the flu’, despite the long acquaintance and second guessing vx formulas

          • @Gerard : from the ever helpful James Ward TW account I mentioned (https://twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1400720398480809985), simply referencing PHE data, Delta as of early June was showing as approx 2.5x more likely to result in hospitalisation than Alpha was. So, no, Delta is more severe than Alpha (not milder), in addition to being more infectious. Thread doesn’t ref normalised CFR but maybe that data is in the PHE report.

            Yes, I assumed it was just an idiom. But the point I’m making is that, as I understand it, the mutations in the lineages can to an extent be predicted and Curevac had designed their vaccine to cover these anticipated mutations. Unfortunately it appears they chose to use a non-synthetic component where Biontech went (from experience) with the synthetic alternative, and so the Curevac vaccine failed. But I assume that Biontech are capable of taking the same approach to produce an “ahead of the curve/virus” vaccine.

            There is such a thing as immunity when the virus is as infectious as C19 Delta is. Typical flu R is apparently approx 1.. Severe flu season R is apparently approx 1.8. Most recent estimates I saw for Delta are an r of 7. Waaaaayyyy more infectious. I forget which senior relevant scientist in the UK stated this but he said something like that over the next 2 months either your a hermit or you’ve already got a level of infection/vaccine acquired immunity or you WILL get C19. Hence population immunity or as god as (to Delta).

            Yes, abundantly clear that people get the “common cold” repeatedly but:
            a) that R difference again. 7!
            b) vaccine development has historically been of the inactivated type. For whatever reason the mRNA and adeno, at least in for 1st and 2nd doses, have provided efficacy far ahead of the inactivated type as used for flu vaccines to date. Will this hold or wane with follow ups (there was concern that immune systems may begin to react more to the adeno container than the vaccine it carries, rendering the vaccination less effective, after repeated vaccinations)?
            c) the mRNA approach has a really significant speed to market advantage, allowing it to be designed for the actual wild virus rather than the anticipated wild virus, as currently happens with flu vaccines chosen many months in advance
            d) the “common cold” is actually multiple different viruses, only some of which are coronaviruses. Something like 100 in total IIRC. Which is why no one has ever been able to produce a cold vaccine. C19 clearly is only a coronavirus.

          • @Woody

            Immunity is an ill used word which should always be qualified – as far as I know anyone can and does re catch the corona much more the delta than the previous, ditto for those vx

            Fewer people have died from delta – many suffer less it is said – but less dying or somewhat lesser suffering is not to be called ‘immunity’

            Delta seems to kill less than classic corona, hence may be called ‘milder’, even as it sickens/infects a greater number of people : once again language needs very careful calibration

            You say predictions can be made about the variants which develop : is it possible to show any successfully realised predictions ? : perhaps the scientists you refer to are convinced that this may or might or should theoretically be possible, but that’s about as tenuous a statement as may be made

            As for speed, how is it there’s no delta specific mRNA vx yet ? It might seems that for a vx to be of any specific/superior use versus a variant it would have to be useful within days or weeks, already it’s months : and delta surely is not the most of the variants to come

            The idea that the industry is going to develop vx after vx, which universally may be applied, track the virus get out in front of it, is an illusion : the infrastructure logistics and large scale capital investments have not and will not be made – even if this were imaginable, too much more money is made by taking the opposite tack

            The industry will not want the patient to die, but to linger on paying for as long as possible – you could say the virus is committed to the same business plan, it’s a universal law of nature

            My understanding is that these coronas play havoc for several years before settling down into a domestic version, as the cold or the flu, an interlude until the next

            So far there are no signs that this will not be the case with the current – but perhaps you could show the reasons why this might not be the case

            PS With respect hospitalisation rates are subject to a huge number of variables which bury clear sighted measurements or comparisons of ‘severity’ (another word which has a high number of variants) : for example where I live there are no hospitals, but highly functional human immune systems – there seems to be a correlation maybe a causation

          • @Bryce: As the U.S. State Dept. raised U.K. travel warning to the highest level, today it lowered travel advisory to India.

          • @Bryce

            “Vaccine uptake in (most of) the EU is as high as — or higher than — in the UK”

            I don’t believe that’s correct, for anyone interested please see Share of people vaccinated chart at the top of the page

            Gibraltar & Malta way out front followed by Denmark & UK, UK more fully vaccinated than Denmark but Denmark now vaccinating more quickly so slightly ahead on 1st doses.

            Gibraltar over 100% as they vaccinated people who don’t live in Gibraltar but commute in and out from Spain.

            The bigger problem if you look down the Our World in Data page at Willingness to get vaccinated is that France has over 30% of the population unwilling to get vaccinated. Denmark & UK around 12%
            Direct link is https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccine-willingness-and-people-vaccinated-by-country?country=DNK~FRA~DEU~ITA~NOR~GBR~USA~AUS~ESP~SWE~FIN~NLD move slider back to end of May to see UK.

            For what it’s worth, the UK has around 90% of the population with antibodies from either natural infection or vaccination according to studies of blood donors. I can see one side of the UK Govt. logic in opening up especially as they don’t want to push the exit wave into winter as RSV is already becoming an issue. Anyone in UK over 18 has had the opportunity to get vaccinated if they want to. How long do you wait to gain a few more percent of adults vaccinated.

            Interesting strategy in Australia, try for Zero COVID, but to end it all you need a HIT of over 90% for Delta, so that’s made up of a mix of natural infection & immunity through vaccination. Very little natural infection in Australia, so then you need to get the rest from vaccination, problem as you can see from the Vaccination willingness chart is that Australia has roughly 27% of the population who don’t want to be vaccinated. USA also has an issue with vaccination willingness.

            I really don’t know if the UK strategy will work, but there’s a possibility that the numbers work for the UK. If it works, it’ll work for Denmark and any other country with a high enough mix of natural infection and vaccination.

          • @Jakdak (and, earlier, @Woody)
            I meant to type vaccine “acceptance” rather than “uptake” (lack of caffeine). It was meant as a counter to @Roger’s text: “If people in the rest of Europe prefer conspiracy theories and resist vaccination…”

            You are correct that vaccine *uptake* (i.e. actual administration) is higher in the UK than in the rest of Europe — though some European countries are not far behind (most have been vaccinating at a higher rate than the UK for weeks).
            Luckily, vaccine *acceptance* (or “willingness”; the opposite of hesitancy) is high in most of Europe (including the UK) — and significantly higher than in the US and Australia, for example.

            For what it’s worth: over 80% of the NL population is estimated to have antibodies, but we were still uber-surprised by the extent to which the Delta variant was able to get a foot in the door. About 750,000 Dutch have received the Janssen vaccine, so they’ll be needing a second shot of something soon. Despite having two shots of an mRNA vaccine, many healthcare personnel — including frontline workers — are getting symptomatic Delta CoViD.
            The UK may yet bitterly regret loosening restrictions on discos/nightclubs — they were the spark that ignited the Dutch spike. They’re now closed again in NL, and cases are stabilizing.

          • @William

            “Nearly 70% of the UK has been vaccinated”

            No. 68% of adults or only 54% of total population is fully vaccinated, far lower than what is expected for good immunity for the population.

      • > That’s surely better than just distributing the excess to their shareholders? <

        "excess"? Where'd they get that?

        topsy-turvy world these days..


    • You raise a valid point about longhaul premium carriers such as SIA, Emirates and Qatar, which combines with a point that @Frank raised: it’s quite possible for the foreseeable future of longhaul that we’ll have a two-tier system of:
      – A handful of premium carriers, who have the money to splash out on new planes;
      – A much bigger horde of debt-ridden, struggling carriers who are forced to continue trying to squeeze some life out of old widebodies — opting for higher operating costs rather than high capex.

      A third possible group might consist of:
      – A few niche (low-cost) carriers who use relatively cheap A321XLRs to offer limited longhaul service.

      Emirates already smells better times ahead — for itself, at any rate — because it has announced plans to recall 70-100 A380 pilots per month from furlough:

      However, I can’t imagine that any of the US, EU and/or Asian longhaul carriers sense better times ahead — except, perhaps, for SIA.

      • @Bryce

        Thanks for adding in the facts – my statement about SIA was based on evidence that the regional development opportunities were accelerating for Singapore, rich with possibilities for their cash heavy and well managed Sovereign Funds

        These are now all over Africa, putting in long term infra projects, based largely on the old off shore model, as per HK, Dxb and Sin, seaports and airports, they do not stray into the interior much

        PS Israel now banning vaccinated tourists : Vietnam locked down : Sydney panick crazy

    • @GW

      Interesting article from Business Insider on aircraft still in storage. It’s kinda ‘Simple Flying’ ish, if you know what I mean – but there was one point they made I found interesting:


      “Aircraft leasing companies, taking advantage of the inexpensive prices for some aircraft, are also buying up more planes and parking them in Marana.”

      I guess lessors have the capital to purchase and wait. Cash is King, as they say. Reminds me of real estate investors buying up cheap homes after the ARM crisis of ’08 and profiting when the market came back.

      Another point to note:

      “But even a year later, more aircraft are arriving than departing. Butler estimates that 40 aircraft will arrive between June and August with only 10 to 12 leaving Pinal, highlighting the disparities in the global vaccine rollout and the return of travel.”

      • @Frank

        You raise a very interesting point, which has poked up previously, GE selling their leasing company consolidation

        Never let a good crisis go to waste – banks, PE, via their leasing companies flexing their muscles and taking over more of the market

        – the amount of capital required to corner the market is relatively small (compared to other industries, or infrastructures)

        The bankers using US airlines as shell companies- on the principle that this is as good as it gets price wise as far as Boeing is concerned : can lease at a profit if can find no internal use, All American Airlines Leasing Corp

        • @GW

          I’m gonna delve into the hypothetical for a sec – so please humour me;

          Absolute control over a company has always been 50%+1, however with publicly traded firms you can get away with less ownership to have control. Not everyone shows up for the annual, not everyone who does, votes the same, etc etc.

          (Note to Scott: I really appreciate the occasional ISHKA article which gives us a glimpse into older aircraft values and lease rates. Good info, that)

          Let’s say that leasing companies got together and bought up all the ‘good’ used aircraft available out there; we’re talking all 737 NG’s up to 10-15 years old, all A320 CEO’s to 10ish years and any available Max’s/A320Neo/A220’s out in the market (available due to covid and airline strife).

          Then they negotiated delivery slots with AB & BA to take up the slack in production, who would only be too happy to have someone buying inventory off of them.

          That would leave airlines wanting planes one of a few options:

          1) You buy from an OEM – if you can get a slot
          2) You buy some old clunkers that are way past their prime
          3) You come to us for a delivery slot, if you want new
          4) You want good quality used – you gotta buy from us (and we control the market price)

          Is that even possible?

          (Or how about this, which was proposed to me by an industry guy who knows a thing or two about it…)

          BA is strapped for cash. Cash rich lessors looking for a place to put their moolah turn to them and say:

          “OK, you need money to launch a new aircraft. We’ll give you the money – but here’s what your going to do; You’re gonna make THIS plane, able to do THESE things (I dunno, call it a narrowbody with new wings, composite everything, newest engines which can cover the market from Max 8 to A321 XLR – 3 variants) and the cost to us is THIS much. We’re also going to take the first 2500 delivery slots and you will make NO MORE than 50 a month”

          – or they fund the NMA of which they have complete control over

          (the numbers are flexible, but you get the picture – the lessors have subcontracted BA to make their own plane, of which they will control the destiny of)

          Then they get the lawyers to draw up the contracts with terms so onerous and stiff, so that if BA doesn’t deliver – well, the lessors might end up in a position of taking control of the company…

          (and if you think it’s not possible, anyone ever hear the story of Vlasic pickles and Walmart? Different circumstances, but something like that is possible)

          Just some food for thought.

          • @Frank

            Thanks for laying this out – I am as sure you are that this is not a hypothetical, but already being put in place

            Once you have a largely consolidated industry, then the hard work is done : (US) there are few large airlines fewer large OEMs

            EU would be ripe for the picking, if it were not for pesky considerations of national interest (ditto everywhere else)– all the more reason to concentrate on the US

            Then all you need is the cash – the same people who finance the airlines are the same people or their cousins who do the deal with BA

            The rest is branding

      • And if they can buy them up at fire sale prices, below expected part out value if all else fails, even better.

  6. Gerrard said: “..It’s already astonishing that the US airlines lapped up bailout money by the Billion, with collective negative cashburn galore, is it not 50B and counting ? Another 50B on the way ? Just to maintain basic ops

    Yet these the very next moment place gigantic orders premised on very doubtful it’s going to be ‘alright’, ‘back to ..’ by 2023/2024/2025/2026/2027..”

    Agreed- very strange stuff.

    • At least the US carriers will probably have a relatively strong domestic market (or even very strong, if CoViD is perceived to be (sort of) managable). But I agree: the spending bonanza appears to be wildly misplaced for an industry that is so stricken.

      • Setting aside the needs of the aircraft makers and suppliers for the moment- wouldn’t a ‘wait and see’ approach be more
        prudent in these (whatever you think of them) circumstances?

        There must be a backstory..

        • Bill7:

          That is another tough part of Airlines business. Not a clue why anyone wants to be in it, feats, famine, more famine.

          But it is a business and you have to keep the long term in your planning.

          The orders aren’t for tomorrow (sans some MAX pickups) – it all about the future. And of course the risk of having too much or too little (South West is having issues with not what they need)

          Being able to hedge the orders with good terms such as deferral or swaps is one way to deal with it. Lease is another way, you are stuck for 5 years (or whatever the term) but you also have an expiration date.

          That gives you a chance to assess and the Leasor is going to be happy to extend it (costs to take back and then convert are not trivial)

          I never wanted to run a business, all I saw was downside. Others of course feel the other way and there is some sort of balance in it all.

  7. Scott:

    Is this 737 MAX vs A321NEO or the A320NEO?

    The current mix is more A320 or A320+ size

    • MAX vs A321neo
      and depending on delivery date likely the A321new with new wings.

      • Unlikely, unless the A321 starts losing ground to the 737- Max 10.Airbus will only re-wing the A321 when it starts to become apparent that they have to.

        • I don’t see the A321 loosing ground to the MAX-10.

          New wing would be response to a new Boeing aircraft (assuming it targets the A321 area)

          • Thing is, all Airbus needs is a rewing of their well-positioned 320/321, and they’re set until the propulsion changes, as I see it.

            The competition is in a different place.

          • “””New wing would be response to a new Boeing aircraft (assuming it targets the A321 area)”””

            Of course not.
            Boeing has no money for a new plane. They are spending money on MAX-10 and 777X, and those 2 need work for years.

            Boeing lost its know-how. We see that every month and certification won’t be easy. They started QC on the 787 for the first time and now complain that QC is too much work.

            Boeing’s new production process is thin air. Thes stopped the 777X because of the MAX drama and now have the 787 drama and beside that spend little on R&D.

            How long would a new Boeing take. I would think a new Airbus wing would not take long time.
            Beside that, Boeing has a newer wing. Airbus has over 11t more MTOW.

        • Roger,

          in the past Airbus always improved its products. The A321 sells good but the plane could be better, especially the XLR would be better with new wings. If the new wing is cheaper and likely faster to produce that’s a big plus.

          • Its a cost to do it vs a need to do it.

            While miner upgrades occur all the time, a new wing is a big investment. You in turn loose revenue while you pay for it.

            It makes complete sense for Airbus to be ready but not to just do it.

            The only other reason would be it opening up new sales in new market areas. I don’t see that.

            The Transavia market looks to be fine with MAX, no take on KLM and what it needs and its routes vs its structure.

        • One of the technical changes on the A321XLR apart from the RCT and strengthened undercarriage is what is called an optimised single slotted flap to replace the double slotted flap on the standard A321neo. This maintains take-off and landing performance. The standard A320neo has a single slotted flap of a different type.

          It’s possible that all A320neo will receive the new single slotted flap from the A321XLR. A double slotted flap is expensive to build and maintain but now the new optimised flap can in theory be fitted with minimal additional costs to the A320neo.

          The benefits on the A320neo would be commonality, improved take-off and landing performed, increased MTOW, lower landing speeds, less brake wear.

          Not a new wing but I’m thinking quite an advance in take-off and landing performance.

      • I am seeing reports for both. Its really not a contest between the MAX and the A321 as A321 wins hands down on capability (if that needed)

        The fleet has -700 as well as 800/900.

        If they don’t need the A321 range and capacity for their network?

        • > Its really not a contest between the MAX and the A321 as A321 wins hands down on capability (if that needed) <

          I'm glad you pointed that out. Other than
          order queue and (perhaps) political questions, it's hard for
          this layman to see why anyone would order the former, at present.

          • I don’t see the MAX as an issue directly any more. As lethal as the flaw was, that has been corrected and the yammering for a third AOA will get addressed in a couple of years (I continue to think the AOA is worthless on a commercial aircraft)

            But commonality of a fleet is major. Maybe to a degree keeping Airbus competitive with its offerings.

            Availability for the MAX should be easier as they have both the surplus to burn off as well as build lines that can be ramped up (lots of fuselages at Spirit!)

            Realistic the MAX simply does not compete with the A321, if your range and pax loads with your route structure support that.

            Conversely you don’t want to operate a bigger aircraft if its not justified.

            Ergo, if they are simply replacing the MAX fleet, it makes sense. If they want A321 capability then MAX should not stand a chance.

            As noted Transavia seems to be natural MAX replacement, KLM I don’t know as its a far more complex network and wide body vs the single aisle in its route structure.

            Ergo, why I asked the question of A321 vs A320. A321 would have some reduced costs as Air France operates

            Most of Air France is A320 and I don’t see any orders for NEO.

            Smaller A319 gets replaced by the A220.

            And what goes on behind the scenes for how they assess keeping Airbus and Boeing as competitors is not something that gets talked about. You see the end result but not what went into it.

          • Doing some cross checks on the Transavia anbd KLM 737 fleet, KLM has 5 on the -900.

            That would seem to indicate that the A321 capacity is not needed though you get into the range aspects.

          • @TWA

            Funny of you to bring up the AoA / useless point. Have a friend who worked at BA and apparently it’s there because so many pilots come from the military, that they have it there.

          • Frank:

            I have made that point repeatedly. I remember the back and forth on the AOA. It may have some utility at stall (or more refined) but its one of those, who cares?

            You should not be there in the first place and the first thing you are going to do is dump the nose not look at the AOA.

            Its not like they did not have stick shaker before base on airspeed. The C-152 had an audible buzzer for stall (stall tab in the wing root).

  8. Leon ( I think) said:

    > Boeing lost its know-how <

    "lost" lacks agency. No, Boeing *got rid of* its know-how; and that was no accident.

    "pesky, overpaid, experienced and knowledgeable engineers!":
    get rid of 'em!" said the GE MBA types..

    not an accident.

    • I think that Leon may have been referring to the engineers who worked for the “old Boeing” — those were people who were able to work together with the FAA to actually get a plane certified. In contrast, one could argue that the “new Boeing” hasn’t actually certified a plane in years — following instead a pro-forma rubber stamping procedure based on “self-cert”. The old boys who were actually able to do real certification have now been pensioned off (or are otherwise departed); the new boys — confronted with the disappearance of the “self-cert”option — are like paralyzed deer staring into oncoming headlights.

      One way or another, the end result appears to be the same: a serious loss of know-how.

    • Reminds me of the BA ‘widget’ story I read awhile back – think it was WSJ.

      Apparently mgmt brought in an outside efficiency expert, whiz bang MBA kid, who sat down in a meeting with engineers after going through the processes and proceeded to tell them:

      “You’re just making widgets, like any other company”

      Dontcha just love people like that???

  9. It’s remarkable to me that some persons still take “covid” news
    at face value..

    downward-perestroika for us little peeps, vast [somehow!] enrichment for the very, very few..

    so confyoozing


  10. The Boeing 767 sure was a nice plane, and (as I understand it) it
    has something of a production line still in place. Given present,
    uncertain circumstances, why not just re-engine that thing?

    voila: NMA..

    I’m just a layman who liked flying on that fine machine.

    • @Bill

      Well, let’s have a look at the numbers, from both an OEM & airline perspective.

      From all the variants, the 767-300ER sold the most @ 583 units.

      Putting new wings and engines on it would cost them how much? $10 billion in today’s market? If they sold 1000 of them, that means they need to recoup ~$10 million in dev costs, on top of whatever margin they want to make.

      The -300ER btw, has almost 6000NM range, which is close to the A330/787 arena, which can be had for in the $120-140 million range.

      From the airline perspective – what are you getting?

      Well, 2-3-2 seating, which is seven across. This is an added aisle (read: space making ZERO revenue) for an extra row over a narrowbody with 3-3 seating.

      With that added row, comes a larger barrel, meaning the plane has to punch a bigger hole through the air. Larger barrel also means it has to be engineered stronger, meaning heavier, meaning a bigger landing gear – meaning more weight.

      A -300ER has an OEW of 200,000lbs for 290 pax

      An A321Neo has an OEW of 110,000lbs for 244 pax & 4700NM range
      (I know the XLR will be heavier, I couldn’t find the info handily)

      Sure, you can fly another 1300 NM farther, but then your A330/787’s can do it also…

      An A330-900Neo will give you 460 pax at 300,000lbs OEW and a range of 7200NM. Methinks the 787 numbers are even better.

      Airlines are making do with what’s out there.

      • Thanks for that analysis, Frank. Seems like my idea would not make sense these days; though I sure prefer 2-3-2 seating;
        also, the idea of being on a single-aisle for long flights does not appeal.

        • Bill

          I’m guessing the airlines have figured out the best strategy is to:

          Stay single aisle and get out as much as you can out of the type you fly


          When going widebody, get a widebody. Not a tweener. I think the 767 is a tweener…

  11. Speaking of the 767, and maybe Scott H will humor me here-
    I was once flying out of Chicago on one ( late-80s) and we had to be de-iced two or three times; then when we finally took off, the flaps were at a minimally-down (1.5 deg?) setting. I asked the guy in the next seat (a Swede, whose country was my destination, for the girlfriend) “does that config look right to you?” He said (typical laconic Swede) “no.”

    We took off with the longest and *definitely fastest* takeoff roll
    I ever experienced. Very unusual, and it felt like the plane was
    just hanging for a bit after we finally became airborne..

    I much later talked with a Int’l pilot for the same airline (American, I think) -really nice, calm guy- and he gave me the possible flaps 1.5 info, but was not clear about why.. any thoughts are welcome.

    My father was a CFI, and my tiny bit of knowledge was probably
    messing me up.. still, this has stuck with me.

    • Bjorn would have to weigh in. I’m not a pilot.

    • Thanks for your reply, Scott H. (it hasn’t appeared here, but was in my email).

      Add’l info: the flight was Chicago-Stockholm nonstop, lots of fuel
      onboard, I guess (even after two-plus hours on the ground). My thought at the time was that all the delays had gotten the guys in front out of their checklist.. (I know: too much “thinking” from me..). Still cannot get that takeoff roll and unusual rotation out of my head, though.


    • Hello Bill7,

      Re:”I much later talked with a Int’l pilot for the same airline (American, I think) -really nice, calm guy- and he gave me the possible flaps 1.5 info, but was not clear about why.. any thoughts are welcome.”

      Increased flap extension increases lift and gets you off the ground after less distance traveled and at a lower speed; however, drag also increases as lift increases, so as flap extension increases drag also increases, and rate of climb for a given power setting will generally decrease. There are minimum climb gradient requirements for various takeoff segments for airline transport aircraft after failure of an engine. For example, after an engine failure a twin engine airline transport aircraft must have a non negative, non zero climb rate while accelerating to V2 with the landing gear down and engines and flaps at the settings used for takeoff, then after reaching V2 and retracting the landing gear with the flaps still at the setting used for takeoff, but with thrust on the good engine allowed to be increased to maximum takeoff thrust if a lower setting was used for takeoff, a twin engine airline transport aircraft must be able to climb at a 2.4% gradient on one engine. Maximum takeoff weight for a multiengine airline transport aircraft is usually limited by the engine out climb gradient requirements. When a very long runway is available, allowable takeoff weight will often be maximized by using a low flap setting for takeoff to maximize engine out climb performance, thus allowing the minimum engine out climb gradient requirements to be met.

      See also the discussion in the pprune.org thread at the link below.

      “It was probably a Flap 1 takeoff, which in the 767 is LE slats only. You would not have seen these deflected to the takeoff position if you were sitting in economy. The TE devices stay up in this position only. I hope this helps.”

      “Flap 1 is a normal take off setting on the 767-200 only. It is only used where there is a very long take off run. I have only ever used it at Singapore. It gives improved climb performance as there is less drag with no trailing edge flaps deployed.”

      “A lower flap setting will generally mean longer on the runway, but a better climb, since AMS has a fairly long runway this is certainly a possibility, although a better climb would not be required since it is pretty flat around AMS.

      In the 767-300 series, our normal take off settings are 5, 15 and 20. We certainly cannot take off at flaps 1 in my airline, but I think the 200 series can do (not sure as I don’t fly it, but I do fly the 300ER). The 767 does not have flap 10, we have 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30.

      25 and 30 are landing flap settings, with flap 20 as a single engine landing setting.

      It is true that flap 1 does not move the TE flaps and that flap 5 is mostly rearwards movement rather than downwards movement.”


      • Thanks very much for that thorough comment, AP_Robert.
        I did not know that the rate of climb would be better at a
        minimal flaps/slats setting, and your explanation fits

        Never went so fast on the ground before or since. 😉

        • We landed super hot one time. I think it was a 737, there was some kind of control problem (tail) and it was blowing at Hurricane at our departure that they went right back to.

          I was not sure we were going to get stopped. One friend got off. Didn’t blame her.

          I pondered if you could still land in that stuff ok, why not go onto the destination 45 minutes away that was flat calm?

          Or my no instrument night take off (no they could not explain to me why you would take off with no instruments)

          My instructor asked me how I was going to determine airspeed.

          Well, we got a long runway and when its hopping up and down a foot or so I figure we have good flying speed.

          I kept it on the runway until he said, ok, ok, you proved your point rotate the danged thing.

  12. it’s back, and it’s already explaining again..


    “helping, helping, helping.”

  13. Somebody tell my reawakened friend Rob that the “vaccines” do not confer immunity; nor do they eliminate transmission (see even the MSM, now).

    The young people are now- as I understand- calling them “clot shots”- and are not accepting them.

    No, thank you- I’ll await the first full-scale trials, to be completed in *late 2023*.

    • @Bill7

      clot shots is great, ta for this

  14. Somebody tell my reawakened friend Rob that the “vaccines” do not confer immunity; nor do they eliminate transmission (see even the MSM, now).

    The young people are now- as I understand- calling them “clot shots”.

    No, thank you- I’ll await the first full-scale trials, to be completed in *late 2023*.

    • @Rob

      Vaccines do not confer immunity, nor do they eliminate transmission

      • No statement was made to that effect. Vaccines are not 100% effective in providing immunity or eliminating transmission. But vaccines do reduce the risk of infection, and of serious illness & hospitalization if infection should occur, and of death if hospitalization should occur.

        This is clearly borne out in the delta variant data from the UK, which are the first real-world data we have of a new variant interacting with a large vaccinated population. They support the previous research on both antibody and T-cell responses developed as a result of vaccination.

        The timing of the delta wave coincided with the large vaccination effort, with both ongoing at the same time, and many vaccinated people not yet reaching the 28-day criterion for full effectiveness. Yet there are still significant reductions in risk.

        • Incorrect to say that the UK is “the first real-world data we have of a new variant interacting with a large vaccinated population”
          We’ve had earlier data from Israel, Singapore, The Seychelles, The UAE, Bahrain, Chile and The Netherlands.
          It used to be “fashionable” to attribute outbreaks in some of those countries to their use of Chinese vaccines, but that changed when similar data started to come in from countries that used “western” vaccines.

          The data “from the front” contradicts the theoretical peptalks coming out of labs: many fully vaccinated persons are getting infected, getting ill, and even ending up in hospital…or worse. Sure, it’s not as bad as in an un-vaccinated population, but it’s enough to cause re-imposition of (some) restrictions and — important for this site — to impede international travel. And don’t forget: it’s now summer in the northern hemisphere!

      • Here is some suggested reading from the UK Public Health Vaccination Surveillance program. It summarizes a great deal of research and data, and includes an analysis of the recent delta variant surge.

        Of note are the sections on infection and transmission, as well as the modeling at the end, of averted infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.


        • More feelgood theory from a government with a vested interest in spreading a rosy picture.
          It’s hard to believe, but this report actually contains the following text segment:

          “Large clinical trials have been undertaken for each of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the UK which found that they are highly efficacious at preventing symptomatic disease in the populations that were studied. It is important to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines in the ‘real world’, as this may differ to clinical trial efficacy.”

          Big surprise for the UK government, but the “real world” effectiveness is now in — from many sources — and it certainly does “differ to clinical trial efficacy”…to a very significant extent.

          Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the US today moved the UK into its highest “don’t go” travel advisory category.
          So much for that rosy peptalk.

          • The document contains embedded links to the original supporting research. As do the previous references I gave. So their provenance is well established.

            They also are among the reference materials we were given at the medical facility where I volunteer, to help address vaccine hesitancy. So they are vetted by medical professionals and the medical community in general.

            They paint a correct and true picture of the validity and impact of vaccines. Whether they are accepted is up to the individual. Thus far, more than 3 billion individuals have accepted this, and billions more are waiting for the opportunity.

            However there is also a group which remains hesitant, and does not accept the medical findings or the common wisdom. In our training, it’s emphasized that reluctance to change one’s position can be the dominant barrier, as that is where the true emotional investment lies. And it can intensify as more and more evidence is provided in favor of vaccines.

            Therefore important to provide information, but not criticize or judge. People need to make their own decisions, and that includes others who may be reading the writings of the hesitant groups. Information is valuable to everyone, whether or not it’s denied.

          • Interesting that you seem to think that the discussion is about vaccine hesitancy — but it’s not.
            The discussion is about vaccine underperformance, particularly in the context of re-normalization of international travel.
            Vaccine hesitancy is not a problem in the EU…for example, it’s only about 12% in NL. But vaccine underperformance certainly is a problem…and it will be coming your way very soon.

            And yes, vaccines have provided great relief in the regions where they have been administered…but Delta is causing large cracks in the plasterwork. I guess your “training” doesn’t touch on that.

          • Saying that vaccines underperform is a method of undermining their validity, and contributes to the overall theme of vaccine hesitancy. The goal is the same in either case.

            If a person accepts the vaccine for their self, but then undermines the importance of others also receiving it, that points to contradictions in logic and motivation.

            The delta variant experience does not lessen the importance of people receiving the vaccine, it actually confirms it, as mentioned in other comments here.

          • Saying that vaccines underperform in the face of the Delta variant is merely the enunciation of a fact, backed up by an increasing body of evidence from an array of countries.

            It might make your new “job” more difficult, but it is a hard fact; in view of your professed affinity for facts, you should embrace it rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet as an “inconvenient truth”.

          • The links I gave directly address the delta outbreak, as have all my comments here. There is no sweeping under the rug or denial of facts. Only an explanation of them, which is broadly accepted by the medical community.

            Choosing to reject the accepted explanation is the right of every individual. But it stands nonetheless, it isn’t impacted by the denial

          • There are a million places to deal with vaccines and information , how about keeping it on topic?


          • AP: U.K. opts not to vaccinate most under-18s against COVID-19

            Wow wow

            Is this the same UK adopted for smallpox and polio??

          • There are a million places to deal with ones love of 767s and disdain for DC10s, and the usefulness (or not) of AoA-sensors — how about keeping it on topic?

            Sheese 😉

      • Bad news for re-opening borders on the basis of vaccine passports:

        Some real-world data just in from The Netherlands. Unfortunately, this document is in Dutch, but the message is clear. Some segments of the text:

        “Although vaccinated persons who become infected with the Delta variant generally don’t get sick enough to end up in hospital, they are able to transmit the virus to others. Accordingly, people who are vaccinated should be subject to the same rules as un-vaccinated persons: immediate testing in the event of symptoms, testing to gain admission, testing after returning from vacation, and maintaining extra distance from people who are not yet vaccinated”.

        “In the past few weeks, Dutch hospitals have been shocked by a strong increase in positive tests among fully vaccinated staff…in the LUMC (hospital in Leiden), 85 % of all positive tests among personnel were in fully vaccinated persons.”

        “A recent analysis has shown that someone getting infected by the Delta variant produces up to 1000 times as many viral particles as in the case of the original variant. At the start of the infection, that is probably such a high concentration that antibodies just can’t keep up. Using sheer numbers, the virus breaks through the immune defenses”.


        • @Bryce

          Thanks for keeping up to date with this

          Looks for sure as if vaccination is done with as the one stop solution, as per the Qantas guy and the rest of the true believers

          What now?

          • This is horrendous news for the travel industry: no wonder Wall Street had a very rough day yesterday — particularly the travel stocks and Boeing. There’s a rebound today, but a lot of that is money on the sidelines looking for any sort of dip in order to jump in.

            I can see domestic/regional travel chugging along at some sort of semi-OK-ish rate, but longhaul is now truly in deep trouble. I fear that a lot of carriers are going to go belly-up in the next few months — with carriers like Garuda and Malaysia being obvious low-hanging fruit.

            The really bad news: if vaccinated people are getting infected and transmitting in significant numbers, then that creates an ideal incubation group for a stronger vaccine escape variant…which would then put us back to square one.

          • @Bryce

            ‘Stronger vx escape variant’

            But current vx will still provide some protection, fewer deaths, less nasty infections, no?

            So back to square one for the travel industry, but not back to ground zero quite for other purposes

            Or am I wrong?

        • This result is well known and also expected. Each new variant has been progressively more transmissible than the last. This is discussed in the UK Public Health link I gave, and also in the earlier comment on how and why breakthrough occurs.

          The conclusion is that this lends further credence to the effectiveness of vaccines, since the rate of infections is no worse than the earlier less transmissible variants, while at the same time the effects of illness are massively reduced.

          Always helpful for facts to be presented in the context for which they occur.

      • Funny that – I had always been under the impression that vaccination programmes have eradicated smallpx and polio. So if they haven’t, what has?

  15. I liked the 767 too. But the A330-200 ate it alive. Hence the 787. However I still prefer the A330. Not so squeezed! I suspect KLM will go for a core fleet of B737 BUT with some A321 for long and thin routes.

    • Thanks for this comment- I’ve never flown on an A330. Lots on the 340-300, which seemed ok enough.

      • Flew A300 and 767 and both were nice flying comfortable aircraft.

        I sure did not like the DC-10.

  16. Asia-Pacific travel update:
    Singapore — with its very high degree of vaccination — had been relaxing restrictions, and was even in talks with some countries (such as Estonia) about opening hassle-free air-corridors. But now, it too has been slapped in the face by the Delta variant, and is re-introducing some restrictions:


    Singapore is a barometer for the rest of Asia. There goes another potential longhaul destination 🙁

  17. Time to see the IAG MOM as what it is.

    A note to Airbus they should move their price for A320neos down.

    All IAG airlines fly A320 fam. and they have already some Neos in. How likely do they want to switch over? It was their mistake to only order 50 neos instead of the needed 300.

    AF-KLM is an interesting discussion. AF will stay with A320, so they will order Neo and need about 60.
    Transavia has young B738 and will likely stay with Boeing, so about 50 Max.
    Leaves KLM, a difficult case. Slots are tight in Amsterdam, the A321neo could fit very well with KLM. And it’s the option to grow without adding more planes. But they are a loyal Boeing customer and have a huge B737NG fleet. They need about 50 planes.

    So it’s either 100 Max and 60 Neos or
    50 Max and 110 Neos.

    I don’t belive AF switching over.

    • Wizzair have set up a hub in AbuDhabi, and are talking about using A321(X)LRs to “fly beyond India”. We also now have several carriers using, or intending to use, A321(X)LRs on transatlantic routes.

      Any longhaul carrier in the process of ordering new narrowbodies would do well to realize that it will be competing with such carriers, and that it might be prudent to make sure that it has the same tools at its own disposal.

      Transavia will probably do what its (French) masters tell it.
      KLM is a tough one to predict. On the other hand, after a substantial state bailout, the airline will — to some extent — have to listen to what the Dutch government has to say on the matter. Whatever the Cabinet thinks, the Dutch parliament tends to be more pro-Airbus than pro-Boeing.

      • I wonder why it’s not mentioned yet: what are the requirements for KLM’s bail-out?? Reduction of carbon emission?

        AB is working on hydrogen, how about BA? Is AF-KLM’s CEO interested in an aircraft that would have to be phased out in early next decade?

        • Carbon footprint is very much on the political agenda in NL…both as regards the airlines and as regards the airports.
          A potential fuel-saving new wing on the A321 would push an order further in the direction of Airbus.
          The hydrogen project may certainly help from a PR point of view.

    • “””A note to Airbus they should move their price for A320neos down.”””

      Airbus needs to make the A321 more expensive to those airlines who want to buy it only because of its unbeatable range capabilities.
      The A321 can be ordered in an 89t version with less range too.
      Can’t be that United orders 420 MAX and gets 120 A321 cheap. Then it’s better not to sell A321 and let United suffer the competition.

  18. More Bad News

    777 failure looks like final nail in the coffin

    “While I believe that the nature of pitch events between the MAX and Boeing 777X are, there indeed seems to be some issues with the pitch of the aircraft possibly related to the tail volume of the aircraft. These issues could be addressed by software as has been done successfully in the past.

    However, what is problematic at this point is that software load dates are sliding and the FAA is not convinced that Boeing has control over its schedule nor does it deem the Boeing 777 mature. From the responses from the FAA this seems to be the deeper issue. The software fix addressing some of the concerns is likely working, but the FAA has basically determined that Boeing is not able to demonstrate compliance and the Boeing 777-9 is still a work in progress.

    In aircraft design being able to demonstrate compliance, verify and validate is of key importance and driven by Boeing 737 MAX crisis in which the FAA also didn’t perform its role too well, Boeing is now suffering the consequences of misusing the space the FAA had granted Boeing previously.

    What is disappointing to see is that Boeing continues facing problems with software development and schedule.

    Furthermore, the company still seems to have tried to rush things. So, also in the management and executive ranks the required mindset with engineering and safety as a core is not yet reflected. For the Boeing 777X, it means that what was supposed to be a development of 6-7 years is turning into a development lasting a decade. Considering that the Boeing 777X is an iterative design, yet an advanced one, a decade is far too long and it is turning the Boeing 777X into a very disappointing development with very strong competitors as smaller wide bodies have gained popularity.

    What Boeing needs desperately at this point is an all-new aircraft development in which a new mindset and appreciation for engineering is implemented.


    • There is zero evidence that the 777X has an issue with the tail volume of the aircraft. This is speculation that we have heard before, and has thus far proved unfounded.

      The 777x now has thousands of hours of flight time. We are aware of one instance of un-commanded pitch control, which points to a problem in the newly developed flight control software. Such problems are always possible in the development cycle, and we flight test in order to find and resolve them. This is what Boeing has done.

      The FAA is exercising caution, in that they want additional insight into the nature of the problem, and the resolution process, to supplement the solution itself, which Boeing has already provided. This is a consequence of both Boeing and the FAA missing the significance of changes made to MCAS in the 737 MAX. The FAA is not going to repeat that mistake again.

      Thus they deemed the Boeing application for TIA premature, until they have the desired insight and visibility. Boeing has to adjust to the new paradigm, which is something Boeing and the FAA will have to work out together. I have confidence that they will sort it out. But it reflects changes in the regulatory process, more than technical problems with the aircraft.

      • That’s a very roundabout way of saying that the software is not up to scratch, Boeing is dragging its feet on a solution, the FAA is tired of waiting and has tossed the ball back into Boeing’s court…and Tim Clark’s exasperation is now even greater. Meanwhile, certification flights are off the table, and the clock continues to tick. And to think that this is currently Boeing’s flagship program!

        • Software glitches are commonly found in development of new systems. Again, it’s why we test.

          Boeing has not dragged its feet on the solution, but they submitted the solution to FAA without the supporting documentation that the FAA now wants to see. That is the adjustment that is taking place, with justification.

          FAA now wants to know the how and why of the solution. That will likely become a routine requirement going forward. So Boeing will need to get ahead of it by having the documentation ready.

          Tim Clark is not a regulator, he can complain all he wishes but he can’t accelerate the process, any more than Mullenberg could. He predicted that regulatory scrutiny would increase after the MAX, this is the manifestation of that. So it shouldn’t be a surprise. Further, it’s ultimately in his interest because the 777X must satisfy EASA as well.

          • Tim Clark is God in the sense that he can kill the entire 777X program if he pulls his order (without cancellation costs).

            Withheld engine performance data, stagnated addressing of a serious software issue, fuselage blowout during testing, cumulative years of delay…all just “standard stuff”, of course. Poor Tim.

          • Tim Clark has the ability to pull the plug anytime he wishes. He has chosen the public criticism route instead, to bring pressure on Boeing while avoiding that outcome, if at all possible. It’s not the outcome he wants, he wants the 777X.

            It’s easier to see this when not hell-bent on interpreting everything in terms of the destruction of Boeing. It’s certainly still possible for Boeing to screw things up, but that’s not what either side wants. So the most likely outcome is that they will work it out together.

          • I think you got your tenses wrong.
            He may have wantED the 777X when he ordered it, but things have changed in the meantime — so it’s foolhardy to suggest that he still wantS is, in the form that he now seems likely to get it (i.e. late, underperforming, and too big/heavy for a changed world).
            He’s already converted some of the order to 787s…remember?
            And why shouldn’t he choose the press to vent his frustrations? He’s not the first to do that, and he won’t be the last. Nothing like a bit of bad PR to make a (normal) OEM sit up and pay attention.

            “It’s easier to see this when not hell-bent on interpreting everything in terms of the salvation of Boeing.”

          • Some things never change. Parroting is the transition from argument to evasion, as it is for children as well. Always means no cards left. I wondered how long it would take. Call me when he cancels the order, and we’ll talk.

          • @Rob

            Ah the good old software glitch – we all long for those innocent days, a glitch sounds so twee Dr Seuss and so trivial

            Until – along came the big bad MCAS grinch and killed everyone

          • Some things never change. Talking without saying anything is the transition from argument to evasion, as it is for children as well. Always means no cards left. I wondered how long it would take. Call me when the 777X gets certified, and we’ll talk.

          • @Rob and @Bryce

            Both of you cool it down please, I know it’s not easy

            How about trying gentler sarcasm or irony – recently there have been many comments problems, best to discontinue production of these programs

            The regulator here, unlike elsewhere, is on the ball and runs a tight ship

          • @ Gerrard
            Very good idea! I agree. No point anyway…the proverbial brick wall.
            We should avoid endless vaccine discussion: it just causes ire, and achieves nothing. In fact, as suggested by TW, we should avoid vaccine talk altogether: news outlets elsewhere provide us with enough information.

            Much more material to be discussed on pure aviation topics. I find Frank’s idea fascinating: a sort of “full service” certification, where the regulator takes the reigns out of the (incompetent) hands of others.

          • @Bryce

            Glad you agree – the bug the vx are fxinating, tawdry to argue about, but hard not to discuss

            And very relevant for airtravel

            I’d prefer to talk about the Glitch that stole Xmas from so many people

            Or Frank’s PE suggestion solution for BA new aircart project

            Or AB in China going it seems from your recent link from strength to strength

            Or Sir T’s plans for EK

            From a doctor

            “These vaccines are non-sterilizing. That means they may limit or eliminate symptoms – but they do nothing for the spread. There are probably all kinds of vaccinated patients harboring active infections at this very minute and they have no clue – the vaccine is making them not sick. But they are sharing it with all around them. Many if not most of them taking no measures because the CDC told them they did not have to – YOU ARE VACCINATED. The good news for today is that the symptoms, hospital, and death all seem to be low. The bad news is all of these harboring the virus are further playgrounds for the virus to mutate. And when you allow it to become more and more widespread – the more likely a really bad mutant will come to the fore. That is THE danger of non-sterilizing vaccines being used for a virus that is profoundly capable of mutating.”

            I’ll admit I’m un ironic about the downunder fate

        • One guy gets suspended, the other guy shows up the very next day.


      • I think that is a fair summation on the 777. The more critical issue was the blowout. A330s on more than one occasion have exhibited dive behaviour for unexplained reasons. Its not good, you don’t ever want to see it but its what testing is all about hopefully this stuff shows up.

        The 787 with its electrical system failure going into San Antonino was a gift as it showed a flaw in the electrical isolation logic. You can test all the aspects and then find a slot that a logic bust occurs.

        What you don’t want it battery failures after its been certified.

        Where I would disagree strongly is that regulatory failures by FAA will never happen again.

        The Maconda Oil Blowout is the classic template. Good regs in place, constantly weakened by corporations and then failure of enforcement (various combinations). Now the oil companies are working on whittling those back again. Bizarre as its not in their interest and not ours either, but they keep doing it.

        Certainly the FAA has clearly messed up oversight in the past and while some years down the road, its almost certainly going to happen again.

        Normalizing deviation takes many forms.

        • One of the regulatory battles after Macondo was whether drillers would be required to use blowout preventers that could stop a fully developed blowout. At the time of Macondo, this was not possible for some wells, so the preventers relied on closing before loss of control occurred, but became inoperable once in progress.

          Under Obama, the industry went to work on new technologies that could do the job. They were successful, but the early examples were extremely expensive.

          So the oil companies complained to Trump, and kept the original preventers. The claim was that Macondo was a one-off and unlikely to happen again. But the reality is there are smaller blowouts around the world every year. Most are controlled fairly quickly.

          It’s unclear what will happen under Biden. I’d like to see the new technologies mature and become standard. The cost is still small relative to the profitability of a productive well.

          • Rob:

            If you read the report on the Maconda blowout, virtually every safety measure was slacked off or non existent .

            Something like 7 main areas.

            Blowout preventer was just one of those, did not work as half was dead and was never tested to work.

          • Yes, but those were decisions undertaken by the BP, Transocean, and Halliburton staff. The cementing plan approved by the regulator, was not the one actually carried out. And as you say, many safety rules were broken.

            This is why criminal prosecutions against the companies were successful for that case, they didn’t follow the rules they had agreed to in their certification. But the rules were in place.

            You raised the topic of regulation, the blowout preventer was an example where the regulations actually were changed, at least for awhile, before being rolled back again.

      • “both Boeing and the FAA missing the significance of changes made to MCAS in the 737 MAX.”

        Seriously?? There’s a summation I read: it’s called Boeing’s “culture of concealment”.

    • Small tail reminds me of the MAX, seems to be Boeing’s MO.
      Why was Dickson not stricter with the MAX.
      Not easy for Boeing to do it right, if regulations change so much. Of course they thought they could get away with little bit cheating again.
      Dickson might be strict on the 787 too, no 1% checks for non automated production.

      Now Tim Clark knows more than he wanted to know.
      How many 777-9 did Boeing already produce?

      • Tim Clark is not a regulator.

        Haha. Of course not. He is well aware of what role he plays, unlike our commentator. He can simply pull the plug and the aircraft is dead, or he can ask BA for a fair amount as compensation.

  19. Wow…what an embarassing analysis.
    Mind you, the leaked FAA letter a few weeks ago hinted at much of this, though this article contains much extra detail.

  20. Just on CNBC, quoting from an NYU study reported in the NYT:
    The single-dose J&J (Janssen) vaccine is ineffective against the Delta variant: a booster dose (of another vaccine) is recommended.

    • Reading the sourced NYT article, the study compared 17 people who received 2 doses of the mRNA vaccines, to 10 people who received a single J&J dose. The latter provided less protection than the former against the delta variant, but was not ineffective.

      “The message that we wanted to give was not that people shouldn’t get the J.&J. vaccine, but we hope that in the future, it will be boosted with either another dose of J.&J. or a boost with Pfizer or Moderna,” said Nathaniel Landau, a virologist at N.Y.U.’s Grossman School of Medicine, who led the study.

      A study from J&J earlier this month, showed that the protection profile was slower to develop than the mRNA vaccine, but offered equal protection over time. That could be remedied with a second dose. So the results are consistent between the two studies.

      This also echoes sentiments from many scientists that all the one-shot regimens should perhaps be extended to two, in common with the mRNA vaccines. There is debate over whether the higher performance of mRNA is actually attributable to the second dose.

      • A projected efficacy of 33% is well under the WHO-set threshold of at “least 50%”; at a societal level, the degree of protection offered is unacceptably low.

        And yet, for other variants, the degree of protection offered by a single shot was about 72%.

        There you go: vaccine under-performance in the face of Delta.

        • The 33% value is effectiveness, not efficacy (a typo in the NYT article), and is for the AstraZeneca vaccine, not J&J.

          The NYU study, which considers antibody titers only, and not T-cell response, found that J&J single-shot titers were about half of those desired for prevention of infection, but about 3 times greater than those desired for prevention of serious disease, against the delta variant.

          Hence the recommendation that J&J vaccine is effective and should be used, but would be more effective against infection, with a second shot.

          • T-cell response is only relevant in mitigating morbitity: it does nothing to prevent infection. Mitigating morbidity is great from a domestic healthcare point of view, but of little relevance in the context of cross-border infection.
            When it comes to preventing infection/transmission, neutralizing antibodies are key: not just their concentrations, but also their binding ability (something manufacturers never talk about). As pointed out above, antibodies are being overwhelmed by the sheer viral loads associated with the Delta variant, and vaccinated Delta infectees are an active part of the transmission chain.
            With regard to the 33% efficacy figure: note the word “projected”.

  21. Flew Alitalia today on a 2 hr flight, no food & no drinks.. never seen that before, even no water. Must be very demotivating for the crew too..

    • Yah – you just know the stews LOVE to wheel around food and beverage service. Poor things got that taken away from them and now they have more time to get off their feet…

  22. Interesting/encouraging:
    “Airbus Has No Whitetail Aircraft Left”

    “Last month, there were fewer than five whitetails left stranded, but Airbus’ management has now confirmed that the company is now fully up to date when it comes to buyers of its produced units.”


    • That can only mean Airbus is screwing customers into accepting them, right? Poor Airbus customers, they don’t have the cards like they have with Boeing!

      • Incorrect.

        It could also mean that because an Airbus is such a desired product (and given the state of the competition, the theory holds) that customers are willing to take whatever model is available, even if it differs slightly from their optimal choice.

        How much is the Airbus backlog again??

      • If you feel screwed with your new Airbus, you could sell it again and you will get more than rock bottom Boeing prices.
        Used A330 have more value than the much bigger B777.

        • Conversely, if Tim Clark decides that he doesn’t want those 787s that he (prematurely) swapped 777Xs for, he should get a reasonable price for them on the second hand market — though he might prefer leasing them from a separate leasing arm of Emirates.
          As you pointed out before, he should have just waited a little longer: with the (further) delayed EIS of the 777X, he could have just canceled for free rather than converting to an airframe that he probably doesn’t really want.

          • Bryce,

            because it’s Boeing, Emirates might be able to cancel 787 for free soon too.
            Emirates might not want to renegotiate the price, because according to wikipedia they don’t have 787 in service yet and Airbus could deliver A350 for sure.
            That would be bad for Boeing because they would need to pay back PDP. Boeing might offer cheaper pricing.

          • @Leon
            Astute observation regarding free cancellation of 787s: that point must be fast approaching, if it hasn’t already been reached. Maybe @Frank can provide guidance?

      • So many BA apologists with twisted mind. Haha.

        BA, unlike fast-react AB, refused to pause production of the MAX after the jet was grounded around the world, not for a week or two, or a month or two. It’s because crazy BA dialed up production *in anticipation of massive orders rushing in*. Boeing reaped what it sowed.

        Furthermore, I would bet Southwest would not want another grounding of the MAX again even if it can defer delivery!!

  23. Also interesting:
    “Airbus delivers first A350 from Tianjin facility in China”

    “Airbus delivered the first A350 from its widebody “completion & delivery center” in Tianjin, China. The A350-900 aircraft was delivered to China Eastern Airlines (CIAH) (CEA), the largest Airbus operator in Asia and second-largest in the world, with a fleet of 413 Airbus aircraft.

    “I’m proud that Airbus successfully extended the capability of the widebody C&DC in Tianjin to the A350, the latest new generation aircraft, at such a difficult time of global aviation,” said George Xu, Airbus Executive Vice President and Airbus China CEO. “This is a new milestone in the long-term cooperation between China and Airbus, which further demonstrates Airbus’ commitment to the country.

    Airbus Tianjin widebody facility covers cabin installation, aircraft painting and production flight test, as well as customer flight acceptance and aircraft delivery. The widebody center was inaugurated in September 2017 with its capability on A330s.”


    • @Bryce

      Thanks for this link

      It appears that Boeing is no longer is able to exercise adequate control of manufacture or operations, having lost organisational integration and strategic control, being forced to abandon self cert a killer blow

      They have ceded production and pricing of the Max to a consortium of airlines, the other aircarts are hardly selling

      Under these circumstances who or what would finance a new aircart or two ?

      @Frank has outlined the only viable solution – which would be kept strictly separate from the other dead duck programs, closely controlled & supervised by outsiders working directly for the PE financiers

      This could only be undertaken given a parallel operation of monopolising control over the major US airlines, extracting profit with the usual methods, and across the board increases in ticket prices

      You could say that WS is already half way there

      • @Gerrard

        Could you imagine the shame and loss of face at BA?

        “You aren’t capable to fund and produce a quality product anymore, so we’re going to tell you what needs to be done and scratch the check for the cost…”

        • @Frank

          I am sure the old style people still at BA will feel shame

          But the newbies like Calhoun will rejoice; for this, PE, is their world and they want to live their best lives

          Whipping boys we used to call them

  24. More unfortunate evidence of the continuing negative effect of CoViD restrictions on aviation — this time domestic aviation in Australia:

    “Rex suspends all Boeing 737 flights due to border closures, lockdowns
    – Regional Express has grounded all inter-city Boeing 737 jet services with immediate effect.”

    “Domestic and Regional routes on Rex’s network in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania will be either temporarily suspended or greatly reduced until the end of the State Government imposed border closures and/or lockdowns,” the airline said in a media statement issues this evening.”


  25. @Frank

    With apologies for adopting your PE idea in my reply to Bryce

    You will of course have a better insight into how or whether any new aircart may be financed at Boeing

  26. Does @TW notice A350 has lower % of fleet in storage than B787??

  27. And then there’s this: Qatar is eager to buy new-model freighters from Boeing an/or Airbus.

    “The Doha-based airline Qatar Airways CEO said the airline was ready to buy Boeing 777X and Airbus A350 freighters before the end of the third quarter of 2021, chief executive Akbar Al Baker said as he reaffirmed his plans to FlightPlan III webinar in a pre-recorded interview, seen by Bloomberg on July 20, 2021.

    On June 22, 2021, Al Baker hinted that the air carrier was keen to add more freighters to its fleet, as the air freight market is likely to remain strong after the COVID-19 crisis is resolved. During an interview, the boss of Qatar Airways indicated that the airline would be “very keen” to be a launch customer for either Boeing 777X freighter or Airbus A350 freighter if the aircraft manufacturers would make those aircraft available.”

    Any bets on a 777X freighter? The present program is a shambles, and a freighter version would just cost more money…


  28. Comments are closed. They became all about vaccines and not about the topics in the post.