By Bjorn Fehrm
September 14, 2021, ©. Leeham News: Boeing released its yearly commercial aircraft demand forecast today. Over the next 20 years, the demand for single-aisle aircraft is past pre-covid levels at more than 32,000 aircraft, with widebodies down 8% compared to 2019 at 7,500 aircraft, Figure 1.
The forecast for freighters is up at 890 aircraft making a total of 43,600 aircraft until 2040, the level of the 20 years forecasts before the pandemic.
“All indicators are now pointing to a full recovery of air traffic to pre-pandemic levels by late 2023 to early 2024,” says Boeing’s Vice President Commercial Marketing Darren Hulst when presenting the numbers. “The recover is lead by domestic traffic and single-aisle in late 2023, with widebody and international traffic recovered by early 2024 (Figure 2).”
Boeing forecasts a total demand of 43,600 new aircraft until 2040 when the global airliner fleet with be at 49,000 aircraft.
Of the 43,600, 20% each will be delivered to North America, Europe, China, and Asia-Pacific, with the rest of the world covering the remaining 20%.
Hulst pointed out that almost half of the new deliveries will replace older, less efficient aircraft (Figure 3).
The replaced aircraft are the most polluting part of the worldwide fleet. The new aircraft coming in are over 20% more fuel-efficient, resulting in a continuous improvement of the emissions levels, Figure 4.
The decline in international passenger flights has lead to a capacity crunch for air cargo as about half of the freight was flying under the floor of passenger airliners, Figure 5.
The air cargo traffic is higher in 2021 than in 2019 despite these challenges, drive by an increase in e-commerce requesting additional air freight capacity, Figure 6.
The capacity crunch and increased freight demand have led to air cargo prices up to three times pre-pandemic levels.
As a result, the demand for new and converted freighters gown and Boeing forecast that the total freighter fleet has grown by 70% by 2040, Figure 7.
In the short term, the aircraft industry — like the auto industry and many others — is suffering from the effects of crippling supply chain disruption, particular shortage of chips and skyrocketing transport costs. Airbus made some comments on this issue just today (see link). As China continues to struggle with its pandemic response (more new outbreaks this week), there’s not going to be a significant improvement in this situation any time soon.
Airbus CEO says supply chain is in ‘difficult spot’:
Medium term: BA’s slice of the cake is going to be very much influenced by the trade/political situation between China and the US. Before the end of 2021, COMAC is going to start the market share erosion process for the traditional OEMs.
Thanks for link – the AB reported comments, though brief, are less upbeat that BA
With good reason – apart from the ongoing severe and likely long lasting supply chain issues raised by AB – which BA have refused to acknowledge – apart from business travel reluctance, there are other factors to point away from quick reversion to 2019 and more
There is the CChange factor
There is the health problem which many countries are suffering from and which discourages travel, to say the least
Plus COMAC will impact BA severely, whether or not Max is re certed
There is also the possibility of a worsening political situation between East and West
To read this summary of the BA report you’d have thought life was a breeze and airlines were not bleeding from every flight
e.g. this prediction by Capa for the Indian market, it’ll improve slightly, but airlines will lose as much money next year as they did this and last
It is, of course, possible that the rosy Boeing outlook is intended as a pep-talk to try to produce some upward momentum in the share price…which is desperately needed.
Yes some such foolcart idea – ‘talking up the market’
Such an unconvincing ignorance of the realities of the current situation comes across as dumber than
I have to say this BA guy’s stuff reminds me of that Qantas guy and his one bound and Jack was free talk about ‘the’ vaccine
They must be related, or hyperlinked or tuned into the same stars
Just to be clear, people are not travelling because of any “health problem” they are being prevented from travelling by State madates.
Boeing are not suffering from the IC constraints as much as Airbus because 1950’s aircraft had none – they were not yet invented 🙂
A lot of people are not travelling because they are sick, or because they fear travel will be to a place where they will fall sick
A lot of people are frightened of/in this current health problem
State authorities have built on this fear to impose travel restrictions
While failing to implement any international program or protocol which may allay fear or overcome some or most of the restrictions they have imposed
All this, and climate change, and E/W phoney wartalk, and semi conductor shortages, and general supply/logistics chain delays, will last for some long or longer time
What you describe is a psychosis which is a form of illness but a different illness to that to which the destruction of the international airline industry has been ascribed. I completely agree however, that it is a state induced psychosis and all the more frightening (and sinister) for that.
Given that the data shows the average traveller is twice as likely to succumb from sunstroke than from the big “C19”, that absence of rationality implies there is no way out of this for the industry until the mass psychosis passes. Acknowledge this truth a plan your travel/career/business accordingly.
“Given that the data shows the average traveller is twice as likely to succumb from sunstroke than from the big “C19””
– There have been 675,000 C19 deaths in the USA in 18 months, which translates to 450,000 per year.
– On the other hand, the link below indicates that about 2,000 Americans die each year from “weather-related” causes…and only 31% ( = 620) of those are due to sun stroke / heat stroke.
At least in U.S., airlines blamed rising cases hampering demand. Travelers may want to stay safe and avoid traveling to high risk areas.
Certainly many people are concerned about contracting COVID-19, though vaccination greatly reduces seriousness of illness in the unlikely case a vaccinated person becomes ill. (The vaccines do not do much for a very few people, perhaps a booster of a different brand will help if it is wise to mix technologies.)
However people should recognize the huge amount of collateral damage from obsessive shotgun measures – people died from delays in surgery and from mental anguish, more will die after diagnosis and treatment of thing like cancer are delayed. While most gummints failed to shield the truly vulnerable such as in nursing homes which are by definition full of people with serious health problems.
Collateral damage also happens when ICUs are overwhelmed by covid patients.
The best way to go forward is high vaccinations but unfortunately that’s not the case.
There are also reports restaurants closing
dining rooms as delta cases surged.
“Given that the data shows the average traveller is twice as likely to succumb from sunstroke than from the big “C19””
– There have been 675,000 C19 deaths in the USA in 18 months, which translates to 450,000 per year.
– On the other hand, the link below indicates that about 2,000 Americans die each year from “weather-related” causes…and only 31% ( = 620) of those are due to sun stroke / heat stroke.
You provide a good opportunity to illustrate my point so let us examine the data and for simplicity, limit our data to the USA and data from the CDC which shows that the most common cause of death is from heart disease with 1 in 6 succumbing to that ailment or expressed as a percentage 16.67%. Let us now examine the empirical data from the current pandemic which shows that for young, healthy individuals with no co-morbidities the infection fatality rate (IFR) is 1 in 37,037 or 0.0027%. Let us now add in for comparison the seemingly frivolous (but not for those who succumb to it) statistic for deaths from sunstroke and we find that 1 in 8248 individuals are fried by our star.
Removing our shoes and socks to enable us to conduct some simple mathematics finds that indeed I was in error claiming that twice as many people die from sunstroke than from C19; the ratio is in fact 4.49 as many healthy, young people die from sunstroke than from C19.
Why weren’t we told about this before? If we had closed down the airline industry earlier we could have prevented all these people from flying to hot, sunny places and saved so many lives. Oh the humanity…
PS: deaths from flying on an airliner? CDC says too few to calculate a meaningful figure.
You seem to think that society is comprised entirely of “young, healthy individuals with no co-morbidities”…but it’s not.
This category of person is also not the only category that flies in planes.
Why have you restricted your data set in this manner, and not looked at the population in its entirety?
1. Why compare IFR of the young and healthy with deaths from sun stroke of the whole population?? Doesn’t seem like an apple to apple comparison to me.
2. It’s estimated 60 percent of American adults have at least one chronic medical condition, so the young and healthy is a minority.
3. Risk increases steadily as age, not just those over the age of 65 who are at increased risk for severe illness of covid.
4. Even if infections among the young and healthy don’t result in high death rate, they can still overwhelm hospitals/ICUs. A heart attack may take a short stay in hospital in a matter of days (usually a couple of days) but covid hospitalization take much longer (figure I heard is roughly 20 days on average).
5. According to a report of 2020, an average of 415 deaths with heat as the underlying cause during 2004–2018. I struggle to see how it became “1 in 8248 individuals”.
You seem to think that society is comprised entirely of “young, healthy individuals with no co-morbidities”…but it’s not.
This category of person is also not the only category that flies in planes.
Why have you restricted your data set in this manner, and not looked at the population in its entirety?
I can’t tell if you are deliberately obfuscating or simply don’t understand statistics.
Life in all but one instance (disputed) is fatal. You can only die once, of one thing. You cannot die of one cause this year, a different cause the next and from yet another in subsequent years. Presenting annual data as you did is specious.
There are do-gooders and world improver’s who collect and collate cause of death data then tabulate it in a format that shows as a percentage, of what you most likely to succumb. I related some of that data to illustrate some perspective. If you die of one or all of these causes then do come back and tell us about it. Start a religion. No one likes a monopoly. People will love you.
Once again though, you raise a point of discussion; I am almost certain there has been some unfortunate, wealthy 85 year old individual on a sun lounger in Florida whose age and infirmity made him succumb to sun stroke whilst his new 19 year old bride, in the string bikini beside him and covered in coconut oil did not but are we to ban all 85 year olds from the sun lounger? Should we ban all 19 year olds in string bikinis and covered in coconut oil from the beach? The Taliban, recently in GMT in Afghanistan certainly would. Should we instead, ban the 85 year old men from marrying very young girls? The Taliban, recently in GMT in Afghanistan certainly would not! Should the police be involved to enforce these things? The FBI? The CIA? It seems to me, figuratively speaking we have done all of those things.
In reality, as any medic will tell you premature death is a rare thing but the current psychosis has made people believe otherwise. We are each allotted our three score years and ten. What you do with them is up to each individual – or used to be. But use sun screen.
Ok, from a male perspective – no banning ladies from the Beach in string Bikini’s.
My wife of course thinks its the Chippendale type not to be banned so I got along with that.
And the Covd death is 1 in 500 US residents if that helps the argument going on here (though I am not sure what its about)
US Hospitals kill 250,000 people a year. So Covid more or less is about 3 years of that.
Now I have not seen data if Covid is saving lives (at least short term) as fewer people are going into the hospital for other reasons.
Covid of course is taking lives but …….
Before the end of 2021, COMAC is going to start the market share erosion process for the traditional OEMs.
That last question sounds rather like the — now infamous — question:
“Oh yeah? You and what army?”
We all saw how that panned out.
Bryce — I suspect Rick is simply responding to Bryce who seems to be going on reports of a planned first C919 delivery before 2022 and a half dozen next year.
China Communist government will force the 919 onto the Airlines the own.
As it will be equal numbers the Airlines will hope to find an internal China level playing filed (that depend son routes).
Problem is both its not approved to fly internationally and it has range limitations.
The Airlines will try to fly it as little as possible and still keep the party off their back.
How much erosion that really is remains to be seen and very possibly we will not know.
Not sure if I agree with all of your sentiments, but yes – it will be equivalent to an older generation 737/A320 and be flown domestically.
If is said to have a range in the region of 2200 NM (4075 KM) or 3000NM for the ER. But I would point out that:
List of busiest passenger air routes
#7 is Beijing to Shanghai: 1081 KM
#14 is Chengdu -to Beijing: 1559 KM
#15 is Guangzhou to Beijing: 1898 KM
#17 is Beijing to Shenzhen: 1979 KM
In fact 6 of the top 21 most travelled routes in the world are domestic and in China – and all are under 2000KM.
I’m not sure how you came up with
“The Airlines will try to fly it as little as possible and still keep the party off their back.”
The way it works – the State ‘is’ the airlines, as the state ‘is’ COMAC
The airlines will want the plane to be successful just as much as COMAC will, just as the State does
Generally speaking the China state has succeeded is very nearly every industrial project it has undertaken, even if China was not an industrial economy until very recently
The products of such industry are bought around the world
What rational grounds are there for stating (!) that this OEM is or will be an exception
Thanks for your comment – a rational statement of the realities of the China domestic market
Had I the necessary expertise I would have been able to come up with a comparable
“China Communist government will force the 919 onto the Airlines the own.”
A bit like Uncle Sam “forcing” the KC-46 flying lemon onto the “air force that it owns”, despite a more superior product being available at the time.
Pure commerce is often “influenced” by a nationalistic/political agenda.
For how many years were US airlines content to keep flying ancient MD80/90 and 757/767 fossils in large numbers, even though more modern and fuel-efficient planes were available? How many European airlines were still flying 25-year-old 747s just prior to the pandemic, even though there were more efficient alternatives available? The fact that the C919 isn’t cutting edge on efficiency doesn’t matter — it’s Chinese, and that appeals to China. And China is 20% of the world market.
“Problem is both its not approved to fly internationally”
You forgot the word “yet”. And yes, we know that the FAA will drag its feet, but the US is only 20% of the world market. Furthermore, as was recently vividly illustrated with the MAX, many countries are no longer automatically interested in what the FAA has to say, now that its image has been seriously compromised.
Boeing and United Airlines were part of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, a large, vertically-integrated, amalgamated firm before it was broken up after a scandal.
You believe the majority of the B737 in U.S. are flown for domestic flights or international flights??
Dont forget that Boeing signed twenty-year “exclusive supply” deals with Delta, Continental and AAL for (laughable) “best prices”.
Competition and free market are theories for economic students.
The C919 will start out as a domestic aircraft, but how long will that last? Once it’s been flying for a few months, China’s large following of “friendly nations” may start to take interest, and some/many of them may decide to green-light the plane. Most/much of Africa (and possibly South America) comes to mind, as well as much of central Asia and even parts of southeast Asia. Comparing the C919’s fate to that of the ARJ21 is like comparing the A320 to the MD80.
Remember that China likes to avoid dollar transactions by engaging in barter: I can easily see a situation of “you send us X worth of oil, minerals or raw materials and we’ll pay you with X worth of our shiny new aircraft”.
History is full of dominant players being supplanted by others. The cell phone market was once all about Nokia and Motorola, and now it’s all about Samsung and Xiaomi. Transatlantic air traffic was once dominated by PanAm and TWA, and both of those went into the dust. Things change.
The C919 will likely dominate the leisure market between Pyongyang and Beijing. If it gets FAA and EASA certification in several years it’s possible it may be sold as part of cheap loan credits, say part of the belt and roads initiative. Maybe Cuba, likely North Korea, and African nation in a bad way, maybe Taiwan if, as seem likely to me, President Biden let’s China Invade it towards the end of his second term.😁
Clearly hit a nerve with the usual line up of Chinese Enthusiasts.
And predictions like the Airlines want to have the 919 a success as they and the government are aligned. Yes Comrad, you will cheer for this, otherwise we have ways of making you disappear.
Of course the assumptions are not facts. What makes Airbus and Boeing a success is the follow up, support, in depth documentation on each aircraft built. That translates into reliability.
China has no track record of support at this level. The last public showing of the 919 the demonstrators of what they had were no where to be found (Farnborough Air Show I believe it was as reported by Av Week)
Add in the vast amount of Western tech on the 919 and the need to get spares and support from people you are stealing the tech from?
Sorry, we have not made that chip in 10 years, you will have to upgrade.
Its not that China does not have internal routes that work. Its the mix of how those routes work (or don’t).
So, no flexibly to route onto say Vietnam with a flight in Southern China.
And will Vietnam overturn its cert standards for China?
Philippines? Indonesia? All of which are situation on the South Asian Ocean.
There are the big markets of North Korea and Burma! Sure Zaire is a candidate. And you can’t fly to your only market in SA?
The reality is that there are major unknowns and even with a will and a plan, learning curves are steep.
But to either assume or insist that China is up to Boeing and Airbus standard for support that they learned back over 80 years of building aircart?
You are good – at typos too, Let’s China Invade, sounds just like Biden
Airlines airports and aircraft is infrastructure – takers can be Iranandstans : most of Africa (most of Africa is in a bad way, the recent hook up between Qatar and Rwanda is little more than a cover for ‘security’ ops in the Congo or nearby)
I know you are being sarcastic, but what better way to keep Nth K from going Big Biden than flying lots of Chinese tourists there ?
It is uncertain that Iran/stans would require FAAEASA certification for COMAC planes destined to fly to SCO or in due course SREP countries– surely the old order of unquestioning acceptance of FAA authority has vanished, a new normal filtering in, especially in Asia –
China is putting in trains, phones, grids, pipelines, roads you name it, why not airports airlines airplanes too ?
I guess, by the middle of the decade, more countries would certify the jet if it’s proven to be safe, unlike BA’s infamous “rush job”. Sit back and watch.
Before covid, China Eastern flown A330s to BKK and SNG. I’d say there’s a higher chance for WB like A330 to fly between China and Vietnam than a NB.
A former French ambassador to U.S. called France being stabbed from behind by the US and the UK in Australia. An expert believes Iran now sees an opening to justify its uranium enrichment:
“the damage to the nuclear nonproliferation regime will be very significant, and I strongly believe it will outweigh the defense benefits of Australia.”
The Aus gvmt seems happy to play the pet poodle and yappity yap at China
The covid induced isolationism has reinforced ancient prejudices there
@Gerrard White. The COMAC C919 contains much US equipment: LEAP 1C, the APU, glass cockpit, FBW etc. It’s likely the US could prevent Chinese exports to countries it is sanctioning or embargoing.
The Irkut MC21 is likely completely sanction proof as there is a variant with Russian APU, geared turbofan (The PD-14), Russia Glass Cockpit and Displays with Russian displays and Russian fly by wire and is made out of Russian polymers.
Ironically it is sanctions that have made Russia far more independent of everything but French Cheese. (Last time I was in Russia 54years ago the only thing they were bitching about the sanctions was how boring the cheese had become)
The Chinese and the C929 will be the beneficiaries of this.
Indeed, all sanctions do is to force the sanctioned party to become more independent: so, if the US attempts to thwart COMAC in any way, all that will happen is that COMAC will become more self-sufficient (by removing foreign sub-systems)…and, while it’s doing that, China won’t be buying any Boeings.
What will really blow the lid off the pot is if the US tries to restrict sales of LEAP engines to China, which will tick off the EU big time (already tired of US restrictions on Iran and NordStream 2). Again, that will ultimately only force the EU to become more independent where aeroengines are concerned, by beefing up Safran. The EU is already beefing up its semiconductor industry in this way.
I think that restricting the Leap engine is a non-starter. After all, I am sure that GE has a huge lobbying presence on K Street and we are talking big money, here.
Additionally, GE might turn around and say to the decision makers “Listen, Comac is going to make the C919 – with or without us. Better we sell them the engines and derive some benefit from it, otherwise they’ll just go elsewhere. ”
or something along the lines of
“Too bad for Boeing, they should’ve built a better aircraft. Don’t punish us because the Chinese won’t buy their planes. We’re not going to stop China from building that plane, so we might as well profit from it”
At which point I would wonder if Safran (of France, who already does business with Russia) would go it alone and provide the Chinese with an engine.
While the democratic nationalistic views some have here are honorable, I suspect that business will trump all that. If there’s a buck to be made, then countries be damned…
The scenarios you sketch are entirely logical and reasonable, and would be subscribed to by any level-headed person.
However, unfortunately, logic and reason are often scarce when it comes to nationalism and politics.
@ Pedro / Gerrard
The Aussies reneging on the French contract — aided and abetted by the US and UK — will only serve to strengthen the conviction that the US attitude to the EU has become adversarial. The result will be a further disentanglement of EU/US partnerships, and increasing EU independence — particularly in defense. Now that a precedent has been set with Australia, there’s no reason why various EU countries can’t develop their own nuclear sea vessels. There’s also no reason to continue ordering F35s instead of European fighters.
Russian cheese has progressed since you were there, so at least it is reported, and there is now a thriving cheese industry with all sorts and types, msm, artisanal and fantasy products
So much so that foreign investors are attracted to this booming sector, and their only worry is that the lifting of sanctions will be bad for business
This is the world turned upside down – China agrees with a smile
“I’m a farmer and cheesemaker from the Moscow region,” Sirota told President Vladimir Putin during a public discussion in October 2018. “I make cheese. Let me begin by saying on behalf of the farmers, we have been telling you this repeatedly over the last four years…I wanted to thank you for the sanctions. In fact, we had a long discussion about this with experts at our session.”
Putin replied: “You should thank the Americans, not me.”
“That is what we were debating,” Sirota responded.
“who to thank, Obama, Merkel or you? Anyway, thank you for all of that. Russian agriculture is clearly thriving. Take me: I sold my flat, my car, my business, made an investment, and my cheese-making factory has been growing 300 percent a year. The agricultural breakthrough is boosted by protectionism, the sanction shield, the cheap ruble, and care, such as record subsidies.”
“[Vladimir Putin] What kind of cheese do you produce?
[Oleg Sirota:]Hard and semi-hard. We are thinking about exporting them. Next year, our cheese will make Vienna, Munich and Berlin tremble. I assure you, we already have an agreement. [Vladimir Putin] Will they tremble because your product is delicious, or because it is something else?”
“Because it is delicious…Our cheese is tasty, hard and cheap thanks to the ruble rates. It is attracting investors, including international ones. Everyone has begun investing in Russia’s agriculture. We have partners from Switzerland who relocated to Russia and are building farms. I was asked repeatedly during the session about what would happen if the sanctions were cancelled. What would I do? Would it be a disaster?”
Putin: “Regarding cheese and what happens if sanctions are lifted. First of all, we are not seeing them readying to lift any sanctions so you can sleep tight.”
Further un reliable and menacing acts from the US
Further using Aus as a forward base, as per Guam
Aus PM has been a frontman for bad mouthing China re Covid – a mini sanctions war ensued – China is established alternative sources of iron ore in Africa and SA before retaliating in force
The Aus have been lending the US tea lady assistance in the various US Asian wars
Looks like they are trying to brew up another
The EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell, also expressed his disappointment, revealing that he only learned of the new alliance through the media.
This alliance we have only just been made aware and we weren’t even consulted,” he said. “As high representative for security, I was not aware and I assume that an agreement of such a nature wasn’t just brought together overnight. I think it would have been worked on for quite a while.”
The French defence minister, Florence Parly, called Australia’s about-face “very bad news with regards to keeping one’s word”, adding that France is “clear-eyed as to how the United States treats its allies”.
“The American decision, which leads to the exclusion of a European ally and partner like France from a crucial partnership with Australia at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, be it over our values or respect for a multilateralism based on the rule of law, signals a lack of consistency which France can only notice and regret.”
The far-right’s Marine Le Pen called it “a political disaster” and “a public humiliation” for France, as well as a “very serious attack on its image as an industrial power”.
Benoît Arrivé, the Socialist mayor of Cherbourg, told Agence France-Presse it was an “industrial and human disappointment” and “a real slap in the face for French foreign policy”.
And now we are off into telling Australia they don’t have a right to cancel a contract that is as bad or worse than the F-35?
You do know about cancellation clauses?
Or how about its a 90 BILLION cost (before terminated) for a lousy 12 submarines. 7 Billion per sub (and going up)
And the French are making 6 Nuke Boats for 10 billion. Hmmmm
Can you say massive overrun?
And the Aussies are traitors to mankind?
What a world view. Where is Nevill Chambelein when you need him.
Sadly you are not alone, people do not pay attention to details.
The PD-14 IS NOT a GTF.
Its a standard supposedly updated two shaft, aka V2500
–> Or how about its a *90 BILLION cost* (before terminated) for a lousy 12 submarines. 7 Billion per sub (and going up)
And the French are making 6 Nuke Boats for *10 billion*.Sadly you are not alone, people do not pay attention to details. <–
Truer words have never been spoken!
Do you need a mirror?? 😂
ABC AU: Australia to be left ‘strategically naked’ for 20 years under nuclear submarine deal
Great news for global peace!
‘Lost the plot’: How an obsession with local jobs blew out Australia’s [A]$90 billion submarine program
@TW: When did A$ reach par with US$?? 😂
You are comparing the cost of building submarine over a decade ago with the cost of transferring the tech and building in a different country in late 2020s and 2030s!!
I can smell further cost overrun for this program already. Worry not, the taxpayers would have to foot the bill for this debacle.
Where is your “I will believe it when I see it …” skepticism?? Selective bias may I say?
Oh BTW who is ‘that fella Down Under’? 🙃 Freudian slip??
Instead of twelve diesel-electric submarines, they are looking for *eight* only. Local content would come down from 60% to 40%. Call me a skeptic, I doubt the total spending would be any lower than the current budgeted amount, without considering the cost to extend the life of existing fleet.
-> “Sorry, we have not made that chip in 10 years, you will have to upgrade.”
You’re aware the good old flight computers in BA’s latest 737 have chips from the 90s??
-> “Its not that China does not have internal routes that work. Its the mix of how those routes work (or don’t). So, no flexibly to route onto say Vietnam with a flight in Southern China. ”
You’re aware United ordered 70 A321neo at the same time it made a massive B737 MAX order??
Cognitive dissonance, again?
Pedro: I really can’t make hide nor hair of your posts.
I am having huge laughs at the French posturing.
Same as the KC-46, you have to take what we offer and seeing as you did not, you can’t bid on our program (really, like that was going to happen anyway? )
Is France aware the Egypt is our client and they took our fighter sales away then the Egyptians bought the vastly over priced Rafael?
Funny as lame as the F-35 is supposed to be, Swiss rated it higher than the Rafael and the Typhoon by leaps and bounds. hmmmm.
So now its the Strategic Partnership with Australia is torn asunder, is that not like holding a gun to the Aussies head and, if you do not buy our now 8 Billion dollar sub its all over?
Funny Germany bought the P-8 not the pie in the sky French upgrade.
Should the; US dump Nato, they buy as little from us as they can possibly get away with making overpriced and unreliable equipment for themselves?
Oh, the US is going to station at least one Fast Attack in Oz, start working with the Aussies on Nuke ops.
And yes, despite the press, the cost is not 40 billion, the over run on the Aussie sub program had hit 90 billion and not one weld made yet. So, at this rate, 120 billion for 12 subs. 12 billion, for a Sub, what is not to like?
So, let not work with our customer, lets just keep adding costs.
But its a competitive field, and if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
The Australia cancellation of the 12 conventional submarines from France is unfortunate. It ill cause hardship for French defence industry.
Australia however can not defend its coastline and interests without nuclear submarines. There has been a millionaire backed lobby for nuclear subs in Australia for almost 10 years.
Conventional submarines were tokens. One need only think of the problem and time taken to reposition submarines from say Melbourne or Sydney to Darwin, the West Australian Coast or the resource rich north west.
It would have been nice to continue with the French subs and supplement with US nuclear subs. Conventional subs can patrol outside of the sea approaches to harbours.
Note I am Australian. Australian primeministers making rash and undiplomatic statements towards Asian politicians is not new. They seem to think the rough and tumble of Westminster System debate applies outside of the anglosphere. The current prime minster Scott Morrison is a bit of a high functioning idiot who keeps making mistakes managing national emergencies like fires and to an extent COVID-19) whereas the opposition leader Antony Albanese is intelligent, dedicated, hard working diplomatic and measured but his moderate left wing party is infected by a hard left lunar contingent that is unpalatable to voters.
Arms supplied by the EU (especially with Germany involved) or Sweden tend to be worthless as they often sanction further arms supplies when conflict begins. France is more reliable but really EU minister complaining about people not taking their arms is a bit rich.
I’m old enough to recall Australia’s F-111 purchase. Roughly the story goes that the Communist aligned Sukarno regime in Indonesia started sabre rattling and purchased some MiG 21 which made Australia’s AVON Sabres look pathetic.
Australia purchased Mirage III and produced under licences. Their pitiful range barely being able to fly from Sydney to Melbourne. I suppose they could defend Darwin from G4M Bettys.
Sukarno went but some Sabre rattling continued under Suharto with a small contingent of Indonesian nationalists claiming Australia was part of an Indonesian Empire.
Australia purchased special extended wingspan F-111s.C They were magnificent, reliable and unstoppable. The RAAF could hit with precision targets nearly 1500 miles away and could fly from Melbourne to Darwin in one leg. A lot better than a Mirage that would run out of fuel at 1/4 that distance.
Unfortunately Australia has ended up with the F-35 instead of F-22. The F-35 is also relatively short legged.
While folks love Chinese culture and people China’s CCP is unfortunately not beloved expect by billionaire western business interests. Ironic how Communism solves labour problems for the billionaire liberation front of the west. Many folks may note the CCP carry some responsibility for a lot of unpleasant things. The desire to threaten and invade Taiwan, Organ Harvesting, executing shopping bag man and their bizarre response to the discovery of COVID-19 where Wuhan was internally quarantined but not internationally. Lee Kwan Yu banned spitting in Singapore. Would that his hygiene ordinances been imposed by the government in china. Odd non transparent things went on a Wuhan institute that can’t be explained away as conspiracy theories.. Cordially relations are nice, gullible ones make you vulnerable.
Lets hope we develop a sensible normalcy. We don’t need an arms race.
I can’t say that France nuke ship industry (can’t use the S word now) is any worse off than before. And frankly, who cares ? Its a commercial transaction .
I have heard reports that Australia was trying to get the program under control and France was not responding.
Equally, France could co design and build nu8ke ships that go underwater with the UK and or the US and all 3 benefit. The US does not trust France due to the Industrial espionage problem. Also things like selling Tank Target system and small carriers to Russia.
“Conventional submarines were tokens. One need only think of the problem and time taken to reposition submarines from say Melbourne or Sydney to Darwin, the West Australian Coast or the resource rich north west.”
No, they are not. Nukes can get places faster, but there is nothing stealthier than a diesel electric submerged boat (SB).
But ask any task force of a Nuke SB, the Diesel Electric boats are all but impossible to detect (at least a Western made).
The US made the mistake in WWII of thinking Nazi SB could not reach and operate off the East Coast. Tragically wrong.
If tensions ratchet up, you forward position the SB. Australia would have US assistance and possibly other allies in the region depending on what actor was causing waves.
Vietnam has 6 Russian SBs as a deterrent to China. And the US found to its painful experience to never underestimate the Vietnamese in using high tech weapons.
No question in my mind Australia should have gone Nuke SB sooner. The US before WWII recognized the Pacific as a major SB arena and designed the long range Fleet Boats. Best you could do at the time.
The US can pass on the retiring Los Angelas class boats as starter SB for Australia while they work in delivery of the Virginia class into production.
So the bottom line is that people from the EU can poke at the US all they want but when it comes to criticism of say a French Defense industry all bets are off!
So a B(l)oated bid from the EU is just fine but don’t you dare not take our A330MRT!
We call that Hypocrisy over this side of the Ponds.
Is this not the same screaming and hollering we heard from the same actors on the A330MRT illegal bid award. ?
Oh the humanity. Touche as they say in French.
->”And now we are off into telling Australia they don’t have a right to cancel a contract … ”
While divorce is legal in most countries, extramarital affair is widely despised in most societies (is there any exception??). That’s why some felt betrayed by one of their “close” allies.
Of course, the hegemony has shown its true color after recent debacles, from the exit from a twenty-year war without consultation with others to stabbing its “ally” at the back (and paying lip service afterwards).
@Transworld. Conventional submarines are close to useless for Australia. They simply can not transit to the operational area in time. The small 1ooo ton Swedish and German subs are perfect for the Baltic, North Sea and coastlines but are not adequate for blue water operations. Australia’s submarines (Collins class) are not copies of Swedish designs but grossly enlarged designs increased from 1000 tons to 4000 tons to get the range Australia needs.
Whatever the ‘stealth of conventional subs it is lost the moment they have to snort. Once under water they are too slow to escape a search pattern.
The only submarines the Australians could have built was the highly modular German Type 212 or 214 and then only versions that were not altered significantly from the original German design. The Germans subs are designed for manufacture using modular techniques and they have experience in organising for this. Hubris and an delusional belief in Swedish labour relations by the soft left government had them choose a Swedish basis for the Collins class rather than practical. A Volvo instead of an affordable VW.
Your typos are superior, lead through the mirror into the more realer world
But cultural or political aversion disagreement or distaste or fear of or with this or that country people or régime is in adequate as defence or justufucation or expect I mean excuse to wartalk munger or armsrace
To seek to explain that these élite class idiots have good reason to fear eachother and take steps to show how quite unafraid they really are is buy into the ruling class cannon fodder enslavement of their own people for better to oppress them : their enemy is not the far off foreign country that eats with their fingers, or who encourages childtrans, their enemy is their own poor of whom, only, are they genuinely afraid
Aus is defending it’s coastline against what or who ?
The only people invading are those poor sods who did’nt get visas – as EU has found out, you can fight off a few, but millions you can not
Kissinger’s saying about the so called friend is taken from the China Art of War cook book, and is all the more valid for that – nonetheless going out of your way to p…off your friends, in this case the EU, is to leap out of the frying pan into the line of fire
PS I’d say you are wrong about how the CCP is viewed within China, (so far) they have delivered the goods, just about everyone is getting fatter, why not up the game, go the whole hog and copy the Ynaks, throw some muscle in someone else’s face
PPS ‘Aus needs nuclear subs’ – like a hole in the head they do : what they all need, friend and foe, is a great deal more intelligent attitude to life
“These two could be twins. Both suffer illusions about their own importance. They think they are global players. In truth, they’re global goofs.
In America’s losing battle to prevent China’s rise to world No 1, they dance to Joe Biden’s menacing tune.”
I do not how you manage to dig up these twitters – this one is very good
‘They’re like a pair of flabby chorus singers supporting the main turn. On this, both agree : if there’s going to be another war, they want in’
The photograph of Thing One and Thing Two comparing cultural trinkets proves the twinship, and the sad old cliché about tired or is it dead male and pale finally comes home
Not sure if conventional one are “close to useless” as claimed by our poster. If it were true, then proof of the disaster of defense spending is little different from throwing money down the drain or into the ocean.
*Time to scrap its current fleet* instead of continuing operation of these useless machines. 🤣
The decision to pick the F-111 was made in 1963. In spite of what history revisionist said, it was a *bomber* to replace the Canberra!
Thanks to F-111, 10 RAAF pilots and navigators had been killed in crashes up to 2003.
As reported by BBC, Chinese tourists are flooding to its southern island to enjoy the sand and sea, and pick up surfing instead of going to South East Asia thanks to the loosening of domestic travel.
Fools: those who believe they are smarter than the rest, or followers of “exceptionalism”.
-> We start a new arms race to ensure peace and global security!
Thanks to America and Erik Prince, Blackwater spawned the rise of shadow armies now used by Iran, Turkey and Russia. Stuxnet prompted Iranian, Chinese, Russian cyberwarfare against the US. Turkey now exports drones, and Iran gives them to the Houthis to use against Saudi.
Every single battlefield innovation of this type can be used by your enemy. So don’t be shocked the day an Israeli general is gunned down by a “killer robot” on the outskirts of Haifa.
“The new aircraft coming in are over 20% more fuel-efficient, resulting in a continuous improvement of the emissions levels, Figure 4.”
The fleet doubles so emission “levels” must be increasing.
Glad someone else noticed that.
We have how many more cars since the 70s?
Pollution in the US has gone down.
Its now cleaner coming out of a tail pipe than going in (due to all polluting factors in the air its not as clean as exhaust)
We just need to put an air pump on those jet engines and EGR!
Gas coming out of an exhaust will still kill you. It will take a lot more time to commit suicide by tailpipe emissions than that it did 40 years ago, but it still works. And US emission standards run behind Europe and Japan and I believe China too. US cars can not be sold where I live as they do not meet emission and safety standards. If you want a Ford Mustang, it is the UK version of a Ford Mustang which meets Europe standards.
Jet engines to don’t need an EGR because flow control of primary air into the combustor in combination with the BPR does effectively the same. For a car, the air-fuel ratio needed to meet emission standards is 14.7. So for a specific amount of oxygen in the cylinder, you need to add an exact amount of fuel to match that, which is what the engine management system does. What EGR does is replace oxygen rich air with oxygen free exhaust gas and thereby reduce the amount of oxygen in a cylinder and this reduce the fuel needed to ensure combustion is optimum and thus reduce fuel consumption. Added benefit is that exhaust gas heats up the intake air when it mixes and the higher temperature increases combustion quality.
A jet engine will effectively do the same: you need to control amount of oxygen in the combustor to manage fuel as the ratio of oxygen and fuel needs to be optimum to ensure emissions meet standards. If you just keep oxygen the same and try to control fuel burn by reducing fuel, you run lean, NOx shoots up and temperatures shoot up, damaging the engine. In a car, the catalytic converter will literally burn out. (ironically, if you have a problem with engine cooling/overheating, running fuel rich is one of the mitigations)
Engine design is about managing oxygen and temperatures: the fuel used will be a consequence of these 2 parameters.
To be more precise, only around 20% of the air and oxygen leaving the compressor is used for combustion, the rest is for cooling. You could use the exhaust gas heat in a heat pump recuperating mode to heat the air around the fuel nozzles before combustion to lower fuel consumption, but it is hard, expensive and add weight. Note that the most modern engines has a higher compressor exit temperature than the air leaving the last stage of the LPT. The CFMI RISE engine will work on this and maybe find use of the Reaction engines heat exchanger. A fair amount of water steam is in the exhaust and could it be easily captured, cleaned and liquid it can be useful in the combustions chamber as well, lowering cooling air temperatures and increase mass flow in the turbines.
US standards for air quality are higher than EU standards which allow more NOX and particulates.
For fleet average for CO2 it’s the other way round.
CO2 is of course essential for plant and tree life .
As for airliners ,”Commercial aircraft make up about 3% of the country’s overall greenhouse gas emissions”
So not going to make much difference to whether US NW sinks or not..
Just a couple of updates.
a/ Although NOX emissions in California were blamed on the automobile tailpipe emissions radioisotope studies (some in the arctic) now show that the NOX is coming from nitrate fertiliser overuse in California not IC cars.
b/ It’s the same story with the claimed acid rain induced die back of pine forest in USA & Europe. That’s now known to have been caused by agriculture not coal fired power stations or automobiles.
Soot formation in both diesels and jets is associated with large non linear (circular) chains of hydrocarbons. They tend to bunch up and not burn properly thereby forming soot. In Jet aircraft the soot causes contrails (nucleation) and in diesels particulates.
One way to eliminate is to use synthetic fuels (eg Fischer Tropsch. In diesels Sandia National Labs has proven that putting a simple Bunsen like shroud that stabilises the burn it almost completely eliminates soot.
The RCCI engines now appearing for 3 years in Formula one use injection of DME for ignition of a homogenous charge can operate at lambda 2.5. That’s 35:1 ultra lean and way above the 14.2:1 stoichiometric. They do so without NOX emissions and will soon start appearing in automobiles. Mazda already has a compression ignition HCCI petrol engine. The RCCI look like they are going to be 58% to 60% efficient.
They will have application in aircraft.
In Europe, new vehicles have been subjected to ‘real-world’ on the road tests for emission since summer 2019 while the U.S. E.P.A. still relies on lab tests devised in 1970s.
You do realize the EGR was tongue in cheek?
Misleading about tailpipe emissions NdB.
– many things can kill you, including H2O in sufficient quantity (amount in exhaust is not much)
– CO2 will only kill you if it displaces enough oxygen that your lungs cannot function, that is a very high concentration, nothing to do with climate
– exhaust of internal combustion engines has CO which is deadly.
– there are other things in exhaust including NOx
You use a Poor analogy.
I have read about the loopholes in EU law on emissions, ours may not road test but they sure are held to the fire.
And then Germany dumped a lot of emissions violating diesels into the US market.
So yea, you have to take the EU with a warehouse of salt. Lots of high and mighty PR up front but the devil in the details you can drive the Queen Mary through.
You have to investigate changes of their regulations as a result of 2015 scandal before you judge. It’s *elementary*.
Mazda *doesn’t* have any compression ignition (HCCI) gasoline engine. Far from it, it’s being called Spark Controlled Compression Ignition (SPCCI) for a reason. (https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/mazda-stories/engineers/skyactiv-x/) And its reception in the market is rather disappointing. (https://carbuzz.com/news/why-is-no-one-buying-mazdas-amazing-new-engine)
No need to spread lies. There is too much fiction, half-truth and falsehood being spread around knowingly or unknowingly.
Drink too much water and that will kill you to.
In the same figure is also a comparison between US aviation and US automobile fuel efficiency. It should be noted that the US automotive market is an outlier in global context due to their large truck marketshare which in turn is driven by US regulations (trucks are not subject to same fuel and safety standards as smaller cars). In the rest of the world, there has been good improvements in automotive fuel economy although aviation is still a lot better.
That said, I wonder how much improvement came from the rise of LCCs and ULCCs who just cramp many more passengers in the same space and thereby drive down the fuel per passenger (same fuel, more passengers) while they contributed to a huge increase in passenger miles. Even the US legacies tighten up space significantly. Spirit might have contributed more to this perceived increase in fuel economy than Boeing and Airbus did.
“It should be noted that the US automotive market is an outlier in global context due to their large truck marketshare”
Believe it or not, there are also LOTS of trucks in countries outside the US.
Skimming my city is a freeway that connects the port of Antwerp to the German Ruhr. Put a counter at a random point along it and it will register 50,000 trucks per 24 hour period. It’s so busy during the daytime that the rightmost lane is essentially entirely occupied by trucks. And that’s despite having a rail network that is also heavily used for freight transport.
I think NdB was using the term truck in a different context. He meant trucks like the Ford F150/250, Dodge RAM. Closest equivalent in Europe might be Ford Ranger or VW Amorak. This class of vehicle is not so popular in Europe. The story goes that The EU imposed restrictions on the import of US round up ready soy fed chickens and the US retaliated with a 30% tariff on European vans.
Um, Bryce, isn’t the point about trucks in the US the number that are just for personal use?
Apart from farming, ranching, and remote areas a large number of pickemups are self-justified on hauling materials for the big house or just on flash.
We have a pickup (and a Passat). Hauled a lot of stuff in the pickup I could not deal with otherwise. Yea, you can rent a pickup, all day and the problems (oh, they did not bring it back so you don’t have one today)
More options as many places now deliver items.
The pickup is the more reliable, under $500 into repairs.
Passat has cost $3000
So the pickup also is a good backup and if need be, used for a separate mission. And it always runs.
Hence the ICAO rules which in acknowledgment of the difficulty in controlling the anticipated 2.5 fold increase in air traffic only seeks to cap emissions to 2019 levels. The rules will require a combination of increasingly efficient aircraft, a progressive increased blending in of SAF fuel and improvements in operation efficiency to cap total global emissions to 2019 levels.
If Boeing gets a dispensation for the B767 freighter any of them that are delivered after 1 January 2018 will pay a penalty on their fuel purchase when fuelling in Europe and many other jurisdictions.
The EU is not ‘screwing around’ on this AFAIKT and are pushing airbus on LH aircraft.
It’s interesting to see another commentator/analyst’s different first reading of the Outlook: “Boeing yet to restore 20-year outlook to pre-crisis 50,000 level.”
‘The pandemic and the associated policy dynamics – notably travel restrictions – is driving near-term volatility, says Hulst, but the demand creates a “resilience” in the longer-term outlook.’
This reads as nonsense – the crisis has produced significant drop in demand, called ‘volatility’, but this drop only re inforces future surge, if or when the ‘pandemic’ should ever end – he assumes, presumably, it very soon will
Gerrard — Hulse* certainly seems to assume tha the long-term trend is relatively stable, even if there’s a five-year pause (or, indeed, drop) in the short-term. My point was that two headlines appear to have alternative understanding of BA conclusions.
*He’s not called ‘vp marketing’ for nothing, of course.
I see what you mean – but to dismiss the virus and CChange (and the rest) as incidental to the alternative reality of the ‘long term trend’ is irrational and ignorant
The pandemic and CC etc is the long term trend, the end result of the trend, not trivial nor temporary
Gerrard — Ultimately, Boeing (like Airbus et al) is relating its interpretation of current circumstances (population and economic growth, et cetera) and (granted) applying conventional wisdom to create a trend. For the moment, I fear, it sees no reason to change the formula, especially if it perceives technological progress under way and continuing. Of course, come the next global international environmental/climate-change conference someone might have an irresistible recipe to ‘take back (environmental) control’. Let’s hope he doesn’t also want to level anything anywhere other than down…
I agree it will take a little time for ‘conventional wisdom’ to realise or rather to publish that the old normal is no longer current
The new normal will involve continuing maybe increasing elements of pandemic controls, climate change inspired controls, continuous supply chain disruptions and inflations, as well as the fall out from increasingly nasty warmongering
But, first, a booster!
Wall Street is not impressed by Boeing’s rosy outlook:
“Boeing Slips as New Outlook for Jet Demand Disappoints”
Bryce — Wall St being unimpressed might suggest that investors/gamblers believe/think that BA conjures numbers from thin air and should try harder; taking the document at face value we must conclude that this is actually the way that Boeing market analysts see demand trends.
There is no reason to take the document at face value. Both Boeing and Airbus routinely publish wildly optimistic predictions that bear no resemblance to results of their internal research.
JS — ‘…no reason to take the document at face value…’ Do you mean that Boeing does not perceive the factors typically seen as driving growth and, by extension, demand for travel capacity — which is what they are reporting? We might not like humanity’s overall inability and general unwillingness to mind the shop, but Boeing is only the messenger in this instance, unless and until those factors of economic and population growth change — and soon.
The future may (or may not) be bright, but the present is still gloomy for BA:
“Boeing jet orders crept up in August while deliveries remained slow”
p.s. 28 more MAX cancellations in August…
“””28 more MAX cancellations in August…”””
These 28 must have had a scheduled delivery for August 2020. If Boeing had a planed production rate of around 60 per month, the cancellations are nearly half of the production. Some deliveries might have been already deferred to a later date and/or prices re-negotiated.
Leon — “These 28 [cancellations] must have had a scheduled delivery for August 2020…” Must have had? Is there no other possible explanation for any of them, not at all (or have they all been identified as such)?
“””Is there no other possible explanation for any of them”””
The MAX and covid story is a long one. I think if customers wanted to cancel orders, they would have done it earlier. So these 28 might be new ones, available for free cancellation for the first time. The reason is easy, if they can cancel for free why wouldn’t they do it. If they could cancel Airbus for free too, they might do it too, but that is not available. So mixed fleets might take the money from Boeing to pay Airbus, not a bad move.
United ordered and canceled eight B737 MAX, Avolon also canceled 2 B787.
A comment on this bit:
“The replaced aircraft are the most polluting part of the worldwide fleet. The new aircraft coming in are over 20% more fuel-efficient, resulting in a continuous improvement of the emissions levels, Figure 4.”
If the new aircraft are 20% more fuel efficient, but there are twice as many of them in 2040 as there were in 2019, we aren’t really improving the emissions levels at all. In fact, from quick back-of-the-napkin math, emissions will be 50% higher than today. I only point this out to highlight the importance of continuing work in all corners of the industry to improve efficiency well beyond current best-in-class levels.
You’re convoluting “emission levels” and “cumulative emissions”.
It’s like the difference between “unit price” and “order total”.
Further, because the human population is increasing, and developing countries are developing, there will continue to be competition between falling emission levels and rising cumulative emissions — not just in aviation but in essentially every area of industry.
It was slipperily written.
I agree with AeroTier here.
Here is an official definition. It is the absolute level. There is no “unit price” connotation.
Your link is specifically “for the purpose of determining the emission levels *allocated to the Community and its Member States*”
Something allocated to a “Community and its Member States” is, by definition, an “order total”. The emissions *per aircraft* correspond to unit price in the analogy above.
It is not the right measure of airplane fuel efficiency at least for an engineering company.
I would like to see Boeing taking climate change more seriously.
Have much of the Pacific Northwest has to burn up before it sinks in with Boeing executives?
BA is moving out of the Pacific Northwest as fast as possible (one program at a time).
As part of its settlement with Ethiopian Airlines, BA agrees with the carrier to expand its aviation hub, including an increase of aerospace manufacturing capacity in the capital.
The Boeing executive are in Chicago.
And having proven they do not care about the company why would anyone think they care about the rest of us or the planet?
One acronym: SAF. SAF will come from many sources.
Won’t high price SAF decimate passenger demand/LCC, threaten legacy carriers?
Yes, fuel will costs will increase. Current cost of Jet fuel is about $0.43/Litre and is currently about 20% of airline costs. Historically it has been up to 32% of airline costs.
SAF made from waste oil seems to cost not much more than mineral based jet fuel.
Eventually as waste oil resources become limited fuel derived from certain seed oils that do not compete with agricultural land use or wilderness will come in. They too are not too much more expensive but again will be limited.
Jet fuel derived from bioethanol and biomethane looks like coming in at $1.10/L . Bioethanol from cellulosic material is about $1.5-$165/Litre but will likely come down to $1.10/Litre.
The most expensive but potentially unlimited source is PtL likely around $2.50 right now from wind power but could get down to $1.00 Litere and maybe $0.50/Litre in some scenarios.
Assuming SAF is a 50% blend of mineral oil and a 50% blend of bio obtained fuels we are probably looking at jet fuel costs of $0.80/Litre. Lets say a doubling in prices to $1.00/Litre.
That would add about $1.00/100km per passenger to carriers costs per passenger on top of additional costs. So about $100 for a 10,000km flight.
What’s the load factor?
I don’t understand your question. What do you mean load factor? Are you suggesting increased load factor will reduce passenger numbers?
Put it simply: is your calculation based on 100% passenger on board??
In U.S. the increase in airlines profits in 2015 from 2014 was largely due to a drop in fuel price.
Snapshot for Boeing
Whitetail MAX about gone. Ramp up on new production can continue upwards
Yah – saw that. What I found interesting was this:
“Through August, Boeing had delivered 169 of its 737 MAX jets since returning to service late last year following a nearly two-year ban.”
They made ~450 during the grounding and according to Reuters, have been producing them in the single digits, until a ramp up to 26 by the end of 2021.
“As an interim step, Boeing hopes to speed monthly output from single digits now to about 26 a month at the end of 2021 at its Renton factory near Seattle, two of the sources said.”
Even given the low production rate (70-80 mad since the beginning of the year) it looks like they still have some 400 Max’s sitting in Renton.
Man, that’s a lot of inventory to have sitting there…
Yes, there’s a difference between “whitetails” and “inventory”.
The whitetails may be largely gone (until new ones come), but the huge inventory is still corroding quietly on the ground.
‘Whitetails’ are sold to new customers at fire sale prices but most of them have not been delivered yet (even many of those for WN are still storage since 2019).
B737 MAX production rate can’t exceed 40 plus per month as production backlog is still stuck at around 3,000 or so even though hundreds and hundreds (and hundreds) of order were reported.
Nothing new. It’s reported as recently as June, BA had only ten B737 MAX “whitetails” remained to be cleared. Even if they were picked up by new customers, not all have been delivered yet.
Transworld/Frank — Are “Whitetail MAX about gone…” and “…400 Max sitting in Renton” the same aircraft? What proportion of the undelivered aircraft became white-tails and how many/few remain? None were built as white-tails, surely?
Its a moving target. Normally white tails are aircraft produced that did not have a buyer.
These became whitetails despite paint and interior finish when the orders were cancelled. It has happened in the past – this was far more than normal of course.
The rest will be on some kind of delivery schedule.
You have 737s committed to China that need to get their AHJ approval.
Most if not all the rest of the world has given that now.
This gives some breakdown and why some white tails have paint jobs
And Boeing might not rush to repaint airplanes that no longer have a customer, including because they are stuck behind many other airplanes tightly parked.
They might stick something over former customer’s name and tail logo.
Only the financial people know, as they keep track of what has been paid and credited and what contract revisions are made.
43,600 planes sold over the next 20 years? So best case scenario for Boeing is it holds its current marketshare and this would break down as:
Airbus = 30,000 planes
Boeing = 13,600 planes
No problem ignoring COMAC (see posts above)
Fascinating comment! we will see.
My own take is that COMAC will achieve their objectives, even if they’re comm’nist.
Does saying that make me a comm’nist, too?
Certainly not. Wrong opinion is not the same as Endorsement of a dictator system.
Yes its been proven you can achieve some amazing things under that system (China moon landing, Mars system). But that was true under Russia as well as Nazi Germany (Jet Aircraft and V2)
But, a commercially successful aircraft? No.
Boeing is true to win over 70% of the market with a 60 year old plane. That’s a winning formula!!!
70% ??? This is satirical, right?
Can’t help feeling these forecasts have a ton of hope and self interest in them.
E.g cargo levels are the same as they were late 2019 and 2020. This winter every nation will be damn carefull.
Travel policies and tourism changed forever. Also if we don’t like it, unfortunately.
A small move: https://simpleflying.com/eu-quarantine-ineffective/
But a mess of rules among countries.
Long-term we’ll see how much more use of video conferencing reduces air travel.
The engine manufacturers, and especially CFM (GE/Safran), will be determining market share for Boeing, Airbus, COMAC and UAC in the coming decades.
We can already see how CFM divideds their limited production capabikities between Airbus (LEAP 1A), Boeing (LEAP 1B) and COMAC (LEAP 1C). CFM is unwilling to produce more 1A engines for Airbus aircraft, while Boeing (and COMAC?) apparently can have all the engines that they would like. This way the engine manufacturer ensures that Airbus won’t get a to dominant role in single aisle deliveries. I will guess CFM will prioritise in the following order: COMAC, Boeing and Airbus can have the rest when these two have all the engines that they would like.
P&W also have limited production capabilities of their GTF family, sharing production between Airbus, Embraer and UAC. With the support of P&W the latter will increase their market share with the MC family in the coming decades.
Your comments are astute: you neglect to mention the probability that COMAC will not use ‘western’ engines for any longer than it takes
Well astute is not what comes to my mind.
I would put it as absurd along with Boeing and FAA hiding the 777X test failure and fix.
You guys are aware that Safran makes the CFM engines for Airbus in France?
(let alone the absurdity any engine mfg is going to try throttle Boeing or Airbus)
You guys have heard of P&W and RR (let alone a strong contingent of MTU and Japan 5 that can and do make turbines on the side?)
Ever heard of damning with faint praise
The failure to understand, to analyse, industrial developments in China and Asia in general is motivated by fear and justified by prejudice
Which leads to Trump/Biden cheap talk, archaic reds under the beds fantasies, tariffs which backfire, warmongering as mere posing for domestic tv
All those companies will sell to the highest bidder the biggest market without any notion of any possible doubt choice or ‘strategy’ beyond very short term profit
TW, I’m going to be nice and just say that your comments often baffle me these days.
Ask what I meant if I am not clear.
Simply put, GE is no where near insane enough to try to control Boeing or Airbus.
It would not even get past the CEO. You want to do what?
But say, the whole GE management went nuts, the board went with them.
What do you think Boeing and Airbus would do? Can you say violation of contract and no more engines guys?
And, say we are Alice in Wonderland. What do you think RR, PW and Safran would do? Yippeee,
Does anyone really think Safran alone would go along with that?
Anything that GE makes for the LEAP that Safran does not, they can make. They are a full tilt engine builder in their own right.
So, yes its absurd beyond belief to present that as a possible.
It seems that he doesn’t understand that an export ban can be issued by the US government, regardless of what GE might think of such a move.
We already saw this with the US government’s export ban on commercial airliners to Iran…which was decreed regardless of what the OEMs thought of the matter.
I agree with your remark above…the comments are increasingly baffling…
Dang, and I try to hard to put it in simple terms.
Actually what the US did was ban equipment that is on airlines from Iran.
That is why Airbus can’t sell there either, its all intermingled on aircraft systems.
TBH, I’m not that sure.
It’s largely a duopoly, and it takes two to coordinate for best outcome. Like AB and BA, they can increase their margin by not outbidding each other or engage in “air war”. We know what happened.
I doubt CFM and P&W would hold from competing in medium term, and a war would break out after the first shot is fired.
Since mid-2020, Airbus has been secretly working on an ambitious new demonstrator program called X-Wing centered on advanced flight control technologies. It has major implications for its future airplanes and the unceasing competition with Boeing.
I will believe it when I see it in production.
TransWorld – think it not impossible that you might be able to see it before it reaches the production stage: that’s what testing is for, ‘believe’ it or not.
“I will believe it when I see it in production.”
One could be excused for having a similar attitude to whatever patch BA is trying to concoct for that nasty ruptured fuselage problem on tbe 777X 🤔
“One could be excused for having a similar attitude to whatever patch BA is trying to concoct for that nasty ruptured fuselage problem on tbe 777X ”
Or whatever BA comes up with its next vaporware alphabetical-soup new jet.
Here’s more on X-wing.
Airbus will be making an announcement on it next week.
75% of the total forecast is single aisle. With that market shifting to the larger A321, Boeing still needs a new airplane to leapfrog the A321. That was true in 2011 and not much has changed except more lost time for the big B.
And less money on BA’s balance sheet to finance such a venture.
Calhoun’s top priority is higher share price and, therefore, to milk the six decade old platform as far as possible.
>Boeing still needs a new airplane to leapfrog the A321. <
Agreed, and I see the chances of that happening as close to zero. My guess is that principals at BA [privately] do, too.
Something else going on, and probably for awhile.
At the very least Boeing needs an aircraft that can match the A321.
Better would be great. Tough thing to do when the tech is so mature that a 1960 form factor is still equal to the newer (but somewhat aged) A320 form.
So, better to do nothing and hope the Dividend start again and stock buy backs can repeat.
That gets Calhoun his 5 years and more big bucks and then its someone else’s problem.
Reuters recently reported that the White Tails were almost gone.
BTW, Scott was very well spoken on last night’s PBS Frontline report on the 737-MAX. He must have had about 5 clips near the beginning of the broadcast where he was very informative explaining the problem of what was a big part of the Boeing’s failures. If you have not seen the report, I think it can now be found on youtube.
I was watching it but after two nights of no sleep my head hit the desk and I had to hit the rack.
On my list to watch today for sure.
ps: Nothing to do with the broadcast, insomnia is an awful thing.
They did go into detail about avoiding changes to training, and formally asked permission of the FAA to let them exclude documenting MCAS as something new. I will tell you this, after you watch this Frontline Report, one has to be wondering why Boeing and an FAA chief are not being criminally charge for their perpetrating a fraud and dereliction of duty respectfully. I’m not a legal mind, so I don’t know if those are the correct terms. When Boeing decided to increase the scope of MCAS, it gets so ridiculous that it is actually hard to believe these guys understood engineering. The clip of Muilenberg is disturbing because he looks so guilty.
All sorts of lawsuits are pouring in lately, so perhaps it’s just a matter of time 😏
What many miss is the legal system is not intended for justice, its intended to maintain a structure regardless of how trampled an individual gets.
What is known as White Collar crime (ie you did not pull the trigger yourself n the case of MAX) has cutouts.
The classic one is you have to have proof of intent, which means (to the courts even if on appeal) to get Mullenberg you would have to have a singed memo from him to the MCAS engineers to ignore the safety factors and cover up the training need.
That is not how the corporate system works. Its the Mafia wink wing, nod nod and we understand where this is going (ensure that MCAS needs no training, get it out of the pilot manuals)
Boeing created another cutou8t in Foertner (Sp?) – he was hired in and then he left to work for South West. Nope he did it all on his own.
So no, there will be no criminal charges or a case that sticks. Like Enron, you finally convict even one guy and they throw it out on appeal.
Lawsuits are not the same as criminal charges. In the unlikely case you loose you pay the money and those guys have lots of money (top bunch)
Some lower down ones may get thrown to the sharks or sued and go belly up.
There never will be justice or a reckoning.
Calhoun was on the board that supervised all that and he claims he did not know (shades of Nazi Germany). And now he is the CEO.
That is how the system is intended to work and does a good job of it.
CEO Skilling began his sentence on December 13, 2006, and was housed at the Montgomery Federal Prison Camp, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama until 2018. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, he was scheduled for release on February 21, 2019, but on August 30, 2018 Skilling was released from prison and sent to a halfway house in Texas to serve out his prison sentence.
CFO Fastow was sentenced to a six-year prison sentence and ultimately served five years.
Chairman Ken Lay died before being sentenced.
Boeing was criminally charged for fraud in the MAX crashes. But as noted, it appears to not specify certain people. The Frontline Report I think notes that the fired CEO received more in his compensation than the families of the victims.
It seems that Mr. Forkner is about to be prosecuted:
Of course, a nightmare scenario for BA might be if prosecutors were to cut some sort of deal with him: “reveal all your BA dirt to us and we’ll cut you some slack”.
A simple conclusion but mostly right it seems.
IMO left or right, Washington will ensure a strong civil aerospace industry, as a strategic assett.
I expect lots of WTO dismissal, level playing field stories, flag waving, euro bashing, China fear mongering and perception management in the next 3 years to justify a big uncle Sam injection.
Some companies are too big to fail.
None of which will guarantee a healthy market share outside the USA. In fact, such behavior will probably only serve to accelerate non-domestic market share erosion.
I think you are right – this will only come about as part of an anti China anti Russia campaign, showmanship for domestic consumption
And will condemn BA to a dwindling market share, largely domestic
And with this, as @Meg points out, the engine makers will choose larger market COMAC and AB for their best/better
If BA products could decline any further in quality…..
In addition to anti-China and anti-Russia, don’t forget anti-EU: of late, when Uncle Sam gets into a sulk, he takes it out on *everyone*.
Ursula called today for more EU autonomy on defense…a futher sign of the cooling transatlantic relationship on all fronts.
Next up: pump some money/resources into Safran so as to gain more aeroengine autonomy.
War on everyone seems to appeal to them
Check “Ursula”‘s friendly background.
As an aside- I think this first-name-basis with
political functionaries and the like (media) is not a good thing.
Do you personally know “Ursula” ?
I agree the EU should actually defends itself.
It won’t because like the original 13 US colonies , one no vote kills any action.
It would be wonderful not to have to go bail Europe out regularly.
Hard to take EU seriously when like a petulant child it says, no no no you cant sell subs to an Ally (you are undermining our ability to gouge said ally and said 90 billion program was going down the drain anyway)
Of that the lame F-35 beats out the EU finest in a fighter shoot out (no no no you can sell them those jets, its not fair, and then you throw in a proven missile system, no no no)
I can’t figure out what the EU wants.
Flip side is if I was near to Russia I would be really really really worried.
Oddly the front line states are, the rest, hmmm.
On the subject of bailouts:
240 years this month since the French won the Battle of Chesapeake Bay, paving the way for the referenced 13 Colonies to gain independence.
On the subject of petulent, child-like behavior: see US sulk over NordStream 2.
On the subject of the F35: not much use in having an “advanced” fighter if it’s in a repair hangar when it’s needed, and is at risk of disintegrating when it’s gunnery is used.
Back on topic:
Will Airbus now even bother putting in a contestant for the new bridge tanker? It’s plain now that such a move would be a waste of time.
Will any flag carriers in the EU order any Boeings any more? KLM comes to mind.
When will Airbus start making contingencies to reduce reliance on UK parts?
Interesting times ahead as the great de-coupling picks up steam…
If you read your history, Spain had a huge amount to do with supplies and money to the US, that should not be forgotten.
Also, the Battle of Chesapeake bay was one key, the other was the French Troops and General that was half the ground forces as well as the knowledge of how to break down a redoubt per what Cornwallis had built at Yorktown.
We would not have succeeded without France and Spain (or it would have turned into a even longer dragged out war).
France and Spain did not to it for altruistic motives. They did what they felt was in their best interests. Amazingly both had far more in common with the UK than the US.
Never to be forgotten it was Von Steubon that taught the US forces how to be an army and not a rabble. Guerilla warfare only goes so far at some point its a straight up fight.
The downstream consequences of the American Revolution and the Constitution (imperfect as anything done by man always is) was to overturn monarchies as time went by.
The US had far more in common with the UK as the UK had already been the patch of eliminating the ruling type monarchy.
As for Nordstream, yep, when the Russians turn you gas off like they did before the screaming and hollering starts about, where is the US Gas supply?
Those who do not remember their history are going to repeat it.
TW you are right about front line states having their unique ideas / opinions on weapons, war, glory and human sacrifice. In your home street makes a difference.
So is ‘Ursula’ going to pony up money for EU to pay more of its own way?
Remember POTUS Donald Trump pushed NATO members to pay more of their own defense costs. That’s roughly EU plus some lesser members to the south, and Canada. Canada weaseled by saying it was paying other ways.
As for ‘taking it out’, certainly the US is full of Marxism-based types ‘taking out’ their negativity on the US. Well described in “The failure to surrender to their victorious opponents [supporters of capitalism] has led tattered “socialist” parties like the NDP and their leftist members and supporters to mindlessly, recklessly and uncritically support cruel, feudal, racist and terrorist regimes and movements as long as those villains are also anti-American.”
The reason: The United States is simply the symbol of the failure of their life’s work and dreams. Defeat and resentment have rendered these formerly idealistic individuals and organizations vulnerable to new and pernicious forms of anti-Semitism and other political foolishness.
— Bob Friedland, Victoria lawyer and former civil rights activist, in the Vancouver Sun of July 25, 2002.
Why not break it up?
It is clearly too big for the current leadership team to manage.
‘it’ …? What is this it? The USA? Boeing?….Both?
Too big to manage, too big to fail?
-> Change leadership.
Hasn’t it …. em, changed [for both]?
The names have changed.
Not so clear that the behavior has changed all that much.
Looks like a sequel, the same characters played by different actors with different scripts.
They change leadership puppets, all the time – still more of the exact same : Bush to Obama to Clinton (typo) – to Trump to Biden to Trump
Notice any difference because there is none
Now that we can agree on.
Calhoun was on the board during some of this, I don’t follow member so how far back he goes?
But Leeham has noted, top of Boeing needs a clean sweep and that has no occurred.
At best its a holding action while the FAA forces Boeing to deal with the issues. Good news is Boeing factories are getting the issued to the front (787 still not being delivered)
But it has to come from the top down this is not just lip service, we mean it. I don’t think that has happened at all.
I have had a few of those moments where Corporate made a decision that we had input and we took advantage of it.
That was always followed up by, ooops, we didn’t think they would call us on it. Revoke that ASAP.
I nailed Honeywell to the wall one time, actually had a high exec agree that I was right. Oh by the way, that policy has been changed so noting will come of it!
The leadership class is incapable of efficient management of anything – the bug, the economy, the company, the sub too now you mention it
Their only skill is theft
Relevant to the emissions discussion above:
“Air New Zealand and Airbus launch zero-emissions aircraft project”
“An exciting milestone on our sustainability journey Handshake We’ve signed a partnership with Airbus to research zero-emissions hydrogen-powered aircraft for our domestic fleet. COVID-19 has impacted a number of things, but it has not slowed our commitment to reducing carbon emissions
Except for all the emissions in making the airplane?
Alaska Airlines had more bad pax, a group travelling SEA>ANC.
Some of the group were denied boarding, some were dumped off in Juneau where the flight diverted to.
(Such things happened long before masks use, I’ve related the case of a group Pacific Western removed from a flight in the Okanagan because they would not stay seated so oncoming pax could board, they faced a long bus ride home to Calgary. PW F/As didn’t try to segregate on behaviour, just booted them off. Escorted by station agents.)
The Seattle Times supports Alaska Airlines. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/alaska-airlines-right-to-ground-anti-maskers-including-state-senator/
and gives some details of the jerk legislator’s current situation.
She’s been flying ANC-SEA on another airline then backward to Juneau, but that airline’s service ends soon. The Times details her 19-hour journey by road and ferry otherwise, but doesn’t say that Alaska State Ferries requires use of masks. (though presumably she can ride if she behaves). Seems she’s too chicken to make the trip over winter roads.
If she somehow flew to Mexico instead, she might find authorities there are tougher – they repeatedly refused entry to a jerk who drove a motorcycle very dangerously, border agents had looked him on the Internet.
I’m wondering why some here are still claiming COMAC and its offshoots can be summarily dismissed.
My guess it that they’ll meet their objectives soon enough- which do not necessarily include being AB-beaters from the start.
As for the other outfit, check their record.
It’s called denialism.
Bill7/Bryce — let’s wait and see what new Comac news emerges at the Zhuhai air show at the end of the month. C919 certification?
Having watched this area as well as lo many years of working at the make it happen level, its never easy even with a solid base.
On top you have a hierarchy heavy risk adverse organization (Government and Commac stacked on top of each other).
Chinese people given free reign are as capable as anyone on the planet. The world competing stuff that comes out of China is not owned nor run by the government.
China Govt wants a prestige program, COMMAC knows what will happen if they mess up (already did with the failure to get a World Recognized certification from FAA or EASA)
While some think this is Airbus II, its only got a patina of what allowed Airbus to survive and then flourish. That was independence to develop products on their own, not government mandate.
Equally there was a failing in the US builders occurring and the one good one became arrogant and dismissive.
Their first offering was not a major success, but the A320 and then the A330 were.
The C919 is not a dog, its just nothign special, more a 737 classic. Its certainly not up to MAX or A320NEO. The A300 offered twin over water ops (Asia and where I flew in it) and the A320 was state of the art and then some with FBW and computer control as well as a different control philosophy)
Even agile ops like Airbus have problems ramping up. China never has done it and it will be severely hindered by the structure imposed.
And then there is the 100 years Boeing has learned on support and Airbus has a collective legacy of that from its forming companies and more so since the A300 came out.
That to is a steep learning curve. You can say you have it planned all you want, then the wheels come off the wagon and you have to get it to work. Knowing you can get the axe literally and figuratively means you will CYA to the MAX (pun intended)
We have seen where fear and cowering workers has lead Boeing.
So what you will see is fits and starts on production and issues and then following lack of support and aircraft on the ground.
If you can’t fly them and they take major resources out to make them fly, you will want to park them as much as you can.
Russia has had all those issues on the Super Jet. They gave a Mexican airlines a bunch extra so they could have the needed ones flying.
And they want to put their own engine on the 919. It took the engine mfgs 40 years to get reliable down. Why would China be different?
You have to bui9ld, see the failures, correct, build, refine etc.
In the meantime while trying to get the basic tech sorted RR, PW, GE and the assorted Safran, MTU and Japanese makers continue to advance.
AS Apple sadly found out, what can easily be done in Asia, like finding screws, could torpedo its grand plan of reshoring to TX.
That’s why the chip industry has largely moved offshore.
Of course, we have the same poster repeating the same ol’ same ol’.
Read this or any other article on the difficulties of on/re shoring
The business model practice expertise and culture has changed – to ‘re shore’ sounds like one simple op : but the word is a typo for ‘more dumb PR’
Bringing it all back home involves starting over from a to z – building not one but thousandssssss of closely interdependant supply chains, businesses, skillset, engineers, machinists etc etc – not AmzonKFC kids
The DoD plan is to achieve re/on in a twenty year time frame, but that plan has far too many aussmptions, is wishful thinking
How to finance this, re educate the Congress class, figure out how to replace the know nothing CEOs and C Suites, re frame EPA regulations, zoning etc etc down to space available on industrial parks and factory building technology and materials
Re/On is not going to happen
You’re not wrong about the learning curve on aircraft – this is not manufacturing washing machines, appliances or even cars. This is next level stuff…
Boeing is in it’s mess because of ego and the drive for financial success. Even today, if you finally were able to watch the PBS program on the Max, Calhoun was loath to say “We messed up” as his feelings (can I say this off the record?) are that it was the pilots fault and real ‘Murican pilots would have no problems with the old MCAS.
(doesn’t matter if this was proven false, as documented by AW when US pilots tried to fly the ET scenario in the sim and crashed the jet)
Now BA is stuck with it’s weak product lineup, without the necessary funds to develop a new aircraft to counter the competition. This is not a problem that China has – while they may be slow and deliberate in their actions (not necessarily a bad thing in aircraft development) they have the resources to see this through to the end.
As well, once they get it into domestic service, they have an added benefit of being in a country where lawyers do not run amok.
– Fan blade comes off and slices through the fuselage, killing a pax? (SWA)
– Rookie pilot panics and pulls back on stick because of iced up pitot tube, stalling plane over the Atlantic and killing everyone? (AF)
– Two brand new planes go down because of software? (Lion Air and ET)
Who cares – you aren’t going to get a huge payout in court and we’ll just fix what we got wrong.
What both BA & AB need to worry about is the follow on aircraft after the C919, when they learn to make it right. China has the will and the deep pockets to keep the program alive through all the crashes and mishaps that all rookie programs seem to go through.
No – I wouldn’t want to fly the 919 and if I was going there I would fly an international carrier to get there, then take the train once inside.
Because the country has a government controlled economy, with stricter controls over things, actually benefits (as weird as it sounds) the development of the C919.
No – it won’t look pretty to the outside world, but that won’t matter to them. Every C919 that rolls out of the plant and into service, is one less Max or Neo they will have to buy from foreign competitors.
This is correct
To take your line of thought to the next stage
Once the China home made successors to the first planes are improved up to anywhere close to international standards, they will be certified to be sold to, first Asia and Africa, and then the RoW
They will be sold as part and parcel of already exisiting China infrastructure exports or installations in those countries
Who knows – one day maybe perhaps even to the States!
Many will turn in their graves, but not for the first time
“What both BA & AB need to worry about is the follow on aircraft after the C919, when they learn to make it right.”
Indeed. And we’re already getting a preview in the form of the CR929, of which the first prototypes are now under production. That was fast!
Further to another of your remarks: I’d get on a C919 before I’d get on a MAX — not least because the underlying design/manufacture mentality is different. For COMAC, the C919 is a pride project; for BA, the MAX was a shortcut to some easy dollars.
Oh dear — some notable investment analysts are not positive about Boeing:
“Boeing looks like a ‘value trap,’ trader warns as stock trails the Dow in past month”
“Over the next couple of decades, we’re going to see orders on the rise. That’s great, but that doesn’t change the fact that this company has a negative book value; it’s completely cut its dividend. So while you’re waiting those 10 or 20 years, you’re not going to get paid anything,” Tatro told CNBC’s “Trading Nation” on Tuesday.
“A lot of people can look at this and say, ‘This is a value play,’ but I think this is a value trap,” he said. “I would wait for a real material, fundamental change that is in the present, not looking out, and that’s going to be the opportunity to get into the name.”
“In the short term [I’m] definitely not more bullish. This is a stock that I’ve been taking some profit in over the last few months,” Saporu said during the same interview.
He added that investors will likely need to see current demand return to pre-pandemic levels for commercial aircraft before they return to the stock.”
Fastship: thanks for your comment above re: covid.
Case numbers are being inflated as hospitals get
big bucks for a positive test, *symptomatic or not* .
These reports on the collapse of tourism and business travel in the US gives the lie to rosy cheeked and apple eyed BA boundless optimism in their ‘report’
BA may be obliged to teleprompt the conventional it’s all ok PR – but someone somewhere has to get the figures/proejections in line with reality
Why should this be left to AB or COMAC?
> But, a commercially successful aircraft? No. <
Ok.. though I sense a subtle goalpost-shifting in that latest quote.
I'll stick with what I said before: I think COMAC
will achieve *their* objectives, defined by them; and perhaps faster that some might be willing to accept; and I don't think their particular system of political economy will be an impediment to those aims.
How to define “commercial success”? Would you call a jet grounded for almost two years and the company forced to pay billions as settlement a huge commercial success?? I’m baffled. Where’s the kool-aid? 🙂
You forgot to mention that, during said grounding, the order book for that “commercial success” was decimated.
And let’s not forget the “commercial success” of the KC-46…or of the 747-8i.
Oh and, while we’re at it, why is the 787 “commercial success” a loss-making program that has been sitting in limbo for months, with zero deliveries?
It seems that “success” and “cimmercial” are highly subjective concepts.
Fair point, as are all the other Boeing issues.
Prior to MAX and MCAS the 737 was a huge success.
MAX will be a success though no question its diminished Boeing in the single aisle competition.
Both the MAX and 787 at best will break even.
I would call the MAX a commercial success and a financial disaster as would the 787 for different reasons.
Its going to be a LONG time before we see how many 919s China forces onto its airliner or even how many it can build in a year.
Huge difference between some hand built test copies and industrializing the process and cranking them out in numbers.
Like the moon landing, there are national projects. It’s naive to think only in dollar and cents. Look no further how “great” BA has become thanks to its single focus on financial success!!
Mind the pesky stuff?
-> The 747 appeared to be another huge success for the company, but behind the scenes executives were getting worried. Development costs of the 747, and also the 737, were higher than expected. Meanwhile the airliner market had become saturated, and while plenty of deliveries were being made, new orders were falling off. Compounding this dismal economic outlook were troubles with another Boeing program — the supersonic transport (SST) [got scrapped].
-> Boeing was buffeted during the mid-1960s by the loss of several crucial defense contracts, and it launched its new 747 Jumbo Jet just as the air went out of the airline industry.
-> Beginning in 1969, the Boeing Company, after a decade of rapid growth in air travel, began laying off employees […].
-> By mid-1969, more than 12,000 workers had left through attrition, and by the end of the year, employment had declined by 20 percent after layoffs began.
-> By 1970, the company was in a financial crisis. That year, no new orders came in from any U.S. airline for any type of Boeing aircraft, and only a few foreign airline sales were made. And because the company had already borrowed a billion dollars to finance the 747 program, no creditors could be found to lend it additional funds. The Boeing Company struggled to remain solvent. Layoffs hit every department. The number of hourly workers declined from 40,000 to 15,000. The number of engineers and scientists, which had been near 15,000, dropped by more than half. Office staff was cut from 24,000 to 9,000. Managerial positions were slashed all the way up the line, and even the top executives took pay cuts of up to 25 percent.
-> Then, in 1971, the U.S. government cut funding to the company’s supersonic transport (SST) program, and the project was cancelled soon after. By the time that layoffs ceased, Boeing had lost more than 60 percent of its workforce.
-> The company shed more than 60,000 workers during the ensuing “Boeing Bust.”
“… the MAX a commercial success and a financial disaster as would the 787 for different reasons.”
Doubt many would agree that commercial success is independent of financial return. Nice try.
“Commercial success describes an enterprise’s ability to generate the expected profit from its operations”
I don’t know what you imply there.
The fact is that both programs are successful production and service.
No question Boeing management turned the 787 and the MAX into horrid losses.
Usually like the A380 they fail on both fronts (the 747-8 might have broken even, never saw any data on that).
The notorious Edsel was actually at the core a good vehicle (ugly front of course) but it was hobbled by a production setup that turned it into a lemon.
Only Boeing current management could turn a successful product into a financial loss.
The B747 and B737 were such a “success” that Boeing received not a single order from domestic airlines in 1970 and Boeing was *on the brink of bankruptcy*.
Really? That is the best you can do?
Oky dokey artichokee.
I been unemployed a few times to. Didn’t mean I was not an outstanding worker. Took me a year to get a full time job again once.
I believe they are called business cycles.
So did most co. bankruptcies (GM, Chrysler etc): business cycles. 🙃
No one has denied that COMAC has produced aircraft. Two of them in fact.
But if the goal for China is not a successful commercial aircrat, then what is it?
Any post I make in regards to 919 (0r 929) is its goal is a successfully commercial program. And at least in the case of 919, tried for World Certification standards (be it FAA or EASA) . Mitsubishi got their so screwed up they started over (and then folded)
If your goal posts are set such that making an airplane is all their is to it, you are right, no more disagreement. But that begs all sorts of questions in regards to your goal posts.
Why did they try to establish a certification authority that was recognized by the US and Europe? (if one of those or Brazil/Canada/Japan recognizes it you have the cross agreement that all recognize it though the attempt was made with FAA and EASA)
Like all the other areas they are working to get to world class level, commercial aircraft is it.
The reasons they joined Russia on the 929 was
1. they did not have the CRFP tech to compete. So they hope to get it from Russia and then become independent.
2. Russia does have EASA (FAA maybe as well) recognition for certification.
China may indeed have to accept they are not selling the 919 to the rest of the world
Giving aircraft to Burma or Zaire is not going to get them anywhere.
Their neighbors are not going to allow a 919 fly in their airspace any more than the MAX could until it was re-certified. By that I mean Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea not Laos or Cambodia.
The 919 is more 737 Classic tech than A320 (yes it has some of the embellishments of FBW and computers)
If you define China success as making some 919, operating them in China, no disagreement. They can do that just fine.
How well it stands up if in regular service via the way it was designed and not certified ?
How have the static test airframe held up and when did the wing break?
Find problems, hopefully not a crash, quietly ground the fleet, fix, rinse, wash repeat.
The US and FAA in particularity are no poster child for Certification (never were, those issues have alwyas been there) but the system if adhered to comes up with safe aircrat.
Its a pretty open system.
None of China system is open at all. State secrets, prison awaits anyone that talks about it.
Not what where and how you want an aircraft put into service. That is what listed certification and open certain is all about, a long history of building on making it better from its failures.
If we follow it aircraft are safe. We have seen when on item alone was not and resulted in two crashes.
At least and for now, the FAA is doing its job. That is good news.
Keep it up and Boeing will learn to do its end right again.
But it does have public scrutiny, not hidden behind the State secrets wall.
You are very discreet – ‘ I don’t think their particular system of political economy will be an impediment to those aims.’
It would be apt to recognise that the system structure in China is essential for the successful planning and implementation of, for example, infrastructure
Just as the system structure in the US is essential for the opposite, that is to say for the legal indemnity given to corporate crime, and for the long term neglect of infrastructure
China is an interesting arrangement.
Politics sets the goals in scope of advancement for the society.
Market economy is tasked with the realization.
( The major step away from the established top down with no recourse “The Plan” way of doing things in early communist times.
That is the reverse to the US ( and most western nations to a slightly lesser degree ):
profits for the already rich uber alles!
politics has to fix the fallout from the sociologic derailments effected by “profits uber alles”.
China has issued a frigid response to today’s AUKUS announcement on nuclear subs for Aussie.
There goes Boeing’s future in China 😒
What, It was not gone already?
But we can claim a sea boundary that is 700 miles away from our territory not to mention our only claim is we sailed by there 2000 years ago?
Granted the one thing China fears is the US Nuke boats. Probably should sell half a dozen to Taiwan.
Vietnam bought 6 Russian diesel elecric jobs. Hard telling how much of Vietnam the Chinese are going to claim next.
I think Australia has a right to be very nervous and we can’t sell things to our Allies?
Christmas Island is 350 km from Java in Indonesia and yet its 1500km to Australian mainland.
Distances ‘only matter’ when its someone elses claim
One rule for me , another rule for thee
Distances are useful when you need far away out of sight penal colonies
Xmas Island is an Island, not a submerged reef.
Intentional law says submerged object are not claimable.
By that rational the US can claim the whole South Asian Sea.
The Hoot is Taiwan claims the 9 dash line (and did originally) someone pulled it out of their ear.
But China insists Taiwan is theirs so the 9 dash line belong to them to.
You could not write fiction like this.
Where is Trump and his Sharpie when you need him?
Posters embrace “international rule-based order” without a clue what they are talking about: look up United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758.
-> “What, It was not gone already?”
Time to ramp production up ….
Probably a negative for Airbus.
Reflects what everyone know which is that even though France tries really hard it is still viewed as a geopolitical light weight.
‘France is viewed as a political lightweight’ is incorrect – France is viewed as forming half the controlling tandem of EU major policy decisions, especially in regard to foreign affairs/defence
Is critical in relations with NATO and Russia/China
To so neglect EU, to take the risk of deeply offending France in this brutal way is very stupid – when EU is very much more significant economically and politically than Aus, and otherwise already inclined, by past foolish actions of the US, to co operation if not collaboration with the intended/purported ‘enemy’ spotlighted by the sub deal – i.e. Russia/China
This is a ridiculous US/UK/Aus error which speaks of desperation and panick – is provocative and foolish – and designed to backfire
France is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a member of the G7, and one of only 6 countries with nuclear submarines. The UK is similar, so why it was favored over France is unclear — apart from language and Boris’ crusade to try to show the world that the days of “Britain rules the seas” are back. Mind you, at least the French can stock their supermarket shelves — the Brits are having considerable difficulty with that this year.
One way or another, this is going to have repercussions in transatlantic relations, which will in turn affect the aircraft industry (both commercial and military).
‘this is going to have repercussions in transatlantic relations’
Say that again – this is going to confirm that US is an unreliable ally, is in fact hostile, prepared to throw off a continent for a small island
That rings a bell, let’s see…another small island favoured over the continent it sits
Coming straight on top of Nordstream2 and the Kabul crapshow, this will accelerate EU efforts to rid themselves of the last hangovers of WWII
And accelerate relations with China, boost rekick of CAI, encourage a more rational and mature relationship with Russia, already less hysterical
Why did US prefer UKAus? Lingering Prejudical AS old sea route gunboatism to corral the mainland mass – now dead as a dodo
I read a comment on another site which is apt-
After presenting the imposition of the nuclear subs on Aus by the US as an enslavement for which they’ll be paying for generations – this was quoted
‘it may be dangerous to be be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal’
Maybe the EU will take the hint: I think they long have but needed the last straw
This is off topic.
I take your off topic point
The BA market prediction report has been criticised for declining to take a realistic view of the real world – health crisis, travel restrictions, supply chain issues, political problems
Came the perfect illustration of the importance of the real world with news of the sub row – hence it was hard to ignore
The Free Trade World has been replaced, now all market reports and predictions will have to weigh the political economic infrastructure much more carefully
All well and good. But submarines aren’t what the post is about.
You are right – no subs – let me re phrase
The critical error in the BA aviation market prediction was the failure to take into account the political economic re structure of trade relations, which the glare of the various current crises have made obvious
Correspondingly accentuated is the conception of various industries as being critical parts of national infrastructure in the light of a renewed level of competition/hostility in international relations
The successful formation/practice of such trade blocs requires an accomplished integration of means and purpose between state and business that much of the world has ignored for some time, while one particular part has not
Uh, ‘Bryce’, you omit that Australia had a deal with France for submarines that could be converted to nuclear later, relatively easily. But the project was going very badly. So any submarine from France was out of the question.
And read up that Australia considers UK and US nuclear technology for submarines superior to French because fuel in the reactor lasts three times as long.
Note as well that Australia has considered Japanese submarines in the past, but they’d have to be modified including for the endurance that Australia needs. (I don’t know why Germany did not win the bid that France won, Israel has German submarines but does not need travel range.)
And BTW, observe that Australia’s military already has US airplanes (the Wedgetail surveillance version of the 737, fighters, and cargo airplanes like the C130J – apparently much effort required to get Lockheed to do well with those as an early customer).
The only thing that sounds different to me about the new submarine deal is nuclear propulsion, which Australia has avoided in the past. Note that nuclear propulsion gives very long endurance, and may give ability to stay submerged for a very long time (lots of electricity to generate oxygen).
US technology includes UV communication to avoid sticking antenna out of the water to talk to control, Australia might or might not be given access to that system. US nuclear submarines probably also have very good navigation equipment.
Some pontificators in this forum are learning about the complexity and sensitivity of airplanes, submarines may be even more complex and sensitive – certainly have their frailties/ vulnerabilities. (Read reports on loss of USS Thresher and some Soviet/Russian submarines. Loss of ability to control floatation is like loss of engines on an airplane – DOWN to disaster.)
BTW, as for varied ocean conditions Australia needs to operate in, observe that US nuclear submarines can operate under Arctic ice.
But if I wanted to bait the ‘usual suspects’ I could start a rumour that Australia wants ballistic missile launching submarines that UK and US have. (g,d,r)
You have to agree that there are many comments about the US Defense industry and its dastardly presumption that its unfair competition. But ala the A330MRT etc, they want a chunk of it.
Was this not the same outpouring when the A330MRT got shot down? How dare you spend your money the way you want.
While the GAO ruled that the USAF had violated the terms of the RFP in a number of ways, its our money and we could cook the books if we want.
So, while not aircraft related, a bloated contract out of control is a fine thing if its European and we are not to point a finger back?
And now its being called Treason. I did not realize the US, the UK and Australia were all French provinces (how did I miss that?) that truly shakes the industry and has WTO as well as the C series issue was illegal then. After all, its a French based company so it can’t be illegal if we are a province.
So, we see again (keeping it on aircraft with LM and the tanker) they want to play in our collective yard but we cant’ play in theirs?
Evil America but we want your money.
It really is hilarious.
It doesn’t matter if France is viewed by others (may be Murica or those fellas down under) as a lite weight in geopolitics, the Aussies is going to negotiate a trade deal with Europeans and suffers the pain of shooting themselves in the foot.
The Aus rely on trade with China, so it’s like shooting yourself in both feet, then shooting yourself in the head
China is being patient while it can source iron ore in Africa/SA – then will retaliate
A truly amazing feat no pun with one dumb deal to destroy relations first with Asia then with Europe, and consummate by prostration to the worst enemy of all – the US
Just to clear the record up, China has declared a trade war on Australia.
Of course the US does something like that and the finger pointing begins.
Mirrors are good things if you use them.
The U.S. has fought a trade war with Europeans since the 1960s.
Mirror is useful only if you open your eyes and look. 😅
You can repeat myths or you can look around with eyes open.
If some Chinese companies have similar practices, won’t Murica cry foul.
“The allegations against Treasury were probably most clearly set out in a 2018 article in the Australian Financial Review in which Chinese wholesalers said they had more of the company’s budget wines than they could possibly sell. Wholesalers said that in order to buy wines in the high-end Penfolds range, including company flagship Penfolds Grange, they were required to spend about the same amount on lesser labels including Wolf Blass and Rawson’s Retreat, the AFR reported.
This left them with a glut of cheap wine and *pushed the retail price of some brands down to less than they sold for in Australia, even though it costs more to ship the plonk to China*.”
China has fiddled around with wine sales and unimportant nittypicking just to prickly Scotty from Marketing
Let’s get Dramatic why not Declared War hoxu mupus oops typo
They have not, precisely, delcared war because they depend on Aus iron ore
They are re sourcing as we speak: it’ll take some time, then, perhaps, China will cease to buy Aus iron ore, or perhaps not
Remember it’s said that trade wars are “good,” and “easy to win”?
Another case of juveniles have no idea of what’s coming to hit their faces.
People issue stern statements for PR reasons.
CC, Russia, Middle Eastern countries, ….. any time someone does something that affects the balance of power in an area of interest.
How about that “former guy’s” six o’clock tweets??
If you annoy China you know you hit a sore spot.
While we can’t talk about the S word, as a defense industry and buying equipment like a tanker , that is what is called an Asymmetrical acquisition.
Most carrier losses in WWII were due to torpedoes.
Hard on the national image if you invest in Carriers and suddenly they are on the bottom.
May be our Nostradamus 2021 should go back to school to learn the basics in order to avoid repeating the same mistake.
It hurts the reputation in case future generations read them.
” .. a 90 BILLION cost (before terminated) for a lousy 12 submarines. 7 Billion per sub (and going up)
And the French are making 6 Nuke Boats for 10 billion.”
> If you define China success as making some 919, operating them in China, no disagreement. They can do that just fine. But it does have public scrutiny, not hidden behind the State secrets wall. > sealed records and other “irregularities”<< in the 737MAX case?
As for the imputed prison-talk re China: I suggest you check incarceration rates here in the Exceptional Nation as compared to [all] other large nations: "We're #1!"
Does that include all prisoners in China or just the ones China says are prisoners?
And no disagreement, we have a mess here with too many people in prison for chicken feed reasons.
The reasons are diametrically different.
It is not the basic C919 that will change the aerospace world, if they fully fund MkII and MkIII and let the same teams improve in major block changes to solve service problems, improve performance and reduce mass it will have a big impact. They started with a brand new A320 that was disassembled to pieces years back and if they let young talented engineers and certification staff do their job without having old guard politicians decide just to copy Airbus they can succeed just like they did on high speed trains. I red years back that imprison criminals is 7 times cheaper than having them out committing crimes. I think many can be legal Mr. Smith&Jones with 8hrs of school+8hrs or work+8hrs sleep each day and weekends for cleaning, excersise and sleep + cramming for tests.
claes — “They started with a brand new A320 that was disassembled to pieces years back…” Is this reliably documented anywhere, including ID, please?
At the rate China is managing the 919 program, Block II will be about 2035.
Shoot even Boeing will have something new by then.
And Airbus and Boeing keep refining the A320 and 737, called Spiral Upgrades.
China should have matched or exceeded the A220 and did not.
They learned how to build old style air frames not new.
But the do mfg major assemblies for the A220 like certain segments of the fuselage.
They do, but its not a government plant that does it.
There is no question independent Chinese Industry would be highly competitive, its the government entities that are slow and lethargic much like a Sloth.
Well they did do a copy of the 707 and semi licensed version of MD 80 as the ARJ21
Have you seen the Isreali Lavi prototype alongside a picture of the J-20…. Not the only one in the military
Dukeofurl – I’m having a ‘senior moment’: please remind me what China’s 707 copy was called?
Believe or not, he’s going all the way back to 1970 (!) to drag up the Y-10…of which only a handful were built.
As if nothing has changed in the intervening 50 years.
Just think: only 20 years previous to this, US rocket scientists were copying Werner Von Braun’s work.
Yep, the more things change the more they stay the same.
History repeating itself.
Copying means you are always a generation behind (well two or three as it takes them so long to get it flying)
-> “History repeating itself.”
History repeats itself … only in selected cases.
Rockets were invented some millennia back in China. The US first tactical missile, Redstone it wasn’t a copy of V2, being broadly twice as big with much higher payload and range. Wasn’t first ground launched rocket though.
Von Braun and his team went to US to continue their work. Very different to copying a 707 or a A320
Suddenly Musica had no problem to let a Nazi gestapo to enter and work on top secret projects and became a citizen.
All’s forgiven as long as you are one of us.
Sometimes it seems the question is (absurdly, of course)
“Why aren’t COMAC starting at the Finish Line?”; and because they by definition can’t, their work can be dismissed..
I have no connection commercial or otherwise to China or COMAC, but notions of that pesky ol’ stuff called “reality”
require me to point out the above.
Did not Airbus come out with a fully modern aircraft out of the gate? While the over the water aspect had major disagreement (4 engine legacy) the A300 had no peer (those strange US 3 engine jobs were a patch job)
The A320 was clearly state of the art as was the A300 upgraded to that same control system.
Those were also certified aircraft allowed to operate in any country.
China had the opportunity to go with more modern engine (GTF) as well as match or exceed range and get a world recognized certificate system in place (Russia did it)
BBD did the C series. China did not even match existing.
Its not like DVD player, you can muck it up and regroup and repeat until you get it right because you have a cheap DVD.
The stuff coming out of South Korea at the time was re-engineerd every few months. You could not even afford to keep the SAMS in stock as you had to buy a new one each time. So you quit repairing them and people just bought a new one when they broke.
Boeing’s fabulous Starliner hasn’t exactly “started at the Finish Line”, has it?
Not to mention the “state-of-the-art” KC-46.
Those nasty battery fires on the 787 weren’t exactly “starting at the Finish Line” vis-à-vis bleedless / electrical architecture, were they?
And, of course, let’s not forget that recent venture into maneuvering charactistics automation — the one-and-only MCAS! What a *stellar* Finish Line success that was 👀
You make a bunch of links out a nothing.
None of it addresses where the C919 falls in advances.
787 was not trouble free, but it was beyond state of the art, even the illustrious Airbus did not have a CFRP aircraft and in fact made jokes about it (since the inception of the A350 you do not hear dismissive any more do you?)
The MAX did indeed have a fatal flaw, but it matches the A320 performance wise. That is a case of getting more out of older tech that the C919 does not even match despite it being 60 years newer (more or less). that is pathetic.
So rail on, nothing new there.
The CFRP jet is so advanced that BA can’t meet its own engineering specifications, with a hundred or all produced but can’t be delivered and faces a repair bill as much as billions as reported by newswire. 😂
a hundred or *so*
Nvm, it would still be touted as an engineering marvel that others can’t match! (No different to the F35 and other boondoggles.)
Well Switzerland which is in the heart of the EU looked at the Rafael and Typhoon and decided the F-35 was vastly better.
Tells you what overprice and under performing EU equipment is.
When you defense industry is just a jobs program, that is what you get.
And I hate to mention it (agin) but when the world told Airbus to pack the A330MK IV, they did a CRFP aircraft.
The 787 issues have nothign to do with tech and all to do with quality control (or lack of that which is a Boeing management caused issue not a 787 issue)
But carry on thinking what you do, doesn’t make it true.
Haven’t you watch how “jedi mind tricks” work in real life?? Isn’t it in PBS’s documentary?
The F-35 still doesn’t have its advanced capabilities as promised!! Behind schedule and cost overruns.
No need to present falsehood or fiction. You know it, I know it.
Thanks to BA’s previous self-certify practice, the thought of matching what’s come out from production with what’s in the engineering specs never crossed their mind.
Transworld et al –“Tthe A300 had no peer (those strange US three-engine jobs were a patch job)…” Discuss?
Uh, ‘Bill7’, FACT is that flying twins in oceanic/remote airspace was discouraged by regulators, trijets were a good solution for US transcon and oceanic/remote of smaller capacity than 747. Only years later were twins accepted for oceanic/remote, the B767 pioneering that.
Keep in mind the A300 was probably built for European domestic airspace, The DC-10 and L-1011 were built for US transcon distances, then modified into the heavier -30 and shorter -500 respectively to give oceanic capability.
(Wasn’t the modified version of the A300 called the A330, or did that come later? Airbus even went so far as to make a four-engine version of the A330, called the A340 which few [people now want.)
That would be wrong. The A3oo pioneered long over water routes, in Asia (I flew one at the time and was NOT happy!) On the other hand it impressed me as a solid good performing aircrat unlike the DC-10, ungh, hated that one.
767 took it a step further after Boeing realized what you could do with that, but the A300 came first.
Boeing then dropped the 3 engine 777 and went twin.
Re: the A300
Not for nothing, but Airbus was an amalgamation of:
Aerospatiale – which itself was Sud Aviation (Alouette, Puma, Gazelle & partner in the Westland Lynx helicopters and the Caravelle)
along with Nord Aviation (Exocet missile & numerous light designs)
Matra – noted missile producer
Dornier – too many aircraft to mention, since 1914
Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm – as a WW2 connoisseur, I won’t insult you
Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA – Spanish OEM since 1923
Airbus had an awful lot of brain power, engineering experience and history coming out of the gates. It was just a matter of getting everything translated into German, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch (registered headquarters) and English.
And getting everyone of different cultural backgrounds working on the same page (THAT must have been fun….)
Bombardier came out of Canadair, Short Brothers, Learjet and de Havilland. The original RJ was adapted from the Challenger 600, designed back in the 70’s.
There’s no way that China can start near the end, they have to cut their teeth just like everyone else did (some albeit with the acquisition of previously learned lessons and know how).
On a side note:
Imagine the great leap forward (no pun intended) if they were to gobble up someone like….oh, I don’t know…Embraer? Perhaps something little closer to home? Maybe Mitsubishi will get tired of funneling money into it’s SpaceJet program and dump it AND the remnants of Bombardier?
Pure speculation, I know.
Thanks for this
I was going to point out to TW that Airbus was an amalgamation of already existant aviation companies, and so incomparable to the starting from scratch in China
But had not the patience
As far I can speculate,There is no reason why China should not buy some other country (or plural) expertise and machinery, those you mention or even others again
They have the money, they have the political/economic power, they have the avowed intent to build an aviation industry
Plus: they can offer a huge market to whoever the takeover entity might be. For example, there are plenty of point-to-point regional routes in (remoter parts of) China that could be adequately serviced using Embraers, or derivatives thereof.
The legal actions against BA and its (ex-) cronies just keep building up:
“Former Boeing pilot expected to face charges in 737 Max investigation”
“Federal prosecutors plan to criminally charge a former Boeing Co. pilot they suspect of misleading aviation regulators about safety issues blamed for two fatal crashes of the 737 Max, according to people familiar with the matter.”
While the C-suite was exonerated by the lead prosecutor that subsequently joined the firm the represented BA.
With China becoming the new bad guys, justifying us to spend hundreds of billions on awesome weapons, jobs, it’s good ractice to play down, obscure everything they do. It must either be substandard or copied. Unfair to us anyway. Been there done that, cold war seventies, eighties.
The certainly are doing a bang up job to earn the bad guys tittle.
Tittle? —Bad guys have all the fun
Typo King is something to be
Watch this 😂
Yes —-that describes the stupidity – laughable
“International opposition to #AUKUS reflects a growing understanding that real security won’t come from starting a new nuclear weapons race or new Cold War.
Real security will come from international co-operation to tackle the global crises of our time.”
– British Labour MP
While script writers were able to see the absurdity, it still useful to fool those simple minded. Look no further than comments posted.
Meanwhile, those juveniles either have their heads in the sand or are clueless until it hits them in their faces.
https://mobile.twitter.com/morcos_pierre/status/1439293496762978305 (Go back and read the whole thread of tweets)
From that tittler thread
“France did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, “for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes.”
Aus is volunteering to be frontline dishwasher to attempt to satisfy the electoral ambitions of a PM and party after a failed administration, notably economic, especially bug, in light of an upcoming election
Anti China racism is, always has bern, much stronger (is this right word ?) in Aus than even than in the US
By the same token this US/UK action is neither directed in favour of Australia, nor against China (the subs will sail ? ops 2040 approx probably delayed 2050)
But is the equivalent of trade sanctions imposed on the EU – everyone knows how sanctions backfire, except perhaps….
In regards to Air Cargo. Two interesting things have happened in August 2021.
1 JetBlue has started 7 weekly flights between New York and London using A321LR. The aircraft can probably carry 2-3 LD-3-46 containers of cargo. Not much.
2 Rumour of a new build A321 Freighter have emerged.
Could it be the long range narrow bodies, say and A321XLR-F, may start to separate passenger traffic from cargo traffic?
An A321XLR can clearly connect much of the US east coat to western and central Europe.
An A321XLR-F could easily handle transatlantic cargo traffic.
Keep in mind cargo volume.
Very high priority cargo could justify special flights, but more likely limited volume to specific destinations justifies use of smaller airplane. Strategy of courier/freight company is a big factor in my mind, there are options based on total of factors. (Which pontificators tend to overlook.)
A point is that narrow body bellies tend to be smaller, which reduces cargo capacity, if there is demand it has to be made up somewhere. Otherwise cargo in belly of pax flight is less relevant, perhaps a nice bit of extra revenue at cost of handling it. (Remote areas are different, as roads are long if there are any, But I’ve seen automobile fenders coming out of belly of 737 on a route that had ample road service but a drive of much of a day. Perhaps worth the cost to a body shop to reduce time a garage bay was held up.)
This is not a time to gather statistics to predict the future with, some operators are flying what they can to get some income, one airline was flying cargo in belly of 787 – no pax – as it could charge well for the cargo, not sustainable but was significant income to help stay afloat.
“LOT Polish Airlines is frustrated with Boeing over Boeing 787 issues and the grounding of the 737 MAX aircraft that it is considering becoming an Airbus customer.
“Polish weekly news magazine Polityka says that LOT Polish Airlines is reportedly so frustrated with Boeing for not paying compensation for the MAX grounding that it may soon become an Airbus operator.
Thanks…hadn’t heard about this. Below is a link on the matter.
LOT is now considering legal action against Boeing (like Norwegian). It looks like this may be deliberate BA strategy in the case of airlines that want cash compensation instead of discounts on future orders, i.e. just withhold and let them sue. And then there are commenters here who say that COMAC after-sales service will be bad 😉
Interesting is this passage from the link — any other airlines reporting such problems?
“Ongoing problems with batteries, cables, and motors mean that LOT needs to put its 787s out of service for repairs more frequently than it had originally planned would be the case for brand new machines.”
*** It’s now official ***
Lockheed Martin has now formally “launched” its LMXT tanker offering (based on the Airbus A330 MRRT) as its contestant for the USAF bridge tanker contest:
“Airbus reaches a deal to restructure AirAsia jet order”
“PARIS: Airbus has agreed to cut prices or reschedule delivery for hundreds of jets ordered by Malaysia’s AirAsia to salvage a contract worth tens of billions of dollars with its largest Asian customer, industry sources said on Friday (Sep 17).”
“The restructuring deal resets relations between two of the industry’s closest partners, torn apart by the financial impact of the coronavirus crisis, and lifts uncertainty over the fate of up to 400 A320-family single-aisle jets yet to be delivered.”
September 16, 2021
“Further un reliable and menacing acts from the US….”
Oh why I am not especially surprised at such anti-freedom talk from one of the ‘usual suspects’ – collectivists.
Fact is Australia was very unhappy with performance of the submarine program with France, though it shares a chunk of the blame for insisting on local production and fiddling around.
Note that Australia needs endurance in its submarines, and sails through varying water conditions.
Among many easily found articles:
Pedro said on
September 16, 2021
“ABC AU: Australia to be left ‘strategically naked’ for 20 years under nuclear submarine deal”
How does having submarines of its own, with support from key allies leave Australia ‘naked’?
When would the French submarines have actually been in service for Australia?
How long will Australia’s present submarines be useable for, with the planned upgrade program?
Is the claim of UK-US submarines being in Australian service realistic? Why so long for
Pedro is just burping up Australian politics.
BTW, France is peddling PR IMJ, just like some countries I named elsewhere. We expect such from CC, France’s blabber is over-the-top.
Well at Line X we were told not to use the S word so I won’t.
Keith sure hit it out of the Ocean on his post though.
PS: Germany not France is the tail that wags the EU dog.
‘Germany not France is the tail that wags the EU dog’
Incorrect – EU is a duopoly, Germany is the larger enchilada, but on Defence is stymied by you know what – whereas France the opposite – so often takes the lead and sets the tone
You must remember freedom fries….one tiny example in your ken
Who is this Mel you are trying to typo to?
Boy? Girl? Aircart? Subcart?
The furious thinnskinned comments – above- regarding the politics of defence industry is a tinny illustration of the heated new normal Trade Block war mongering
BA is foolish to ignore this – to suppose that a Defense Contractor in one will be welcomed back in another
Well me thinks thin skinned comments came from the East.
Time to put the big boy pants on
You are being thin skinned
The fury is on both sides – otherwise it would work would it it’d be no fun for you
We have some commentators that wrongly believe they have in-depth knowledge but in fact expose their ignorance and lack of research.
This is ignorance born of prejudice, fostered in fear, which dies in vain
Ahh yes, people should look in the mirror.
Now who should look and those that exclude themselves?
Your post above is all typo – bravo – a new first on an aviation website –
Looks fine to me
That’s cause you got typo eyes
An example, not sub, of one extreme negative fall out from the waryackity yak-
Yes, the situation with all sorts of commodities is getting out of hand — not just rare earth metals, but also coal, copper, natural gas…you name it. Semiconductors, chemicals, fertilizer are in a similar situation.
This is already crippling the auto industry, and is bound to start (further) impeding the aircraft manufacturing industry soon. Airbus has noticed it… Boeing is either denying it, or is producing at such low rates that it hasn’t noticed yet.
The price of sea containers has more than doubled — which is causing some entrepreneurs in The Netherlands to start local manufacturing of (lower-value) products that were previously imported from China. Higher-value products will be next.
And thus the Great Decoupling progresses.
On that last note: a certain country in Europe recalled some ambassadors yesterday. This chilling of existing relationships is bound to have an effect on sourcing of military equipment, and the (strategically important) aerospace industry in general. Interesting times ahead.
Thanks for widening out the discussion to the full realm of the new normal triple endless warcrisis
Perhaps BA does not discuss supply chain issues because they no longer build very many planes and those they do build do not fly but park – it’s true they have little use for functional computers, perhaps the chip shortage does not impact
France often takes the lead in these crises – remember Chirac telling the UN about Irak? His one moment
This may well be another milestone, sorry keystone, in the decline and fall of transatlantic rels
As yet not much on shoring in the US – or am I wrong
Further to last -Onshoring at near zero
The DoD timeline says it all – they aim to reshore by 2040
Eevn in auto – talk is only of ‘planning’ – first re shore the talk, then…
As for Boeing – ‘re shoring, what do you mean?’
It’s “onshoring/reshoring” Theatre.
Very interesting (especially the first link)…and intriguing that there isn’t a faster plan of action.
A marked contrast with the actions being undertaken in the EU, e.g. as regards semiconductors:
The French were already pushing for more defense autonomy, and this week’s events will only accelerate/strengthen that process. Since France is a large part of Airbus, and is also the home of Safran and Dassault, one can also expect a push for more autonomy in the aviation industry: in the current world of turncoats and self-interest, it’s not good to rely on others for supply of anything that you can make yourself. In particular, Airbus is far too dependent on other nations for manufacture of its wings — that situation needs to be addressed in an expedient manner.
Boeing has appointed a new government lobbyist to its board:
“Boeing announced on September 16, 2021, that Ziad Ojakli will be its new executive vice president of government operations.
In this new role, which will be effective October 1, 2021, Ojakli will report to Boeing President and CEO David Calhoun and will serve on the company’s Executive Council. Ojakli succeeds Marc Allen, Boeing’s chief strategy officer, who has served as interim executive vice president of government operations since June 2021.
In this role as head of Boeing’s government operations, Ojakli will lead Boeing’s public policy efforts, serve as chief lobbyist for the global enterprise, and oversee the company’s global philanthropic organization, Boeing Global Engagement.”
Interestingly, this person currently works for a zoo…I wonder if that was of any bearing on his new appointment?
A zoo? That’s too good to be true –
Ex PR for the animals, now PR for the Dancing Poodles
Or is that too rude ok I’ll rephrase – All of Life is but a short step from the Zoo to the Circus
The aviation (and general) press is full of the news that Lockheed Martin has now formally launched the LMXT (A330 MRRT) tanker candidate for the USAF bridge tanker. Nothing but stony silence from Boeing, as yet.
Rather like the situation with the A350F.
Boeing recently raised $200M by selling 310 acres of land in WA (see link), so it should at least have some money to make some sort of announcement and start some sort of PR drive, even if there isn’t enough money for an actual program. Or was that money destined to pay mushrooming legal fees, and perhaps send some damages compensation to LOT?
While I mostly skip the Bryce posts, this is indeed funny.
So once again Boeing owes it to Bryce to keep him updated on things! (LM new re-labled Z7 XT Sports Tanker with, well nothing new)
Or is it possible that ho hum what to say? Gasp!
Now granted, I got up yesterday and Boeing did not comment on that either (I am truly hurt and my inner child is crying to beat the band).
As for A350F, as I recall (granted I am getting into Scott area age wise as near as I can tell) there was discussion by Boeing on the 777X-F.
But, I suppose its Churlish to remind someone of that.
“While I mostly skip the Bryce posts”
If you skip them, how come you try to comment on them so much? 😉
Further: “discussing” the 777XF is not the same as “launching” it.
For example, Boeing has been “discussing” the NMA/NSA for years…
Meanwhile, the world is waiting with bated breath for an announcement — any announcement — from Boeing.
I said mostly. A lot falls in the noise level, nattering as it were.
But then I believe the exact quote was Boeing had no response.
A lot of pot calling the kettle black along with Denial is not just a River in Egypt.
The ongoing FOD problems at Boeing have taken a new twist:
“Tequila Bottles Found On New Boeing Air Force One Jet”
“Two empty liquor bottles were found this month on one of Boeing Co.’s new Air Force One planes under development in San Antonio, people familiar with the matter said.
The discovery of miniature bottles of tequila on one of the future U.S. presidential jets is under investigation by the company, these people said. It couldn’t be determined where on the plane the bottles were discovered.
While Boeing has had problems in recent years with tools, rags and other factory garbage left on commercial and military aircraft, this incident is particularly serious because it involves alcohol and highly classified jets, which will be known as Air Force One when the commander-in-chief is on board.
A Boeing spokesman said the incident was a personnel matter. The company has said it is working to improve quality and manufacturing operations.”
Haha for a second I thought it’s the reappearance of Trump’s $5,800 bottle of whisky that’s been unaccounted for after the former guy left office.
It seems that “un-commanded pitch events” are also still an issue at Boeing…this time on a United 737-900 😉
“BREAKING A Boeing 737-900 carrying USC Football team tipped onto its tail after landing at Lewiston Airport”
Yep, if you unload the front and do not move rear passengers up in a timely manner then the tail hits.
Now US Football players are not those runty EU types. 250 lbs is not uncommon even at college level.
so you have an all heavy heard and ..,….
PS: As I recall, Airbus A320 is even more prone, but any aircraft can have that issue.
Its called weight and balance for the less informed. Mentour did a U tube on it if anyone wants to look it up.
747F puts a support on the tail as you can’t manage cans or pans without a lot of delay.
MD-11F and 777F have a nose tether for the same reason. MD-11 you load forward of the wing and its always tail heavy at the start of a load out.
Tipping freighters are quite common.
Tipping passenger aircraft are a novelty.
Perhaps BA can come with some sort of “static MCAS” to mitigate this pitch-up effect? After all, an event like this can cause serious injury, and the last thing that BA needs at the moment is more litigation…
Obesity levels in the EU are only just behind obesity levels in the US
Do they not have to redesign the seats every few years because the nett weight goes up another 20%?
Don’t answer that, take a look around you
If the same happened to an Airbus or one from Russia or China, our poster here would run around screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling ….
“Air France flight AF393 returns safely to Beijing after an issue with the air conditioning system causes an explosion.”
Skyfall is a trade mark owned by the Boeing Corporation
Please do not use this word when discussing the products of others
An Airbus A310 / Boeing 767 comparison:
That ‘Simple Flying’ site gives me the oddest sensation when reading it: I feel like I somehow know less after reading it than before doing so.
The site ‘Tennis World’ gives the same vibe.
funny ol’ world.
And as noted, the A300 came first which is what the 767 was focused competition wise on.
I think anything but instant 300 minute ETOPS certification and 7000 firm orders from Western entities will show COMAC/CRAIC to be the utter failures that they certainly are.
Its not that its a failure as far as flying goes, its just old state of the art and will not get China the glory it seeks.
That is the problem with Dictatorships, slow and cumbersome (unless you actively start cutting heads off)
Risk Adverse is the term for the people down the ladder. You don’t want it to go Southy on your watch. Ergo, go with safe which is not cutting edge and does not get you anywhere.
Yes independent companies in China make fuselage sections for others, but its not a government run company.
Without the heavy hand Chinese companies are as capable as anyone. The big issue is the remote nature and dealing with China upper and is it really worth the added cost for what you might save?
-> “Yes independent companies in China make fuselage sections for others, but its not a government run company.”
Sure. Have you search which company is it??
It’s elementary. 😂
This has some real substance to the Lockheed Martin Zapp 7 Tanker.
Mfg in the US? Phew – can you say more costs (read that as assembled of course) – you can add GE engines to up US content.
And all the stuff being added is not LM generosity, its required to meet the RFP (some of which may change but the comms and hardening will not)
The proposal broad terms says it can’t be a developmental aircraft, but any A330MRT made to USAF specs will be that.
And the KC-46 has the cargo door the A330MRT lacks, so while it can haul belly cargo, it can’t haul main deck cargo.
And Cargo is not the main reason for a tanker regardless.
The only A330MRT advantage is not a given in fuel offload.
IF its to replace the KC-10 fleet (it can’t and not all that close) then the KC-10 fleet is 60 aircraft. Fuel offload is 200,000 lbs at 2200 miles. KC-46 can offload the same amount but not at the same range.
We only really need the KC-10 if our allies don’t refuse us fueling (per the one time they did).
I don’t see the LM offering as even close to competitive with cost of KC-46.
Speaking of Aerodynamics
.118, now that is an advance.
And why is it always the Brits that come up with this stuff?
I guess (some) posters here pretend as long as it was reported, like claims of intelligence about WMD before the invasion of a foreign country, then it must be true.
And further of note: they also fail to grasp that the event itself is often subordinate to the underlying attitude that is revealed by the event 😏 But such higher-order undertones are not within everyone’s grasp.
A little bit of good news — at least one (small) airline in Europe has managed to achieve summer traffic exceeding 2019 levels:
“Volotea carries over 3.2 million passengers this summer, a growth of 5% over its 2019 traffic levels”
“For a second year in a row, Volotea leads the summer traffic recovery, achieving a 91% seat load, driven by a further push in domestic and island markets, including the launch of 85 new routes.
Another highlight of the season for the company, which has helped and contributed to its recovery, has been the evolution into a single fleet operator, in a move favouring the European manufacturer Airbus, through the early retirement of its 14 Boeing B717 aircraft and their replacement by the larger Airbus A320s. In total, Volotea has operated 40 Airbus A320 and A319 during the summer.”
Comments are repeatedly veering off topic. Comments are closed.