Update 1: Boeing posts small operating profits, net losses in 3Q and nine months (with CNBC comments)

Oct. 27, 2021, © Leeham News: Boeing reported small operating profits and small net losses for the third quarter and nine months.

The third quarter operating profit was $329m and $1.27bn for the nine months. Boeing lost $401m and $4.7bn for the periods in 2020.

Operating cash flow used in the third quarter declined to $262m and $4.1bn compared with $4.8bn and $14.4bn used in 2020. Additional cash was used for spending on property, plants and equipment. Boeing had $20bn in cash at Sept. 30, down slightly from June 30’s $21.3bn. Consolidated debt declined from $63.6bn at June 30 to $62.4bn at Sept. 30.

195 MAXes delivered

“Boeing has delivered more than 195 737 MAX aircraft and airlines have returned more than 200 previously grounded airplanes to service,” the company reports. Of the 195, the majority of those delivered came from inventory. Sixty-two MAXes were delivered in the third quarter. New production aircraft have been added to inventory. Boeing ramped up 737 production to 19/mo. Production of the 787 is 2/mo as deliveries continue to be stalled for a year. The 787’s pause in deliveries will cost Boeing $1bn in “abnormal” costs, including $183m in the third quarter. These figures also include the rework required to resume deliveries.

In an interview on CNBC, Boeing CEO David Calhoun said he can’t predict when deliveries of the 787 will resume.

“We’re following a very deliberate process. It’s a mirror image of the MAX,” he said. “We dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts and we’re going to do the same thing with the 787. I can’t predict delivery times. But we are going to stick to our knitting.”

The estimate of the total cost of the delivery pause and rework could change if unknowns today emerge later. But, Calhoun said, “The way I think about the billion dollars is it’s an investment.”

Customers ordered 70 MAXes 24 freighters and 12 787s during the quarter.

China is a key

Much of Boeing’s future depends on China, Calhoun said on CNBC.

“We have to make sure the China market is open to the United States and open to Boeing. If it isn’t, Europe will fill the void. If I got to the middle of next year without China, we wouldn’t cut rates but we wouldn’t increase at the pace we plan,” he said. Calhoun remains “constructive and optimistic” about China. Even so, increasing production rates depends on the supply chain, which is under pressure generally and from rival Airbus. Airbus wants to increase production rates of the A320 family to up to 75/mo by 2025.

Boeing plans to increase 737 rates to 31/mo early next year. But returning to the 52/mo before the MAX grounding isn’t a timeline Calhoun was willing to predict.

“The wild card in this one isn’t demand. It’s all about the supply chain. They’re going to have to come to grips with that. Whether it’s two, three, or four years, I think we’ll get there,” he said on CNBC–adding the caveat about China.

Boeing’s earnings call will be at 10:30 am today Eastern time. Web access is here.

87 Comments on “Update 1: Boeing posts small operating profits, net losses in 3Q and nine months (with CNBC comments)

  1. These results are very lackluster.
    EPS was just 20 cents, versus an expected value op 60 cents.
    Boeing stock is down 2% YTD, versus a 22% gain in Airbus stock and in the S&P500 as a whole.
    787 deliveries now postponed until “early next year” according to the WSJ.

    BUT…(drumroll)…Boeing has teamed up with Blue Origins to construct a “Business Reef” in space — despite the fact that Boeing’s rocket isn’t working (latest news: valves not suited to humid Florida climate).


    • I don’t know why you’re commenting like you expected something else. The company is clearly still going through a crisis. Did you expect them to be rolling in profits?

      What would’ve have driven them to be anywhere near the financial results of Airbus? Please

      • What I expected is irrelevant; what’s relevant is that Wall Street expected something else, i.e. a much smaller loss.

        “What would’ve have driven them to be anywhere near the financial results of Airbus?”
        — Eh, what about all those MAX deliveries that they keep boasting about? And freighters? And defense?

      • Nnaeto:

        What its about is not what its about. I worked with people like that. You just learn to tune them out.

        • Yes, that’s a talent that others on this forum have — of necessity — learned to do with you, too 😏

          Still, the regular babble about such highly-relevant aviation topics as mending fishing nets, knitting, wrestling, snow mobiles and indoor ski slopes does have a certain amusement value 😅

        • It would be great if Bryce would just start his own blog or if the site just could just give him his own rant page to post all the pro-Airbus and negative Boeing articles he can scour up each day. Would save all the board readers a lot of time and elevate the discourse.

          • Remarkable that you’ve chosen to single me out among the many commenters posting negative articles about Boeing — you do read other comments here, don’t you?
            No need to “scour”…the aviation press is replete with such articles…they just present themselves with clockwork regularity. Even here on LNA — you had noticed that, hadn’t you?

            As far as I’m aware, sticking ones head in the sand has never served to “elevate the discourse”…

  2. The BA slide in the article contains the following bullet item:
    “Continue to expect first 777X delivery in late 2023; progressing through comprehensive flight testing program”.

    The FAA refused to give the 777X a TIA in June (see link)…so how can it be “progressing” through its flight test program? Or has a TIA secretly been granted in the meantime?


  3. “Consolidated debt declined from $63.6bn at June 30 to $62.4bn at Sept. 30”

    I recall certain commenters here telling us that BA was sitting on a fortune in undelivered inventory, and that debt would plummet once deliveries resumed.
    Well, 62 MAXs were delivered in Q3, and yet debt in that same period only fell by $1.2B (1.88%)…not exactly the stellar decline that some had predicted.

    • That is $19m, per delivered frame.
      How much do customers tend to pay on delivery?
      ~50% ? less ?

      • Fire sales to move metal. BA is desperate for customers to take delivery from inventory.

        • Yes, Stephen Weiss raised the possibility (on CNBC) of “low margins, or maybe zero margins” on (some) BA sales.
          On the same program, Jim Lebenthal complained that Calhoun had a credibility problem.

          • > complained that Calhoun had a credibility problem. <

            Holding action PR from that person, I think; but in the service of what future benefit, and to whom?

            Not much is just as it appears, these days (is that too obvious of a statement?).

          • “We’ll lose money on every plane, but make it up in volume.”

            Stock price is not tracking that entity’s value, and has not for quite some time.


        • Wrong tree bark.

          I’d guess most frames are long delayed order now delivered.
          Most of the money for those frames was handed to Boeing a long time ago.
          Open is only the final installment on delivery.

    • In reference to inventory, I find it interesting that Boeing is now turning out 19 Max’s a month. That’s 57 a quarter.

      In Q3 they delivered 62 Max’s from the pile. That’s a net of 5 aircraft delivered from the ones sitting in the employee car park.

      There must be something up with the way the Max is being put back into service, that is requiring some extended maintenance.

      Airbus as a comparison, is at 40, right? I’m sure BA customers want their narrowbodies as much as Airbus customers do. Can’t all be down to China…

      Just a thought

      • Frank:

        You realize you are actually talking about aircraft and not doom and gloom here? Shame on you.

        But, if you insist, I too am trying to un stack it, with the statement the 19 are going into inventory. Not running an aircraft mfg op, let alone one with the current template of Boeing? ergh.

        Another interesting timeline is the -10 and the synthetic system and applying that to the -7/8/9 and will it be post fit to the rest?

        I do think that someone needs to tell Calhoun there is a huge difference between knitting (as much s I admire those who can do that *) and building aircraft.

        *: I could never learn to mend fish nets so I am not a potential knitter.

        • TWA

          Hook 1, Pearl 2, Hook 1, Pearl 2.

          Boeing started out with 450 Max’s in inventory. They said they delivered 195, let’s call it 200. Let’s also be generous and say they averaged 10 new Max’s a month since Jan. This leaves us with 350 airframes sitting there.

          If they continue that 19 a month build rate (let’s call it 20 because zeroes make nice round numbers) and they deliver another 20 from the pile (optimistic, I know) to match the 40 that Airbus now delivers, that means that they will take about 18 months or well into 2023 to clear out their inventory.

          I also wonder how they are handling the inventory. Are 19 getting built and all are going straight to the stock room, with older jets being brought out and dusted off for customers? I guess a look at planespotters would do the trick, huh?

          Once again, jets sitting around, paid for with borrowed money, is a good way to drive up interest expense and diminish your per unit margins.

          I guess that’s why we’re talking about knitting…

          • Per BA’s new CFO:
            Boeing currently has about 370 Max jets in inventory, two-third belong to customers outside China. They are not taking deliveries as fast as BA’s guesstimate. BA now defers the clearing of a majority of MAX inventory for another year to the end of 2023, kicking the can further down the road.

            Debt repayable within a year jumped by $3.7 billion or over 200% to $5.4 billion.

          • Frank:

            Sounds like you got it nailed.

            Kind of new thinking for aircraft, put your inventory on the shelf first.

            That way your older stuff does not get old and decrepit? Had a few of those you would have to blow the dust off and wonder how long it had been there (snow machine parts (grin) , not aircraft).

            Maybe some are getting delivered new for customer who did not have them stuck in the pile until MAX got sorted out?

          • @Pedro

            So cash fell by $1.3 billion, long term debt reduced by $1.2 billion but everything under 360 days went up $3.7 billion from $1.7 billion.

            So $1.2 billion got brought current, where did the remaining $2.5 billion come from?

    • Notice that cash on hand fell by almost exactly the same amount as the reduction of debt.

    • The Seattle Times article by DG (linked by other commenters) says:
      “However, revenue is still lower than one might expect with Boeing delivering MAXs again. That’s because airlines had largely paid in advance for many of those planes before the grounding. Boeing’s new chief financial officer, Brian West, said those advance payments mean new revenue inflow will be limited through next year.”

      So, by analogy, can we expect similar sub-standard revenue when 787 deliveries resume (if ever)?

  4. “Production of the 787 is 2/mo as deliveries continue to be stalled for a year. The 787’s pause in deliveries will cost Boeing $1bn in “abnormal” costs, including $183m in the third quarter”

    What kind of Board allows such monumental damage to (continue to) occur for the sake of a desire to implement QC on the basis of spot checking 3% (latest compromise proposal: 10%) of airframes instead of 100%? A certain commenter here has posited that BA has to adopt this policy because it with otherwise have a plethora of QC failures — a disturbing posit that seems to gain credence by the day.

  5. If I understand correctly, does that mean $1 billion to inspect, say, ~100 or so 787 not delivered ($10 m per unit)? How about inspection of ~1,000 delivered? Who’s responsible, BA or the airlines??

    • Inspect *and repair*, I’d imagine, for the 100 aircraft
      mentioned; likely a lowball, damage-control figure.

      Curiouser and curiouser at mcBoeing..

      • Has BA figured out how to deal with the latest substandard Titanium parts??

        • With regard to the (recently revealed) titanium parts problem, the Seattle Times article linked by various commenters here states:

          “Though MPS was not the sole supplier of the material, on some 787s its out-of-spec titanium was used to make floor beam frame fittings and various brackets, all of which have to be replaced. Calhoun said this is now the major part of the remaining rework on the 787s.

          “We are working our way through it,” he said. “We’re well past halfway.””

          So, Cal tells us that BA is “well past half way”.
          Mind you, replacing floor beam parts does not sound trivial.

    • I think there’s also a portion of long term debt attributed to that, as well. It’s gotta cost you something to tie up some $10 billion in inventory, when you’ve borrowed money to do that.

      What is interesting is that the $10 million per airframe figure you quote, eats away a mighty big chunk of the margin that BA needs to reduce the sunk costs that they incurred on the program, from previous delays.

  6. From CNBC

    -> The company has about 370 Max planes in inventory and said that the “vast majority” have owners and that if its projections for China deliveries hold up, it will deliver most of them by the end of 2023.

    Appears the target of clearing the inventory on hand has slipped again

    • -> ‘has about 370 Max planes in inventory and said that the “vast majority” have owners’

      If I read between the lines, does that mean there are still a number of “white tails” without owners??

    • My big question is why exactly they’re still bothering gaslighting us with obvious, vaporware PR when there is obviously no intent from BCA to make a new plane for an
      EIS in the next ten years..

      “More study is needed..” somebody tell Airbus. 😉

      • Indeed. It has an air of:
        “Mhh, Airbus is introducing all sorts of new tricks, and we can’t be seen to be falling behind. Let’s form a workgroup to do a study on some sort of new plane thingy — keep it nice and vague, and let’s hope that WS takes the bait”.

      • It’s always good for the Corporates when they hook up a customer that never asks the hard question: why would I continue to throw good money after bad??

        -> Oct 26 “20 yrs ago today Lockheed beat Boeing for the F-35. The then-$233b acquisition program started out w lots of promise until it evolved into what’s now at least a $398b behemoth yet to reach its potential as completion of its crucial combat simulation trials is no where in sight”


    • Might be a NASA requirement to spread money to Boeing and US suppliers for a new eco friendly robotic built narrowbody starting with the Truss Brazed aircraft. So Boeing has to move even though they focus on 737MAX deliveries, 787 Q “fixes”, 777-9 certification, KC-46A fixes and deliveries besides some space problems and getting F-15 and F-18 modifications/new production rolling. Hence plenty of projects to take care of, fix problems and updating old designs.

    • About as likely as A220-500 that I noticed Faury could only waffle about recently.

      • the Seattle times tells a different story, that should be read very carefully:
        1/ Q3 was not profitable at all
        2/ Deliveries bring minimal cash, as most of the planes were already paid by downpayments
        3/ Supply chain issues are being mentioned. Not surprising, quite a few suppliers used to be working mainly for Boeing, they are starving, and Boeing is certainly not in a position to bankroll them.
        4/ 787 deferred accounts still going up
        really ugly!

        • Seattle Times quoted an analyst from London, Nick Cunningham:

          Given the low level of MAX deliveries, the block on 787 deliveries and FAA certification delays that have pushed out first delivery of the forthcoming 777X until late 2023 at the earliest.

          “With all three major commercial aircraft programs in varying degrees of serious trouble, extremely high debt and cash still flowing out, we do not think Boeing’s valuation yet reflects the seriousness of the situation.”

          • …and he didn’t even refer to the lack of MAX re-cert in China and Russia, the ongoing woes with the KC-46 and AF1, and the Starliner valve issues.

            Most important of all: it’s now been made clear that deliveries are not going to dig Boeing out of its debt pit any time soon, since the outstanding payments on those deliveries are relatively small. This explains why the huge undelivered inventory is on the books as “short-term debt” — until such time as each delivery actually takes place, the money already paid by the customer is something that may have to be re-paid if the order gets pulled. It also explains why companies such as Norwegian and LOT have had to sue BA to get money back: BA has already spent that money on various damage control actions, and it’s reluctant to tap into whatever bit of free cash it still has on hand.

            Chapter 11, anyone?

        • -> “Deliveries bring minimal cash, as most of the planes were already paid by downpayments”

          Thanks to Boeing doling out compensation credits to customers of the MAX.

          BA’s executive estimates it’ll continue into next year.

          YTD R&D decreased by $300 m or 16% shows what the top executives prioritize.

          • Thanks to Boeing doling out compensation credits to customers of the MAX.

            This is why they are losing cash. They have been delivering Max’s and not filling the coffers, because they had to give them away to placate customers, as we all suspected.

            That pile of inventory isn’t going to be the pot of gold every BA fan boy said it would be

          • Another point that must be taken into consideration: level of manufacturing costs:
            – MAX manufacturing cost at 19/month are pretty high, not sure that these planes will be profitable. Better to ship old machines, manufactured at a higher rate!
            – Same for 787, at 2/Month, they cost a fortune to manufacture, they will certainly be unprofittable. Even when they come back at 5/month, the profit level will be minimal, certainly not compatible with deferred costs recovery.
            the huge tax credit was also pretty useful to improve the Q3 image…
            Will the creative accounters be able to find such nice ideas for Q4???

        • I agree with you. My “should be fine” was deserved sarcasm for BCA, which I did not make clear.

  7. Response to a comment that’s only appeared
    in my email so far:

    I’d say the F-35™ is functioning *precisely*
    as intended: endless money-hole for the MIC/WS.
    Now that lot are making noises about “needing” its replacement..

    Mission™ Accomplished

  8. Think of the great value of Boeing’s “goodwill” when it gets parted-out, though. That latest D. Gates story is a doozy, btw.


  9. So Boeing will now throw another $1 billion down the 787 rat hole of its own creation? Well, that just pushes out their break even point on the 787 program from the current 1500 to 1600 planes…no biggie.
    The 787 and the latest 737 are now two programs on which the total net profit is now projected to be $0.
    That means that since the ex-GE accountants took over the C-suites in 1997, only one commercial program still makes money: the 777. All the others these clowns inherited (717, 757, 767, 747) have been terminated or ruined.
    Is it any wonder they are desperate to avoid launching a clean sheet NMA program? They know that they lack the skill set to do so, all they can do is to take an existing program and wring out every cent in operational efficiency, mostly by squeezing suppliers to the bone (“Partnering for Success”). Creating a new program from scratch is a completely different animal, one for which these clowns have left a record of failure.

    • The 777X took a $6.5 billion charge in Q4/2020. I don’t think they will break even on the 787 at 1600 – the sunk costs are now back up in the $19-20 billion range.

      • You are probably right. I don’t actually know the latest projection for the break even point of 787 program, it keeps heading north, like the national debt.
        Suffice it to say that commercial is basically supported by a three legged stool of the 737, 777, and 787, and this gang of beancounting clowns has kicked out two of the three legs.
        Ironic that a gang of financial “experts ” has now ruined two programs: 737 and 787. Neither will ever make a nickel, just pay off the $20 billion hole created by their own stupidity.

  10. CC says above-

    ‘We have to make sure the China market is open to the United States and open to Boeing. If it isn’t, Europe will fill the void.’

    Or COMAC, perhaps : CC is in an alternate universe

    I may be wrong, but the China market is not closed either to the US or to Boeing – although the China regulator has not re certed the Max

    CC must be ‘mis speaking’ i.e.lying in order to underline his loyalty to the current President’s Trump policies, as well as his enthusiastic support for the idea that wartalk will be enough to cave China without the disagreeable consequences (to Boeing) that an actual war would entail

    Perhaps CC means to send them over the FAA to show China how to recert: with his favourite word in tow: ‘safely’

  11. AB first nine months result:

    Profits from operation: €3.4 b
    FCF: €2.3 b

    • You now run the risk of being accused of being an “Airbus fanboy” 😉

      Nice to see that at least one aviation company on the planet is being run properly.

  12. The LNA article says “China is a key”.

    Well, just this week, the FCC banned China Telecom from operating in the USA — thus throwing more salt on the open wound in trade relations.
    On top of that, the C919 program is suffering from lack of spares of certain parts, due to US export bans.
    Moreover, the recent emergency with the AirBelgium MAX delivery (electric trim failure, causing wild fluctuations in FL and an inability to follow AT instructions) can be grasped by the Chinese to assert that the plane still has “unsolved anomalous pitch control issues”.

    With all of that in the background, what basis is there for Cal’s assumption / guesstimate that China re-cert will be occurring “early next year”?
    More like early next decade — if he’s lucky.

  13. But, Calhoun said, “The way I think about the billion dollars is it’s an

    When is someone on Wall Street going to stand up and say the Emperor has no clothes on?

    • Various financial analysts on CNBC yesterday were very negative about Boeing.
      One referred to “the deep hole that Boeing has gotten itself into”.

      Wall Street knows what’s going on. The only reason the stock isn’t lower is because of bargain hunters / bottom feeders who think there may still be a chance to make a buck.

    • Customers are delighted with this “investment”, because the associated delay is giving them the option to cancel without penalty.
      Similar “investments” in the case of the 737MAX and the 777X have afforded commensurate penalty-free cancellation possibilities.
      How considerate of BA to provide this possibility 😏

      • Good snark! And moving all 787 “output” to Charleston- QC capital of the world!- surely bodes well for mcBoeing’s future.

        What’s the frequency, Kenneth..

  14. (Sometimes, you can’t even make this stuff up!)

    Perhaps a few of you remember what I have said about the cost of capital that BA has to endure, given over 100+ 787’s and 350+ Max’s sitting in inventory, yes?


    Well, from their financials:

    Earnings/(loss) from operations:
    9 mths/21 9mths/20 Q3/21 Q3/20
    Commercial Airplanes ($2,021) ($6,199) ($693) ($1,369)

    Interest and debt expense (2,021) (1,458) (669) (643)

    Please note that the 9 months loss from BCA is EXACTLY the same amount as the 9 months paid in interest expense for the same period (and interest expense has climbed from last year/last quarter).

    If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the corner store to buy a lotto ticket now. 🙂

    (I know, it’s the whole corporate interest expense and the debt is probably attributed across the company, but it’s funny how the numbers line up like that…)

  15. Investor site “The Motley Fool” has this article on Boeing’s results from yesterday.
    “Boeing’s Woes Continue: Another Earnings Miss
    The U.S. aerospace company can’t seem to get out of its own way.”


    Note the synopsis:

    “What turnaround?

    For a long time, shareholders have hoped that, despite the company’s various setbacks, Boeing would return to its former glory within a few years. That isn’t likely, though.

    Boeing ended the third quarter with over $40 billion of net debt plus substantial pension liabilities. It will take several years to restore the balance sheet to health. In the near term, low production rates, compensation related to the 737 MAX grounding, and greater discounting will weigh on Boeing’s cash flow, partially offsetting the benefit from delivering jets that have been stuck in inventory.

    Once Boeing clears out its inventory of roughly 370 completed 737 MAX jets and 105 Dreamliners, free cash flow will stabilize well below the highs of a few years ago. Weak demand for passenger wide-body jets and a big market share shift toward Airbus in the narrow-body market will handicap the commercial-airplanes division’s profit and cash flow for the foreseeable future.

    The worst may be over for Boeing, but that doesn’t mean it has a bright future ahead. Investors looking to bet on a turnaround story should probably look elsewhere.”

    • “What turnaround…. ?”
      Boeing has successfully executed a turnaround of 360 degrees…. Calhoun and the entire board should be congratulated for their success.

  16. Boeing successfully disposed of a few properties in WA while investing in other states.

    “Earlier this summer, Boeing sold a warehouse in Everett for $35 million and seven office buildings in Bellevue’s Eastgate area for $139 million. The company has leased back the latter buildings for two years.”

  17. Conformal fuel tanks trying to fit in?

    BA continues its practice since 7/8/2007.
    “One day at the end of the airshow, we arrived…to find one of the Super Hornets with Styrofoam shapes bolted on the fuselage. The Boeing workers had been busy overnight…They had even painted over the blemishes on the airplane to make it look close to brand new.”


  18. BA talks up “green” “sustainable” technology:

    -> “Boeing Co. is studying how to incorporate sustainability improvements into aircraft design, production, maintenance and recycling in preparation for its next commercial airliner, said Mike Sinnett, vice president of product development for Boeing Commercial Airplanes”

    • Right now, everyone is “talking up “green” “sustainable” technology”, because COP26 is coming up and people feel a need to give the impression that they’re on the bandwagon.

  19. Pull forward the KC-Y, don’t ask questions & pre-pay. Just make sure it not used as free cash flow for buy backs, executive bonuses, dividends and look forward celebrations.

  20. Further evidence as to why deliveries at BA aren’t generating much revenue:
    “A phenomenal deal for Bonza”

    “As reported by Australian Aviation and the Australian Aviation Podcast, Bonza got a “phenomenal” deal on the 737 MAXs. The airline could start operations with three MAX units next year.

    Bonza’s investors 777 Partners have been able to acquire several Boeing 737 MAX aircraft at incredible prices, in a unique opportunity, said Jordan. Due to the Boeing crisis (which lasted between March 2019 and November 2020) and the COVID-19 crisis, the value of the 737 MAX fell.”


    • “We were initially setting out a business plan, and the lease costs involved to sustain our operations, we thought that we would be leasing used aircraft, maybe five to 10 years old,” Jordan explained.

      “So, what we’ve ended up with is a far improved outcome.”

      Jordan added that thanks to the ultra fuel-efficient 737 MAX, the company’s forecast fuel burn is set to be “significantly lower” than anticipated, and clinching a good deal means the airline can boast a consistent fleet right from the get-go.


      So, you can get a Max for the same price as a 5-10 year old (previous generation) plane.

      You know, some might dump on BA for this and short term, ya it seems like they’re giving them away. BUT…

      …think 5+ years down the road. If Bonza grows, Boeing clears the backlog of Max’s it has sitting in the employee car park and the airline is kinda locked into the type as all staff is trained up on one OEM… Boeing could ask and get a better price for the product. If they could get any new startups to take the Max to start their ops, at cheap rates, the future could be interesting.

      Anyone remember the Bond film Live and Let Die, when the villian’s plan was to flood the market with free heroin, put the mob out of business then as people became addicted, raise prices?

      Silver lining to a very dark cloud…

      • Why aren’t the lessors up in arms?? Apparently it’s BA that’s putting them out of business.

        • So I took a look at Planespotters, the 737 Max production list

          Gescas has 8 Max’s stored (I guess they got handed over) and a further 2 on order.


          They seem to be the hardest hit of all lessors.

          I’m guessing they figure that since Boeing is in horrible shape and they probably got compensated for their trouble – there is no need to pile on. If they get into a similar situation with Airbus where they have jets sitting around without customers, they will get no compensation.

          I wonder who is going to pay for to have those jets revamped, when the lessor finally finds a customer

      • According to a September report from Reuters, BA still has 20 “white tails” to clear.

        • Up to September, BA booked 519 MAX cancellations this year. I suspect that the number of “new” whitetails may be very significant.

      • That business model in your last para applies
        to most of what’s imflicted on us these days-
        including especially what comes through
        these screens.

  21. Calhoun said Boeing has “begun laying the foundation for the next commercial airplane program….”. What kind of foundation takes 15-20 years to lay, cause that’s how long they have been laying this one.
    Worth mentioning that “laying the foundation” costs next to nothing, lunch money. It is a commitment of nothing. They can lay 10 or 20 foundations without using any of them to develop anything.
    I can predict exactly when the NMA will be launched….never!

Leave a Reply

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