Boeing has cash flow positive 4th quarter, 1st since 2019; takes charge on 787 program

Jan. 26, 2022, © Leeham News: Boeing reported its first cash flow positive quarter, the fourth quarter, since early 2019 today as it issued its 2021 financial results. The 737 MAX was grounded worldwide March 10-13, 2019. The company was cash flow positive by $700m.

For the full year, Boeing remained cash flow negative, at $3.4bn. Boeing recorded a $3.4bn non-cash, pre-tax charge of $3.5bn on the 787 program. Deliveries have been stalled since October 2020.

787 work continues

“The company continues to perform rework on 787 airplanes in inventory and is engaged in detailed discussions with the FAA regarding required actions to resume deliveries,” Boeing said in its earnings press release. “In the fourth quarter, the company determined that these activities will take longer than previously expected, resulting in further delays in customer delivery dates and associated customer considerations. Accordingly, Commercial Airplanes recorded a $3.5b pre-tax non-cash charge on the 787 program. The program is producing at a very low rate and will continue to do so until deliveries resume, with an expected gradual return to five per month over time. The company now anticipates 787 abnormal costs will increase to approximately $2bn, with most being incurred by the end of 2023, including $285m recorded in the quarter.” Another $402m non-cash charge was recorded on the KC-46A program.

Boeing will boost the production rate of the 777/777X program to 3/mo some time this year.

Revenues for the year were $62.3bn, up 7% vs. 2020. Boeing closed the year with $16.2bn in cash and marketable securities. Operating losses narrowed from $12.77bn to $2.9bn. Net losses narrowed from $11.9bn to $4.29bn.

In a letter to employees, CEO David Calhoun said 2021 was a year of rebuilding. Production of the 737 MAX is now at 26/mo, with a target of 31/mo shortly.

Boeing’s earnings call is at 10:30am EST. The call may be accessed here.

The earnings press release may be accessed here.

The earnings presentation may be found here.


184 Comments on “Boeing has cash flow positive 4th quarter, 1st since 2019; takes charge on 787 program

  1. It’s not so long ago since BA has $25B in cash…and that has now dropped to just $16.2B…?
    What’s the outlook? The 787 isn’t shipping, the 777X isn’t TIA-ing, the KC-46 isn’t working, the Starliner isn’t flying, and the MAX isn’t generating meaningful earnings.

    • Hear! Hear!

      But, hey, there’s that big, Qatar Airways 777XF order to deflect the rot beneath McBoeing’s hood!

      • That huge 777XF order from Qatar would be a fantastic boost for BA!
        Assuming, of course, that the 777X ever actually gets certified…and that AAB doesn’t find some aspect of the plane to throw a tantrum about 😉

        • I can imagine a several dozen White Tail B737-8 MAX or B737-9 with a few B737-10 going to Qatar Airways after Airbus withdrew/cancelled its A321neo agreement.

          • The MAX white tails are all gone except for maybe a handful. Even the Air Italy (ceased operations) in which Qatar had an ownership stake.

          • Scott:

            Is there any account of the non white tails that were built to Airlines specification and painted but not being taken up?

    • At what point will customers become weary to make down payments for orders, cos they don’t trust that they will get their orders delivered?

      • -> Boeing CEO David Calhoun, usually with polished prepared opening remarks for earnings, sounds like he’s multitasking while following a rough list of bullet points.

        -> Boeing CFO Brian West: “We can’t predict when [787] deliveries will restart,” but working closely with FAA.

        -> April seems optimistic at this point. Reactivating, transporting, and preparing all the stored 787’s for delivery will be a lot heavier of a lift than the MAX’s have been for sure.

        • Not surprising…a bit like a stand-up cabaret 😏
          Your last paragraph is no surprise: “April seems optimistic at this point.” Golly, is anyone surprised?

        • I can’t help but think, the embarrassed FAA is making Boeing jump through some pretty high bars to get The Dreamliner back in service. I’ve seen pictures of the A350 paint coating problems and haven’t heard anything that the FAA is monitoring that. Note: I’m not taking sides, just an observation…

          • Improperly joined barrel sections present a much greater problem than paint de-lamination; remember that, in flight, the barrel joints are subjected to constantly varying loads — particularly shear and torsional stress — which can cause joint failure.
            The paint de-lamination issues on the 787’s wings are also not attracting undue FAA attention; the OEM is re-painting the affected wings under guarantee.
            Contrary to what some like to tout, paint de-lamination doesn’t result in structural/functional degradation of the underlying copper lightning mesh; copper is, after all, one of the most durable materials when it comes to weathering — for example, copper roofs on monumental buildings last hundreds of years.

          • Bryce:

            Actually copper is not durable, it corrodes.

            And you apparently have not seen the pictures or ignoring them of the open grid and failing grid on the A350.

            787 looks to be a paint issue, the A350 does not.

            If it was just a paint issue, then Airbus would not be considering a new system!

            Re-painting the A350 can be a holding action but its not a fix. Qatar wants there to be a fix.

          • Copper oxide is actually a durable, hard cover layer that protects the underlying copper bulk from further atmospheric influences. You need to brush up on your materials science knowledge.

            I haven’t yet seen a single Qatar photo in which structural damage to the underlying copper mesh is visible. Feel free to post a link to any specific photo in which you think such damage to be visible.

    • First positive cash flow since 2019. With everything you’ve mentioned, max is obviously bringing in cash as that’s the only thing delivering in numbers. And more are expected this year. Signs that Boeing is recovering, slowly but surely but If this comment isn’t typical of you. I don’t know what is

      • Boeing stock is dragging down the Dow today, so stockholders evidently don’t share your optimism.

        Further: “bringing in cash” is not the same as “generating earnings”. Look at low margins (fire sale) and high costs.

        • It was initially rising when the results were released. And analysts HAVE said that is a clear sign that things are improving. Check WSJs latest article.

          It’s obviously the 787 delivery delay is what is holding off Boeing from a full on recovery but that is round the corner as Calhoun said AAs mid April delivery is reasonable and that’s the best he can give.

          But Bryce this is very on brand for you, so I mean I’m not really arguing with your logic because we would both be wasting time just letting you know there’s other ways to look at this

          • As I write this, BA’s stock is down 5% and is the Dow laggard today.
            But, by all means feel free to get all excited by today’s results 😏

      • The 767 will also be returning cash. With the KC-46A underlying the production and all the Freighters being ordered that program is in good shape.

        • “that program is in good shape.”

          The KC46A part of that program has “program loss” status. Not sure how that can be qualified as “in good shape”.

          • Bryce:

            As usual a hoot. that is because you don’t understand the program.

          • @ TW
            From the link posted below:

            “…Boeing has paid more in cost overruns than the Air Force has paid to develop its newest tanker.”

            Time to brush up on your data.

          • Nope, you need to really educate yourself on how programs work.

            Hint: You are missing a major piece.

          • @ TW
            But it’s always more enlightening — and entertaining — when you propound your theories upon us: so, for the furtherance of our education, please unleash your wisdom upon us in this matter…we’re dying to hear where we’re going wrong.

          • Bryce:

            Nope, you have to work for this one.

            I just can’t enable you forever!

          • @Bryce

            “I just can’t enable you forever!”

            Wow, is there any vaccine so that I’m permanently immune from this “enabler’s” influence??

            One, have to be seriously deluded.

      • Something very interesting in the financials and cash flow, you mentioned:

        Go to page 9

        December 31, 2021 December 31, 2020
        Cash and cash equivalents $8,052 $7,752
        Short-term and other investments 8,192 17,838
        Accounts receivable, net 2,641 1,955
        Unbilled receivables, net 8,620 7,995
        Current portion of customer financing, net 117 101
        Inventories 78,823 81,715
        Other current assets, net 2,221 4,286
        Total current assets 108,666 121,642

        Do you see it?

        Sure, cash went up by some $400 million. Take a look at ‘Short Term & Other Investments’

        End of 2020 they had 17.838 Billion
        End of 2021 they had 8.192 Billion

        $ 9.646 Billion.

        Anyone know anything about it?

        Usually on a financial statement, assets are listed in order of liquidity; how soon you can convert the asset into cash.

        Short-term and other investments are second only to cash.

        Current assets are also down $12.976 billion, so they didn’t get moved around there – as are total assets.

        I haven’t dug into them yet – been a busy day. Anyone know?

        • Might it have something to do with repayments of deposits/prepayments to cancelling customers?
          Prepayments are noted as liabilities until delivery occurs, at which time they’re booked as revenue — except when a cancellation occurs, in which case hard cash has to be paid back to the customer in question. This eats into available cash.

          • I completely agree.

            Everyone is trying to trumpet the fact that cash is up $400 million.


            Let’s say I had some t-bills in an investment account at the beginning of the year totaling $17,838. I had cash of $7,752.

            By the end of the year, I cashed in some t-bills and ended up with $8,192 worth of t-bills and had $8,052 in the bank.

            I’m kinda short some ninety six hundred bucks.

            Where’d that money go?

      • It depends if you work on the Wall Street or Main Street. Does BA slash its R&D in order to be cash flow positive (and sacrifices its future)??

        -> Slashed engineering spending. 

        Boeing announced it would cut BCA independent (noncontract) research and development (IR&D) by about 25%, and indeed, 2020 spending fell from 2019 by slightly more than that. Yet over the past 10 years (2011-20), BCA spent $22.3 billion on IR&D, an average of 4.8% of BCA revenue in that period. McDonnell Douglas, by contrast, spent an average of just over $300 million annually on all noncontract R&D between 1993 and 1996, and this included military and space technology research. If McDonnell IR&D was two-thirds commercial, then BCA’s engineering spending has been about 10 times greater. However, much of this BCA R&D budget was spent on rectifying problems with the 787 and 737 MAX. The rest was spent on derivatives. Boeing has not launched a clean-sheet jetliner since 2004, when the 787 began. Douglas went 30 years without a new jet launch; Boeing is at the 17-year mark.

      • .FYI

        FCF is a non-GAAP measure, basically it’s all up to mgmt’s “definition”.

  2. Relevant to BA’s outlook:
    “Boeing’s Latest Big Problem Is a Labor Shortage for Its Suppliers”

    “The risk is that the constellation of suppliers that ship millions of parts to planemakers and enginemakers won’t be able to hire enough workers to keep pace. Those smaller manufacturers are facing labor shortages two years after U.S. aerospace companies jettisoned 57,000 employees. Already at the current low production pace, there are signs of stress and spot shortages. With an industry upturn looming, the crunch looks poised to get much worse.

    Even after all the adversities Boeing has faced, “the next 18 months is more risky than the prior 18,” said Kevin Michaels, managing director of consultant AeroDynamic Advisory.”

    • The result of a twenty-year long fight against labor costs in Boeing’s shop and the floors of its suppliers (partners for success) is that formerly high paid, high skill aerospace manufacturing jobs that were desireable for workers to compete to obtain are now just regular jobs with more responsibility.

      I can guess what happened to the highest skill, most valuable workers when aerospace started laying off employees in the middle of a global labor shortage. Boeing gave no loyalty to its workers in the last 20 years, is it any surprise they get no loyalty back?

      • They shoulda used that $450,000,000 they spent
        on the “Autonomous, Battery-Powered Air-Taxis”
        startup on helping their suppliers and line workers,
        but that wouldn’t be PR-friendly..

        Strange days.. I will be following the ongoing 787 saga with real interest. April, eh? 😉

  3. Good nett loss & profit are getting headlines again. Doctored free cash flow & rosy outlooks dominated 2015-2019. Stock price putting everybody asleep while Boeing was drained. I wonder how its assets are valuated.. This company needs new goals, leadership and spirit.

    • But the net profit and loss were still good then. So what’s your point.?In industries like this cash flow is the focus. Have you ever wondered why people invest in companies like Tesla even though their p&l reports are not that great.

      Cash determines what your business can do. If you’re not generating cash. Then what are you doing?

      If you’ve ever owned or ever own a business go and use profit and loss to pay for products and innovation when you do that, let me know

      • “Have you ever wondered why people invest in companies like Tesla even though their p&l reports are not that great.”

        Because they follow the crowd of GenZ-ers who don’t bother looking at stock fundamentals, and grossly over-estimate future earnings potential.

        People who *do* look at fundamentals are selling BA stock today.

        • Yeah sure, only Gen Z invest in Tesla stock. That is the wildest and reactionary statement. When the largest Tesla shareholders are institutional just like Boeing. But okay Bryce, like I’ve said. On brand..

          • “Tesla shares are among the most popular on U.S. retail investor platforms, such as Robinhood Markets Inc and TD Ameritrade (AMTD.O). The number of users holding Tesla stock on the Robinhood trading app increased more than 400% from the first two weeks of July 2018 to the same point this year, according to data from, which compiles data on the investing platform.”

      • “Cash determines what your business can do. If you’re not generating cash. Then what are you doing?”

        Investing in product development, production technology, process improvement, portfolio expansion, paying debts, reserving funds for cold days. Not buying back my own stock, pay crazy executive bonuses and dividends.

        Nor consuming free cash flow while the competitor shows up, bypasses me and disappears on the horizon. Not extracting as much value as possible, “monetizing” assets before I’m retiring.

        Maybe it’s a cultural thing.

      • Does Tesla have superior cash flow per share than can justify its share price??


  4. Here’s more on that additional $402M cost overrun on the KC46.

    “Under the 2011 agreement, Boeing is responsible for paying costs in excess of its $4.9 billion contract with the service, meaning that at this point, Boeing has paid more in cost overruns than the Air Force has paid to develop its newest tanker.”
    “…the service will not be able to declare the KC-46 fully operational until fiscal 2024.”


    And regarding the 787, the extra pain is actually effectively $5.5B instead of just $3.5B:

    “The company said it will have to pay $3.5 billion to compensate customers for the delayed deliveries. It only delivered 14 of the planes in 2021, and none since June. It also said the delays would increase the costs of producing the plane by an estimated $2 billion, with most of those costs coming at the end of this year. It booked $285 million of those increased costs in the just completed quarter.”

    • Non cash charge…so just a book keeping entry. Program accounting

      So it’s incorrect to say’ Boeing has paid’

      • Fine, then, just say “has booked charges” instead.
        The end result is the same: the debit is bigger than the credit –> net loss.

        • Not at all. USAF pays Boeing cash up for its development.

          Program accounting spreads gains and losses over the life of the program, this case its the ‘fixed’ order of 179 planes.

          These are paper charges , most likely used to avoid Boeing paying taxes now its back into cash flow positive territory

      • Oh….

        So did BA not spend any money for those expenses? Yah – they did, in a previous time period. Spent the money and if they had to borrow money to do it (cause they spent their free cash on buybacks and dividends) it’s now sitting in their long term debt.

        The thing about a ‘book keeping entry’ is that they cannot match the expense with an associated revenue, to cover the expense. So it’s written off. It’s a loss.

        Boeing did pay. Boeing will not get paid for it. Now it’s just admitting the fact…

        • Read up on program accounting that Boeing uses for its aircraft programs
          Its not your Mum and Dad company bookkeeping
          No doubt they have lost money on the K-46 development

          • Nice deflection.

            I’ve written extensively about program accounting in here, but I guess you were on suspension when I made those comments.

            All program accounting does is allow you to amortize certain expenses over a period of time, in this case the estimated production block. However:

            1) You still spent the money, just in a different time period

            2) Once you take a charge, you are essentially saying that the expense will not be covered under the accounting block and must be written off – meaning THE PROGRAM IS A LOSS

            3) Boeing has now lost money on

            – KC-46
            – 787
            – 777X

            they’ve had to write off balances on all three of these programs, the most recent a $3.5 billion charge on the 787, with a $6.5 billion charge om the 777X in Q4/2020.

            I know you’d love everyone to just forget about the money spent to incur those losses and just sweep it under the rug by saying “It’s just an accounting entry” from the DPB.

            But the fact of the matter is that money was spent to incur those expenses. Since Boeing had to borrow money (to the tune of $60 billion in LTD) they’re now sitting there in the Liability section of the balance sheet, costing them interest expense.

            How much interest expense is BA paying, you ask?

            Not much – just some $2.7 billion a year or about $700 million a quarter.

            BTW – you know that BCA sold 99 aircraft for $4.75 billion in Q4/2021, right?

            Well, Mom and Pop accounting will tell you that in 2018 Boeing (in their best year ever) had an operating margin of 13% on deliveries of some 800 jets.

            Well, if you took that same margin (which they are not getting, but I’m being nice) and applied it to the recent quarter, you get a margin of $617.5 million. Which is not enough to cover their interest expense.

            Sometimes Mom and Pop knew things that the whiz bang MBA wunderkids might learn a thing or two from…

            …but I guess you already knew that.

            “Read up on program accounting” he says

            As if that makes it all better and turns BA from the zombie dog with fleas company that it is, into some cash cow star.

            (side note: Are you one of those guys who goes around on financial websites shouting to everyone “It’s going to $400 by the summer ! Book it!!!” kinda like what was being said when the Max was re-certed last year and the 450 jets in inventory was heralded as a God-send, but one year on, BA has lost 2.2% in value while the competition is up 26%?)

            But if you prefer – let’s talk about the $400 million increase in cash. Would you like that?

          • Frank: Don’t forget Boeing wrote off the 747-8 program years ago, too. So four of the last five airplane programs have been losses. So far, no forward loss on the MAX….

          • I get mixed up in all of it but it seems the MAX is in arrears to the tune of 10-20 billion as well.

            Maybe they make enough of them not to do a write off but that is still billions lost when you could have done an entire aircraft program with that money.

          • @Scott

            I’m really trying my hardest to be on my best behavior and not kick a guy when he’s down. I purposefully never mention the words ‘submarine’, ‘China’ or ‘Covid’ for fear of getting the comment section shut down and risking the ire of that highfalutin moderator who runs this place with an iron fist.

            Besides, that charge was a piddly $1.1 billion loss on the program – hardly worth talking about in Boeing money. Calhoun loses that out of his pocket into the crack of his sofa…

            But now that I’ve got you here, do me a favour will you?

            Boeing has orders and is delivering 767 freighters, 777F (about 70 orders) and the last six 747-8F’s to UPS and Atlas.

            Ballpark me a figure – even a range, of what you think Boeing is getting in revenue (I know what lists says) for each model.


  5. It is worth reading the small print:
    787 deferred accounts went down by 3,5Bn$ in the 4th quarter…. In good years with 10 deliveries/month 787 they go down by 1Bn$ each quarter. the 3,5Bn write off that is annonced to day “to cover compensation to airlines”
    With 0 delivery on Q4, 787 deferred accounts should have gone North.
    this looks like creative accounting!

    dubious creative accounting is probably the speciality of the recently appointed on the board of directors:Lynne DOUGHTIE.
    It is worth knowing a few things about her: she comes from KPMG (ex GE auditor).
    From “And let’s not forget that KPMG might be replaced after more than 100 years as external auditor for General Electric, which was just accused of perpetuating a $38 billion accounting fraud.”
    Knowing her position in KPMG, she probably knew a thing or two in this affair!
    ex GE Chairman Dave Calhoun did not select her by chance.

    • Indeed.
      GE eventually fired KPMG and hired Deloitte (who is also Boeing’s auditor). Boeing will need all the creative accounting it can get. All will be well if nothing else goes wrong; e.g. if a 787 flown by a ‘first world pilot’ doesn’t fall from the sky.

    • Boeing can’t deliver 787 that’s been in production for over decade? the 787 program suspended deliveries since mid-October 2020 So in 1 1/2 year timeframe is not a typical rework problem Leads one to wonder if they have to scrapped out those 787

      • No, it just means Boeing tried to slide this by the FAA and got burned and now has to revamp how they deal with the issues

  6. It would be good for global airlines, competition & development if Boeing starts delivering 787s, 777s and 737 again in good numbers with healthy margins. Giving room to develop a superior new NB. Tons of hope in there..

    Qatars Al Baker might be an arrogant prince, who no doubts controls local aviation authorities too & is playing a strange game avoiding solutions for his A350 aircraft. But Airbus refusing him ordered A321NEO’s and Akbar now willing to order an 777F concept based on future versions of a troubled, uncertified 777-9 isn’t healthy either. Airbus dominance should IMO be tempered by healthy competition.

    • AAB will always find an excuse to put on a “song and dance” — regardless of the OEMs that he can choose from.
      As far as I can recall, the only other airline CEO who has (recently) expressed public dissatisfaction at Airbus was Willie Walsh — and that was about Airbus’ refusal to budge on A380 pricing.
      The market is still canceling MAXs/787s…regardless of the limited choice of OEMs.

      • keesje:

        So far, Airbus has offered on the A350 what we call a Dupont Overhaul over here (new pain job and wallah, its all new)

        With its history of bribes I don’t think you should be calling the Qatar Authority corrupt.

        Airbus has not offered a solution but a patch job.

        The 777F is selling and keeping the line hot, can’t ask for more right now there.

        No disagreement the 787 makes you want to cry.

        • Re-painting is a perfectly adequate solution to a paint problem.
          It’s also what BA does with the paint delamination problem on 787 wings.

        • @TransWorld

          As always, you tend to be economical with the truth — to say the least.

          As for Airbus and corruption; in 2016 they actually self-reported irregularities in payments made to its third-party consultants.*

          BTW, I can’t seem to recall Boeing ever self-reporting Darleen A. Druyun Druyun exercising her influence to convince the Air Force to accept a higher price for the (ill-fated) lease deal for 100 KC767 tankers. Of course, in exchange for her “services,” Boeing worked with her daughter, who had previously been given a job by the same company — through her mother’s influence — to set Druyun up for a high-paying role in Boeing’s missile defense systems department.


          The SFO’s investigation into Airbus took off in August 2016 after the company self-reported irregularities in payments made to its third-party consultants, and the potentially questionable use of those funds by the consultants. In March 2017, the PNF came on board, announcing, in a rare show of cooperation, that it would work alongside the SFO to investigate the France-based company. Airbus subsequently disclosed to the DOJ that the inaccuracies in its reports about payments to third-party intermediaries likely violated the ITAR. The ITAR require Airbus and other parties seeking approval to deal in defense articles and services controlled under the ITAR to report information regarding certain political contributions, fees, and commissions paid by the applicant, or any third-party agents, in connection with the underlying sales transactions.1 The DOJ opened its investigation into Airbus in December 2018.

          As for the “Qatar Authority”; it’s well known within the industry that the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) and Qatar Airways, are basically one and the same.

          • Clearly those who do not understand machinery don’t understand that a paint over does not fix a problem.

          • @ TW
            Let’s leave this one to engineers rather than a mechanic 😏

          • @TW

            ” … a paint over does not fix a problem.”

            I don’t know but my garage door definitely needs new paint every couple of years. How about yours??

        • > (new pain job and wallah, its all new) <

          I really am glad this commenter provides
          so much material, of sorts.

          • Yes, it’s stunning, isn’t it?
            Apparently no realization that one can change the type/constitution of paint and/or primer, and also adjust the paint application parameters. One can also apply an adhesion promoter before priming.

            I wasn’t previously aware of this new phonetic version of French in which “wallah” replaces “voilà”…surprises abound 😉

          • @Bryce

            It must have happened when French crosses the pond, and became famous for “fries”.

        • I believe it’s time to remind posters who repeatedly spread misinformation and lies should not be allowed.

          Unfortunately for those who live in alternate universes, they have a different understanding of “facts” and “reality”.

        • TW,

          This harping on about Airbus bribery is rather tiresome. I think there is very good reason to be believe that they have been coerced into paying bribes to “agents” rather than offering them, and there’s a big difference.. It seems to be a way of doing business that is endemic in some parts of the world and I have no doubt that Boeing also participate in the practice, but perhaps they hide it better.

          • Roger:

            Equally the Anti US rhetoric is tiresome as well.

            It seems like the KC-X bid, its a one way street. EU types comment on the US and programs and then go into denial on their own issues.

            I am convinced that Airbus bribed the USAF on KC-X round 2.

            Its against the process to give credit that is not in the RFP but that is exactly what the USAF did.

            Happy to hear other explanations. But a bid is open to all bidders and ALL the information as well as any changes.

            If you change it for one party and the other party is not informed (or in this case USAF is obligate to get input from Boeing) then its illegal and the GAO ruled that way.

            While the GAO recommendation is not legal binding, in the US system, you can take it to court and win on the merits of illegal process so the USAF accepted the GAO recommendation to re-bid rather than get into judicial legal fight they would loose.

          • No anti-US rhetoric here: nothing wrong with discussing the fact that the emperor doesn’t have the clothes that he thinks he has.
            There are LOTS of US websites doing that — are they somehow being “disloyal to the flag”? Or is it merely healthy self-reflection?

            Very childish to try to ascribe everything to “bribery”.

      • @Bryce

        I’ve posted two comments over at the Airinsight where I’m mentioning both Willie Walsh and Akbar Al Baker: 😉


        OV-099 on January 25, 2022 at 2:10 pm

        Where was Willie Walsh in 1995 (i.e. when Willie Walsh was busy climbing the corporate ladder at Aer Lingus), and where was British Airways from, say, 1970 to 1995, when Boeing controlled over 80% of market share (as late as 1995)*. I can’t seem to recall either Mr. Walsh or British Airways raise much concern, publicly at the time, whether or not the competition between the two American OEMs and the European OEM was healthy.

        Apparently, it’s always a problem when Airbus is stronger, but not when Boeing is stronger.

        It seems to me, therefore, that Willie Walsh has no credibility on the issue — and I’ve not even mentioned that Willie Walsh was more than happy to let Qatar Airways take a 20% stake in the IAG Group. Therefore, Willie Walsh is also not an unbiased “commentator”.



        OV-099 on January 26, 2022 at 1:38 pm

        As Qatar Airways is set to become an all Boeing operator over the next decade, the European Commission will very likely restrict or suspend traffic rights for Qatar Airways in due course. The European Union wants to guarantee fair competition between airlines in the bloc by tackling unfair business practices by foreign airlines and their governments which cannot be addressed through open skies agreements. These include illegal government subsidies or favourable treatment when it comes to slot allocation, ground handling services, airport charges and refueling, among others. However, it’s important to note that several actors, such as the aviation manufacturing industries in Europe and the United States, have economic leverage over European governments and the US Government, respectively, and have up to this point opposed renegotiations of Open Skies agreements, which would decrease demand from the Middle East. With Qatar Airways not buying European made aircraft, nobody in Europe will vouch for Qatar Airways, an airline which obviously has long since been seeking unfair advantages through market-distorting business practices, such as social dumping, while expanding their capacity on many of the routes previously serviced by European carriers. With no lobbying efforts by Airbus on behalf of Qatar Airways, Qatar Airways will soon be locked out of the EU market; since it is 100% state-owned, supported by state aid, benefitting from access to cheap (airport) infrastructure, fuel and capital — in essence, a violation of EU rules and regulations on all counts.

        In contrast to the egomaniac Akbar Al Baker and his cadre of sycophants at the management of Qatar Airways, the astute management at Emirates Airlines, for example, know very well that in order for Emirates, as a global super-connector, to maintain or even increase frequencies into the EU or the United States, they have to roughly split their orders between Airbus and Boeing and maintain a good relationship to both OEMs. And in contrast to the highly subsidised Qatar Airways, which apparently has never been profitable, Emirates Airlines represents a whole different type of operation due to its high operating margins and an extraordinary competitive business model that benefits from extremely favourable competitive advantages, which is driving the success of Emirates Airlines compared to its U.S. and European rivals (as well as to the other Gulf carriers).

        • Very astute remarks.
          I suspect AAB has bitten off more than he can chew.
          I wonder if he’s been given a dressing down by his Emir?

          • Perhaps a special unit within Airbus could consider making a gift to the Emir to see if that would help resolve the dispute.

          • @ Tyler
            Actually, the Emir is on his way to the US next week.
            No doubt he’ll be laden there with “gifts” — after all, he’s now a prime target of BA’s affections 😉

          • For an near absolute monarch the Emir seems to have been surprisingly blind to the funding to ISIL/ISIS coming out of his Sheikhdom and effecting a murderous regime change in the ME. Perhaps in a just world he might be facing a war crimes tribunal? How anyone in Washington could shake his hand but he seems to be welcome so maybe that’s why they will shake his hand. This is a magnitude above irregularities that suggest kickbacks in the sales process decades ago. How was the poor man to know.

    • I doubt Airbus refusing A321neo orders is some sort of retribution.

      Airbus is simply exposing itself to to much risk doing business with both Qatar Airways and within the Absolute Emirate of Qatar. For instance Airbus could deliver the A321neo and some sort of process could be used to withhold the final payment typically held as a 10% performance guarantee. There are many risks, including even problems to Airbus Employees.

      The biggest problem is that the Qatar regulator might ground the A321 over some issue leading to the same situation.

      At the end of the day this is not an airworthiness issue. The A350 can be repaired. The Qatar regulator may have grounded the aircraft but the aircraft can be repaired. It’s over who pays for the repairs and continues to pay should it only last a few years.

      Somehow folks have dug in and its gotten personal (I suspect). We know Al Bakar rejected A350 over interior issues requiring extensive modifications so its not Airbus’s first run in.

      The internet rumour mill says the issue is that there is a manual of defined non conformances with which the aircraft is allowed to fly. The paint degradation issues is not in the manual and Qatar have asked but Airbus have not provided (so its said).

      • “I doubt Airbus refusing A321neo orders is some sort of retribution.”

        I agree — this looks more like a “hands off” move to dump a customer who just isn’t worth the constant hassle.

        Are the affected Qatar A350s being stored in hangars? If they’re just sitting out in the elements when the owner knows that the paint layer is compromised, one could argue that he’s voiding his warranty.

          • Seeing as William is technically highly qualified and proficient, he’s certainly in a position to write such thrillers, if he so chooses.

            In stark contrast, a mechanic certainly does not possess such qualifications 😏

  7. BA is now “officially” offering a 777XF to customers:

    “Almost in between lines, Brian West remarked that Boeing is now offering a freighter version of the 777X to customers, but referred to future updates on sales campaigns for more details on the launch timing evaluation.”

    “As with the 787 issues, Boeing refers to the FAA as to when it will get approval to start Type Inspection Authorization as the final step towards certification but hopes to get this soon.”

      • Ahhhh, once again the self appointed
        FAA experts who wouldn’t know a tia from a tiara.

        • You mean the poster who claimed BA’s inventory was as good as cash or whatever he (or in current contemporary speak: “they”) dreamed up??

          Or the poster who claimed BA was carrying out “FAA flights”??

          • @ Pedro
            Isn’t it amazing how cranky some people are on days on which BA presents (poor) quarterly results?
            And it’s invariably the same bunch.

          • @Bryce

            If you’re going to comment on accounting issues, please be specific, otherwise you’ll get called out for using Mom and Pop accounting…

            “Isn’t it amazing how cranky some people are on days on which BA presents (poor) ANNUAL results?”

            There, I fixed it for you

          • @ Frank
            Thanks — that’s very gracious of you 🙂
            However, we’re actually both right, because we got a similar display of crankiness just after presentation of B’s 2Q2021 and 3Q2021 results. So it’s a “crankiness function” with two periods: one is 3 months, and the other produces an extra-large peak every 12 months.

            When “certain others” here opine about program accounting, they forget that the present mountain of debt represents money already spent; that’s money that needs to be re-paid (plus interest) and, in the process, it affects the extent to which revenue can be converted into earnings. Sales with low margins exacerbate the problem, because they (sort of) generate just enough money to go towards repaying interest, without generating enough to repay the underlying principal. And as every “mom and pop” knows, if you don’t reduce the principal, you’ll just keep repaying interest ad infinitum. Inflation only helps alleviate this problem when interest rates aren’t increasing — which they currently are; hence, debt rollovers just increase the burden further.

          • Lol. I’d like to know that poster’s professional qualifications who criticized other’s mom and pop accounting. From what “they” posted, I don’t see “they” have a good understanding of BA’s accounting.

          • @ Bryce

            And as every “mom and pop” knows, if you don’t reduce the principal, you’ll just keep repaying interest ad infinitum.

            Mom and Pop? How about every 17 year old teenage girl with her first credit card understands that if you only make the minimum payment, you end up paying it off FOR-EVER…

    • Except that China Airlines don’t want the ‘newer and better’ version:

      China Airlines and Boeing Announce Order for Four 777 Freighters

      SEATTLE, Jan. 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing [NYSE: BA] and China Airlines today announced the Taiwan flag carrier has ordered four 777 Freighters, adding to its extensive fleet of Boeing airplanes. Valued at $1.4 billion at list prices, the order will enable the airline to capture new market opportunities as global air cargo demand continues to grow.

    • And thanks to the FAA, Boeing could well have had a 777-200 crash to deal with (UA328).

      • Actually that would be two possible maybe three and a 737NG or two.

        People refer to the FAA as the former Gold Standard, its an Urban legend that people just keep repeating. It never was.

        On the other hand we have the wondrous and perfect EASA, or not so much.

        India would not even let one bad engine on the A320 PW GTF versions.

        That is a serious problem with FAA and EASA in that they bend over backwards to keep things flying when they should not.

        The 787 should never been allowed to have even one iffy engine let alone two.

        And that was something Boeing had no control over.

        Its fair to point out the flaws of the EASA as much as its is the FAA.

        • “People refer to the FAA as the former Gold Standard, its an Urban legend that people just keep repeating. It never was.”

          Well, you regularly tell us that it’s a gold standard: for example, you’ve propounded that no country would buy Chinese/Russian planes that weren’t FAA-certified. But guess what: TransNusa in Indonesia is buying the ARJ21, and couldn’t give a hoot what the FAA says…isn’t that amazing?

          • ” Indonesian carrier TransNusa has signed a lease agreement with lessor China Aircraft Leasing Company (CALC) for 30 ARJ21s, with options for another 30 in the future.
            CALC is also a major shareholder in TransNusa, taking up a 35.68% stake recently.” -Simpleflying
            Interesting approach, Transnusa is currently ‘dormant’ and only flew ATRs
            Good luck with making all this work out !

            Indonesia like all countries has its own certification authorities. a quick check shows no certification -yet- for ARJ-21. Im sure its in the mail.

          • Ain’t that the truth!

            I think the C919 has one actual airline purchase.

  8. Absolutely disgusting, Boeing is getting away with it with the Mark Folkner trial. I just want to know what happened so it won’t happen again. How can so many people be so complicit?

    • ref: Lance Armstrong. ( That was exposed as a large industry )
      Too many family jewels in the (executioners) basket.

      Add in the intrinsic corruptness of the US judicial system.

    • “Wife of Irishman killed in plane crash begins legal battle to take on Boeing”

      “The families have filed a motion that alleges the US government “violated their rights” through a “secret process” that led to Boeing receiving a favourable DPA.

      “They are now seeking remedies that include rescinding the provision that allowed Boeing to receive immunity from criminal prosecution.

      ““Attorney general Garland agreeing to meet with us, we hope, is a signal that the department is taking our concerns seriously,” said Ms Ryan.”

  9. An autumn 2021 estimate of the 787 charges at $1Bn rising to $5.5Bn by January. That’s a stunningly poor first estimate. Huh.

    Looking back, did that $1Bn guess even pass the smell test?

    • > Looking back, did that $1Bn guess even pass the smell test? <

      Yes- and yet some commenters continue to accept mcBoeing PR lipstick @ face value..

      "It's almost fixed."

  10. Hello everyone – it’s your friendly Back of the Envelope poster here. Just thought I’d like to throw this out there and see what you have to say:

    First off:
    Q4 Deliveries:

    BCA revenues for Q4:
    Commercial Airplanes Deliveries 99
    Revenues $4,750 (millions)

    So they rec’d $47.5 million for those 99 aircraft in the quarter.

    But – there were 7 big ticket 747’s/777’s in there and 8 – 767’s.
    $200 million a pop for the 47’s & 77’s and call it $600 million for the 67’s are a pretty fair estimate, no?

    So ballpark $2 billion which leaves $2.75 billion for 84 Maxs delivered.

    $32.7 million for every Max sold. Does that sound about right to you? Thanks

    • Sounds about right.
      No surprises here: we all knew that the MAX is generating little to no margin.

      • Funny thing;

        Those 747’s, 767’s & 777’s are all cargo variants. Hot ticket items, in these times, so those Max values are low…

        • I will not be surprised even if the max are going for less than $30M each. I recalled one past estimate of the SW order was in the low $20M region, but that was mainly for the max7.

      • There is the small issue of progress payments. Its doubtful that the collection of all of the payments for each aircraft occured in the 4th quarter as the usual method of payment spreads the payment as the aircraft proceeds through the assy line…..

        • Progress payment have nothing to do with revenue recognition, JSC.

          BA recognizes revenue and accounts for the sale, when performance is completed (handover of the jet).

          Hence the very significant liability account:

          Advances and progress billings 52,980 50,488

          2020 had $50.488 billion in advances, 2021 had $52.980 in advances in it.

          These are monies given to Boeing by customers, along the way, that is only turned into revenue, when a jet is handed over. The the amount is backed out of the liability account with a journal entry.

          It’s a fairly straight forward accounting procedure.

    • nobody pays the full amount at delivery.
      ( Hmm, 1/3 or thereabouts final payment?)

      How do they compute those numbers?
      Left hand paying the right one?

      And in which basket does outlay to fixing 787 and MAX land. Cashflow visible or not?

    • What Determines Oil Prices?

      Like most commodities, the fundamental driver of oil’s price is supply and demand in the market.
      Oil markets are composed of speculators who are betting on price moves, and hedgers who are limiting risk in the production or consumption of oil.
      Oil supply is controlled somewhat by a cartel of oil-producing nations called OPEC.
      Oil demand is driven by everything from gasoline for cars and airline travel to electrical generation.

      Probably the single biggest influencer of oil prices is OPEC, made up of 13 countries (Algeria, Angola, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela); collectively, OPEC controls 40% of the world’s supply of oil.

      Actually, there have been periods of time when supply has increased. Oil production in North America was at an all-time zenith in 2019, with fields in North Dakota and Alberta as fruitful as ever.8 9 Since the internal combustion engine still predominates on our roads, and demand hasn’t kept up with supply, wouldn’t you expect that gas was selling for nickels a gallon at that time?

      This is where theory pushes up against practice. Production was high, but distribution and refinement were not able to keep up with it. The United States has built an average of one refinery per decade (construction has slowed to a trickle since the 1970s). There’s actually a net loss: the United States has two fewer refineries than it did in 2009.10 11 Still, the 135 remaining refineries in the country have more capacity than any other country’s capacity by a large margin.12

       The reason we’re not awash in cheap oil is that those refineries operate at 90% of capacity.13 Ask a refiner, and they’ll tell you that excess capacity is there to meet future demand.

      • “Still, the 135 remaining refineries in the country have more capacity than any other country’s capacity by a large margin.”

        China should have about the same capacity available for 2021+. 1/3 of installations less than 10 years old.

        US refineries seem to have production and ossification issues in that domain.
        Beyond other factors demand is a function of _(transport) efficiency_.

        IMU it is simplistic to assume that all money goes to the producer.
        ( titbit: EU gas price explosion is due to not ordering enough gas from Russia to keep storage caverns filled. Most of the high pricing is profit for the EU based distributors. ( having bought cheap on long term contract from RU, sold at a premium in the EU while feeding higher demand with stored resources. )

      • We’re in a very tight market! Demand is roaring back, but supply is lagging behind.

        -> Diesel demand ended 2021 above pre-pandemic levels, gasoline ended year at pre-pandemic levels, jet fuel at 80% of pre-pandemic levels

        => Hawkish Fed plus increased prob of Iran deal vs potential Rus invasion Ukraine right after Winter Olympics, very low inventories, strong dem prospects + low global spare capacity. Still very bullish oil market but like always things to worry about.

        -> Most airlines are currently unhedged on jet fuel according to IATA

      • Russia is the third largest oil producer and the second largest exporter, OTOH Murica imports almost 8 million barrels of oil each and every day.

          • It doesn’t matter which country imports Russian oil/gas, those countries have to look for alternative supplies from the market and push up price for everyone.

            The world is round, and we don’t live in isolated bubbles.

          • There are few real alternatives to the importation
            of oil and gas from OMG! Russia Russia Russia!- hence the demonization of that country by the Exceptional™ Nation and its lackeys; the latter says EU should accept
            [unavailable] LNG from US at triple the cost..

            Sure, that’ll work. 😉

  11. I’m seriously out of the loop all day. Trying to catch up:

    “The World Trade Organisation has authorised China to impose retaliatory duties on US imports to a value of more than 600 million dollars per year.”

  12. With regard to the A350 paint problem discussed above:

    CATHAY: “Cathay Pacific complained of paint problems early on after delivery. The Hong Kong-based airline told Reuters that some of its A350s had “suffered some cosmetic deterioration.” But that has been fully investigated and there is no impact on safety.”

    LUFTHANSA: “According to the maintenance documents that the news agency had, in 2017 Lufthansa also had problems with peeling paint. Some of the sites are said to have extended over a square meter. However, the German airline only speaks of occasional cosmetic defects that have been remedied and never presented a risk to safety.”
    It’s worth noting that Airbus re-painted some of Lufthansa A350s last year, free of charge.

    FINNAIR: “Finnair first expressed concerns about the coating in 2016 and then reported in 2019 that the damage had spread to the network structure. “We can confirm that we had some problems with the paint job on the A350 and we are working with Airbus to solve these problems,” said a Finnair spokesman. It is a regrettable but purely cosmetic problem.”

    AIR CARAÏBES: “Air Caraibes said they had “no major paint problems”, especially not with a view to safety.”

    Interesting that some airlines can just submit their airframes to AB for re-painting, whereas others turn the matter into a PR circus.

    • Not to mention they have been hiding the issue for 5 years.

      And how often does the failure occur again?

      Airbus has done a great job on keeping a lid on this. I wonder what they are bribing the carriers with now?

      • Did Boeing trumpet its 787 paint issues from the highest tower it could find?
        Nope: we had to find out about it when KLM passengers started taking photos of duct-taped wing surfaces and posting them on the web.

        As if airlines/OEMs have to issue a press statement for every cosmetic issue that arises…

      • And the FAA and major airframers/airlines have their heads in the sand about radio interference in past five years or so??

  13. @ Scott Hamilton
    Purely FYI: you might find this interesting with regard to your recent article on EIS of the C919 — which is actually cited in this link.
    Various Asian sites are reporting an official stance that deliveries are still slated for 2022.
    Could be “feelgood PR”, of course.

    “China’s home-grown C919 aircraft to start deliveries in 2022: Official”


    • C919 EIS 2022: seeing is believing. It’s really, really foggy here in Seattle today. I doubt it’s any clearer in China.

      • It will be even foggier in China in the next few days: all that smoke from the New Year fireworks 😉

        • C919, classic Vapor Ware.

          They barely have any test flights in. Ponderous State Owned Enterprise at its best.

          • Anybody recall when the Boeing 777X’s EIS was originally supposed to be? I wonder when / if they’ll actually enter commercial service..

            By comparison, COMAC’s looking pretty good, especially for a *new entrant*.

          • 777X EIS was supposed to be 2Q2020, but Boeing hoped to do so with Emirates in December 2019.

          • C919 first flight was supposed to be 2014 when Ryanair was fluffing the pillows with CAC.
            First flight was 2019. For a new type they need 4200 hr of flight testing, so is a challenge and needs US made Leap engines

    • “They know a good airplane when they see it”

      Sure…that’s why they grounded it for so long 😏

      The real test is: will there be any new sales into China? China hasn’t bought any Boeings since 2017…

      • “acceptable” is required for reinstating the CN certificsation. nothing “higher” 🙂

    • Have to remind the poster United has no choice but orders 120 A321, “[t]hey know a good airplane when they see it”.

      How much can BA charge its customers will depend on how low AB is willing to sell its hot selling A321 for the next decade or so. As AB charging to ramp production to 65 and above and gaining better unit cosr, BA will suffer serious competition disadvantage.

  14. I’m hoping TW will explain the “darn good” and
    certainly lucrative KC-46A Program to us simpletons.

    BTW- I got a smile out of “walla” [sic] too.

    Literacy and far-seeing genius intertwined..

    • Bill7:

      Sorry, I can’t always hold you guys hands. You become to dependent.

      I did explain it but obviously its been missed.

      That was why I was an engineer, I understood the whole picture, much like a fastener is not just a nut on a bolt. Its a fastener, washer, nut and what is being clamped and its characteristics.

      Its complicated

      • You were never an engineer: you don’t have an engineering degree.
        Stop attempting to spread false information: pretending to have qualifications can get you in trouble [edited]

    • And after that glorious, high-profile F35 crash, the US Navy is now scrambling to try to recover the wreck from the bottom of the South China Sea:

      “Seoul, South Korea (CNN) — The United States Navy is trying to retrieve its most advanced fighter jet from the depths of the South China Sea, an extremely complex operation that analysts say will be closely monitored by Beijing.

      “The F-35C, a single-engine stealth fighter and the newest jet in the US Navy fleet, crash-landed on the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson during routine operations on Monday, the Navy said.

      “The $100 million warplane impacted the flight deck of the 100,000-ton aircraft carrier and then fell into the sea as its pilot ejected, Navy officials said. The pilot and six sailors aboard the Vinson were injured.

      “US salvage vessels are 10 to 15 days transit time to the site, Schuster said, and recovery once there could take up to 120 days.

      “This US Navy recovery effort will mark the *third time* a country flying the F-35 has tried to pull one from the depths.

      “Last November, a British F-35B crashed on takeoff from the deck of its aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth into the Mediterranean Sea. Britain’s Defense Ministry confirmed to news outlets in early January that it had been recovered in December amid worries the sunken aircraft could have been a target for Russian intelligence.

      “And after a Japanese F-35A crashed into the Pacific in 2019, worries emerged that it could be a target for Russian and Chinese intelligence.”

      It seems that this “aircraft” just wants to be a submarine 😉
      Not good PR for LM in the LMXT context.

      • Time for a new jet program that turns itself into a submersible, just in case! 😂

      • anything known about water depth at the crash site?
        ( 4000m max in the area, but could as low as 100m )

        How are they going to keep nosies away?
        Dropping water bombs?

  15. -> Even excluding the massively swollen cost of developing the 787 between 2003 and 2011 — estimated at >$15 billion — and considering only production costs since then, Boeing concedes that the 787 won’t be profitable in the foreseeable future.

    => At what point do Boeing shareholders start asking whether Boeing’s attempts to save money are costing the company more than it saved?

    • Remember about this time last year, BA’s top mgt also talked up the new jet program and the internet went into a frenzy?? Imagine it’s about time to dust out the playbook.
      Many here predicted that BA had the 777X freighter ready and could be launched anytime with a launch customer or two? How well these predictions go?
      BA’s priority is still to unload its parked MAX and 787 and convert them into cash, which BA sorely needs to repay debts due in next couple years. I believe it’ll be hard for BA to launch a new jet program without a correspondingly better performing engine. Time will tell.

  16. More bad news for the KC-46 program…and this time it comes from the GAO:

    “US Air Force could repeat KC-46 vision system mistake, warns watchdog”

    “WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force risks repeating its previous mistakes on the KC-46A Pegasus program by planning to accept a redesign of its troubled Remote Vision System without taking the right precautions, the Government Accountability Office said.

    “In a report released Thursday, GAO said the Air Force’s plan to accept the financial responsibilities of the vision system’s redesign could put the service at risk of incurring more costs and delays, if it finds out later the system needs further redesigns.

    ““These choices mirror those made during the development of the KC-46 that led to the delivery of an aircraft that did not fully meet its requirements, and the Air Force stands poised to potentially repeat its past mistake,” GAO said.”

    “GAO also criticized the KC-46 program for not planning to test a prototype of the revised system in flight before the design is finished, which it said could lead to the discovery of new problems.”

    See that, TW? Your revered GAO doesn’t have a very high opinion of the KC-46.
    Note also that the USAF disagrees with this GAO stance…so, using your usual logic, that means that there must be bribery involved, right? 😉

        • I wonder if that astute commenter actually read the article it linked to.

          Anglophone holding action, minimizing and delaying the inevitable.. PR is what that cabal do best, these days.

          By the way- How’s that ol’ 777X comin’ along? And 787 delivery; and KC-46A readiness ?

          That company is delivering some old-skool freighters, so that’s cool..
          should keep them in good stead against the A321LR and -XLR.


    • Bryce: Well the days are getting longer and its not so cold but the humor is much appreciated.

      Other than my wife there is not much I revere. Respect? Yep.

      In this case the GAO is doing its job (just like it did on the KC-X bid!)

      USAF has a long history of program mistakes. I agree with the GAO. There should be a final product built and tested.

      Congress may have to step in (boy, that is truly sad when congress is better than much of anything). The F-35 was a classic example of program screw up (concurrent production is a lot like Program Accounting)

      I do continue to wonder if the US could purchase the system Airbus uses? Its proven to work and I am happy to buy something that works.

      • Lemme tell you about cold…

        We’ve had a stretch of two weeks with lows in the -30’s and highs of -20’s….all Celsius. Mix in a nice little breeze and it’s a recipe for staying in your pj’s and under the covers. When I went out, I was wearing 3 layers – long john’s, track pants, then thick jeans. 3 pairs of socks. Gloves inside a pair of mitts. A Balaclava I bought at costco, covered up by a scarf. Toque, hoodie and parka on top. Layers…

        Every morning I told my dog how much I must love him, to be taking him out in this weather. I don’t think he understood me.

  17. Further to @Frank’s excellent treatises above regarding B’s accounts, it’s important to note the following dark cloud that is hanging above B’s head.
    Although this particular article relates to a debt-laden *country*, exactly the same problem pertains to a debt-laden *company* such as B.

    Note: this comment is in no way intended to be political — it’s cited as an illustration of how rising interest rates can rapidly start to have a very crippling effect on an entity. Note in that regard that the website is a US financial site, and the author works at a US university.

    • I too appreciate Frank’s writings on Boeing’s financial
      situation, and that it’s clear and unlittered with obfuscating jargon.

      • Thanks to both of you for your kind words – I knew the accounting profession wasn’t for me, when I heard how I was expected to speak in the industry. Lot’s of word salad that meant nothing…

        …but it’s done like that for a reason. We couldn’t have non-accountants understanding things now, could we?

        Bad for business…

    • Nnaeto said: > And analysts HAVE said that is a clear sign that things are improving. <

      "Analysts" these days = well-paid Cheerleaders.

      I think if mcBoeing were serious, they'd be working feverishly on a single-aisle A321 replacement, just to
      show that they can execute a program at all.
      Instead we get helium-filled tripe like this, previously
      linked above, and worth reading *for* its utter lack of substance:

      Yeah, yeah; sure, sure.. Prosperity is Just Around the Corner, as Prez Hoover used to say.

    • Pedro:

      Actually that is a spurious point. You might ask Ukraine where the priority is right now!

      All spending is a balance and its not a stop funding the police and put it all into social services.

      The Bridge in Memphis is a case in point. It was a failure of a process (faking the inspection) that lead to that problem, not a Bridge problem.

      Of course being dependent on 60% of your energy needs to a hostile power is a factor that should be considered hugely and is not.

      • 1) I trust experts know a thing or two better than you or me:

        -> Here are some key facts about our nation’s bridges from the ASCE:

        There are 614,387 bridges in the U.S.

        Most bridges were designed with a lifespan of 50 years.

        40% of bridges are 50 years old or older.

        15% of bridges are between 40 and 49 years old.

        As of 2016, 9.1 %, or 56,007, are structurally deficient.

        The state with the lowest percentage of structurally deficient bridges is Nevada (1.6%); the highest is Rhode Island (24.9%)

        An average of 188 million trips per day occur on structurally deficient bridges.

        Although the number of deficient bridges is decreasing, the average age continues to increase.

        13.6% of bridges are functionally obsolete, meaning that they cannot meet current traffic demand or current standards, either because they have too few lanes or too narrow lanes and shoulders.

        The most recent estimate to repair or replace the aging bridges is $123 billion dollars 🙄

        2) See my post above:

        The world is round, we don’t live in isolated bubbles. 🙄

  18. ..instead, what we get from mcBoeing is tired PR: “DigitalDesign™” this and “Autonomous™ Battery-Powered Taxi” that- when they can’t even get the FOD out their planes, or QC them to save their passengers’ lives..

    heh / “darn good plane”

    • Yep, I ponder that myself and dropping Embraer with real substance to that company.

      At this rate Calhoun can’t do any share buy back or dividends. How long can he last then?

        • Oops. What happened?

          As *long as he wants* as the bonus keeps coming.

      • See my post above:

        The world is round, we don’t live in isolated bubbles. 🙄

      • “At this rate Calhoun can’t do any share buy back or dividends. How long can he last then?”

        You know what the really scary thing about that comment is?

        IMO – there is a real chance that Ch 11 could happen for BA. Wipe out the shareholders and let the debtors have at it.

        BUT…let’s say Boeing can start to turn the corner. Which means:

        – zero out the 737 Max inventory
        – get Max production back into the 30+ a month
        – get the 787 delivered again and zero out the inventory there
        – get the 777X into service
        – lessen the debt load

        There’s a real good chance that Calhoun will say “We’re good! dividends and buybacks for everyone!” and the recovery will stagnate – instead of spending money where it needs to be spent; engineering, R&D and replacement aircraft. Pushing them back into trouble.

  19. Sigh. This post is not about Tesla, Russia, bridges and the like.

    Comments are closed.