Pontifications: Returning MAX to pre-grounding rate one key to Boeing’s launch of new airplane

April 4, 2022, © Leeham News: Returning the 737 MAX production rate to pre-grounding levels, and beyond, is a key element to positioning Boeing to launch a new airplane program.

By Scott Hamilton

So far, Boeing hasn’t provided any guidance to Wall Street aerospace analysts beyond reaching a rate of 31/month this year.

A month ago, LNA reported that hints of new rates came from Boeing suppliers ATI and Spirit Aerosystems during their investor day presentations. The two days were a week apart. ATI is a parts supplier. Spirit builds entire fuselages for the 737. The investor days suggested that Boeing will return to rate 52, the pre-ground MAX rate, by 2024.

LNA has learned more specific information from its sourcing in the supply chain. Boeing notifies the chain when to expect rate breaks to higher or lower rates for planning purposes.

According to LNA’s latest information, Boeing is planning to achieve a rate of 38 by January 2023 and boost it to a rate of 47 by the summer of 2023. Another rate break would boost production to 52 a month early in 1Q24. When regulators grounded the MAX in March 2019, Boeing was geared up to boost production to 57 a month by year-end.

So far, Boeing apparently hasn’t given guidance to its supply chain beyond rate 52. But if the pattern holds up, rate 57 could be in the cards by the end of 2024. Orders for the MAX, especially for the MAX 10, have picked up nicely.

Piece of the chessboard toward a new airplane

Boeing officials have said repeatedly that there will be a new airplane. Just what the design will be remains a mystery. The twin-aisle New Midmarket Airplane (NMA) was taken off the table by David Calhoun in January 2020 when he became CEO of The Boeing Co. The NMA concept unfolded even before Boeing launched the MAX program. Then, it was called the New Light Twin (NLT). Envisioned as a three-member family of airplanes beginning at about 180 seats in a two-class configuration and ending at about 250 passengers, the concept evolved after the MAX to become a replacement for the 767-200/300. The business case was hard to close at this size and limited market, but Dennis Muilenburg—Calhoun’s predecessor—seemed ready to gain Board approval to proceed when the MAX was grounded. Muilenburg was fired in December.

Since then, little has been done to move toward a new airplane. The grounding dragged on until November 2020. Even then, a few regulators—including the all-important Chinese CAAC—have not returned the MAX to service. But Boeing nevertheless discussed a single-aisle concept with the market, reverting to the 757 replacement concept envisioned by Ray Connor, the former CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

The COVID pandemic and delivery suspension of the 787 added new delays to any plans to launch another airplane.

Restoring the MAX production to previous levels revitalizes the necessary cash flow to proceed. Resuming deliveries of the 787 is another element, also with cash flow implications. Paying down $41bn in debt is another not-so-insignificant move on the chessboard.

Boeing also needs to complete certification of the 737-7, 737-10, and 777-9. A recent article from the Seattle Times indicates further certification delays are coming. Without their certification, the cash flows associated with deliveries of 737-7s (notably to Southwest Airlines) and 737-10s (notably to United Airlines) won’t materialize, delaying production ramp-ups in the process. Lingering certification delays also tie engineering resources that would otherwise be available for a new program.

Timing

When does Boeing make its move? Consultants like Richard Aboulafia and Kevin Michaels, and aerospace analyst Ron Epstein see 2023 or 2024 as the likely period in which Boeing “must” launch an airplane to avoid further market share erosion to Airbus. They made their observations at the February conference of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Association. LNA agrees with this thesis. But the practicalities of ramping up MAX production, clearing the legacy inventory from the grounding (probably by early 2024), resuming 787 deliveries and paying down some of the debt are big issues.

Then there are two others that are a coincidence in timing but now which are also relevant. The 10-year labor contracts with Boeing’s militant union, IAM 751, and the engineers-technicians union, SPEEA, are up in 2024 and 2026, respectively. The IAM last struck in 2009, having done so in two previous contract negotiations. Two extensions from the three-year 2009 contract, to 2024, were approved under threats to move MAX and 777X production out of Washington State. Bitterness at the give-backs continues to this day. Shortly before the MAX grounding, the IAM leadership urged members to begin saving in anticipation of a 2024 strike.

SPEEA is far less prone to strikes and extended its contract in an amenable negotiation to 2026 at a time when doing so wasn’t necessary.

LNA believes that it will be a given Boeing will use the new airplane, whatever it is, as a cudgel over 751 for favorable (to Boeing) contract provisions in the 2024 negotiations. Hence, movement on a new airplane needs to emerge next year.

Competition: Airbus considers production rate of 80/mo

If Aboulafia, Epstein, and Michaels are concerned about Boeing’s losing market share, it’s with good reason. The MAX already was down to about 40% vs 60% vs the Airbus A320neo. During the MAX grounding, and despite the negative impact on orders due to the pandemic, Airbus picked up two percentage points. And Airbus is aggressively upping its production rate. The firm plan is to take production to 65 a month next year. But Airbus altered the supply chain months ago to “protect” for rate 70 shortly after and even rate 75 by 2025. Now, LNA learned that Airbus is thinking about an A320 rate of 80 per month. Rates of 57 a month for Boeing and 75 a month for Airbus in 2025 represent a 43%-57% production share.


Air Wars

Read about the plethora of Boeing studies for a new airplane to follow the MAX in Air Wars, The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing. The “alphabet soup” of new airplane ideas is in Chapter 23, The Alphabet Airplane.

Air Wars is available in paperback and eBook form at Amazon and in paperback at Barnes & Noble.

Chapters

1 THE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR GAMBLE

2 FLYING CARGO

3 PIPER

4 EARLY YEARS AT AIRBUS

5 HIGH RISK, HIGH REWARD

6 FACING OFF

7 THE DEATH OF McDONNELL DOUGLAS

8 WAKE-UP CALL

9 LAUNCHING THE A380

10 MOONSHOT

11 TROUBLE IN TOULOUSE

12 TRY, TRY AGAIN

13 FALLING APART

14 LABOR WARS

15 UPSTART AND DISRUPTOR

16 CREATING NEO

17 LAUNCHING MAX

18 GROUNDING

19 THE X-FACTOR

20 SMASHING A BUG WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER

21 THE BOEING-EMBRAER JOINT VENTURE

22 LAST GASP

23 THE ALPHABET AIRPLANE

24 GROUNDING

25 SCANDALS

26 CORONAVIRUS

27 RETIREMENT

 

219 Comments on “Pontifications: Returning MAX to pre-grounding rate one key to Boeing’s launch of new airplane

  1. A little off-topic, but indicative of the ongoing “unrest” withing Boeing:

    “Boeing on Monday said that Leanne Caret, president and CEO of the company’s $26 billion Defense, Space and Security business, will retire later this year and be succeed by Ted Colbert, who runs Boeing’s services segment, effective April 1.”

    https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2022/03/29/boeings-leanne-caret-to-retire-ted-colbert-tapped-to-lead-defense-space-and-security/

    Ms. Caret is 55.

    • good for her. If I had FU money (which she certainly has by now) I would retire today at the same age.

      not everyone wants to spend their whole life working.

      • It this level, they are usually more driven people than average.

        May have been head hunted for another CEO type position already, this time as the full CEO rather than just a division. Seems to be a MBA type exec rather than an engineer and could move to many different types of business

    • @Bryce

      Dominic Gates tweeted about this as well. See my post below.

  2. Good article summarizing what an avid civil aviation reader knows, including from Leeham News.

    If you believe these numbers, how do you react as supplier base? AB gets the preference. When in doubt, build for AB, they are managed for time.

    Tough spot for BA. It takes 10 years to reverse the balance sheet and eng. practices savaging. Perhaps they are starting with the 787 quality, and certification processes. A long but necessary road. 2021 may have been year 1. We wish them well. We need 2 healthy competitors.

    • With the predisposition of US entities to go the “learning by watching” path how do they expect to bootstrap a revived safety/quality culture?

  3. “But the practicalities of ramping up MAX production, clearing the legacy inventory from the grounding (probably by early 2024), resuming 787 deliveries and paying down some of the debt are big issues.”

    They also have to get the 777X certified and into service by the end of 2023 other wise they risk losing the Emirates order.

    • Actually, the Emirates deadline is July 2023…so that gives BA just 15 months.

      https://english.alarabiya.net/business/aviation-and-transport/2021/11/16/Emirates-sets-July-2023-as-certification-deadline-for-Boeing-777X-

      There are those who like to fantasize that Tim Clark has no other options, but there’s nothing stopping him from switching to 787s, A350s and/or A330neos at any time. A downturn in travel demand prompted by high inflation, high fuel prices and slowing economies may prompt waves of deferrals/cancellations/reshuffles in the coming months. It’s a tough time for airlines: just as CoViD is melting away (sort of), recession rears its ugly head.

      • So in fairly short order;

        Max 7 certification
        Max 10 certification
        787 repair/delivery certification
        777X certification

        The guy responsible to get all this done must be feeling the heat.

      • So he would get impatient about getting 777X and then switch to another model in 2023 to add another years of delay since he goes back to the end of the queue? And I don’t think A330neo is any kind of 777X replacement.

        • Who says he’ll go to the back of the queue? A whole bunch of A350s won’t be going to Qatar.
          And an A330neo can certainly replace a 777 if you up the frequency. Didn’t United (for example) replace a whole bunch of 747s by 787s, including -8s?

          • It seems United had parts supply problem for its 747 fleet, leading to their early retirement. United ordered 10 777-300ER only. At the time, I believe they had around two dozen 747-400s.

            According to an interview

            -> Oscar Munoz: You’ve got other jumbo jets out there that are being built and that a couple of people are flying. For us, we had dwindled down our fleet of 747s. They were already on a path to becoming obsolete. They have been a grand aircraft for us for a long time, but we have issues with maintenance — *parts* in particular. If I need a part today, I can’t get it. *We stripped every airplane in the world of its parts to feed the need*, and no one is making new parts for this particular aircraft because there are just not as many out there.

          • The United 777W fleet is 22 planes now, so by various means it has increased above the initial 10 ordered
            Thats 350 seats in the 4 classes they offer, a bit down from the 400 or so in the 747 they last used.

            I can see maybe some 777-9 in their future order book, but my crystal ball is cloudy

          • UA is not as competitive as its competitors often offer competitive price on *direct* flights.

          • Well, then, let’s just look at Delta instead. NWA had 16 747-400s, but the largest planes in the current Delta fleet are A350s and A330neos.

            Emirates has 40 A330neos on order, so TC evidently sees use for the plane.

          • According to Bjorn of LNA, the 777-300ER is less competitive than the newer, lighter A350-1000.

      • I recall TC talked about refurbishing their current A380 fleet for another 10-15 year of service.

        It seems BA has to wait for all the stars to align before launching a clean sheet new program. The question is still the same: when?

        • Emirates already has a firm order for 50 A350s, with deliveries starting next year.
          It also (technically) has 40 A330-900s on order.
          So, it has alternative airframes available if/when it pulls the plug on (some of) its 777Xs.

      • With Russian airspace closed it is a bonaza for the ME3. Expect EK to pull most A380’s out of storage and fill them. All Europan airlines that used to fly over Russia to Asia now has to make a planned detour and many pax does not think it is worth a detour and select a ME3 airliner instead. Putin making Russia an enormous N.Korea has implications.

        • [The West] making Russia an enormous N. Korea has implications: from the price of food on the table, heating bills and how much one pays to refuel.

        • Oddly it may bring forward the Nett Zero 2050 target as renewables become seen not only as low emissions technology but an alternative to buying from nutjobs with oil. German energy company E.ON just place a $50 billion dollar LOI with Australian Mining Magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest for 5 million tons of renewable green hydrogen. This will be exported mainly in the form of ammonia intially.

          “The five million tonne green hydrogen target (per year presumably) would likely require in the order of 60-70GW of wind and solar capacity. Forrest said it would represent an investment of around $50 billion, one of the largest ever energy investments of any kind.”

          A lot of cattle stations have been acquired. Hopefully doesn’t impact beef production.

  4. It is IMO highly unlikely that BA will reach “normal “ certification by 12/31/22 for BOTH the MAX 7 AND 10. The delays are due to BA being unable to paper document the process and FAA will not be helpful, for obvious CYA reasons.
    Odds are the 7 will squeak by, but the 10 won’t.
    In the current safety conscious environment regarding BA Congress well not entertain moving the goal posts and be seen lax on safety.
    Redesigning the 10 with all new required bells and whistles will be economically unsound and BA will not incur the expense.
    Without the 10 the much higher rates contemplated do not appear sustainable.
    Are we then looking at 70/30 split going forward?
    Will – horror!- Ryanair finally looks seriously at the A321?

    • The US gov will do what it can to help out Boeing. Congress will move that deadline if need be. There is no doubt what-so-ever in my mind. An other example is the Airforce tanker competition where there are now hints that AirBus will not be allowed to bid. That lets Boeing set the price they want and ensures a profitable program for them.

      • jeeko:

        Congress inept, getting anything done going into an elections and then organize post?

        • Also, the FAA is feeling pretty darn guilty in the whole MAX debacle. It appears to me from what I have read, they are setting the bar pretty high on the 787 joint issue, and I presume so too, on the -7, the -10 and the 777X. I know the FAA is not the authority on the KC46, but is the USAF in synch with Boeing on this aircraft… They got to be much better than 40 year old 707s.

          • Having been in engineering for decades I can say that it often takes 4 years to clean out a system of bad documentation and quality control etc. It can take 2 years to discover flaws caused by poor reviewing, cross checking and testing etc by which time the documents have already been used on another 2 years of projects.
            If there is not time to do it right then there is always time to do it twice.

          • “the FAA is feeling pretty darn guilty …”

            I’d be surprised if they know how to spell “guilty”.

            image problem, unpleasant exposure, politics breathing hotly down their collective neck, ..

            those are the motivators.

          • -> This is all because of the Max, and what Boeing did with the Max,” [Udvar-Hazy] said of the slow pace of the FAA.

          • William:

            That was our Companies Unofficial Motto. We do it right because we do it twice. Management was not amused but the few techs in the crew were of course.

            4 years, good time line assuming good faith. Our company talked the talk but abhorred the walk.

      • Agreed, the US Government is not gong to kill of Boeing and a bunch of US jobs by not giving an modest extension due to the extenuating circumstances of COVID and the knock on effects of the B737-8 MCAS disaster. B777-9 was slowed down by this and it seems ridiculous to effectively cede 75% narrow body airliner market to Airbus by not giving Boeing the extra few months to certify the B737-10 while the B737-7/8/9 are already out.
        The B737 and more importantly its supply chain is going to be essential for the next 10 years at least.

        A supplier of switch gear recently told me to order circuit breakers and contactors early for a project because the war in Ukraine is sucking up all of the global alloys for making brass (being used for cartridges).
        The supply chain is teetering in many areas. Energy, chips, metals, rare earths due to war, covid, war. Things about to hot up in the pacific.

        • -> … while the B737-7/8/9 are already out.

          Srsly???

          LNA: “Boeing also needs to complete certification of the 737-7, 737-10, and 777-9. “

          • Do you like to use the idiom of a teenage gamer?
            -The B737-7 completed its certifxation flight tests in October 2021. It’s now down to paperwork review. It’s almost certain to get it in the next few months and enter service with Southwest. The aircraft is effectively slightly shorter than the B737-8 but longer than the B737-700. Not a lot of changes. I would be say mainly to manuals. Maybe tuning changes to autopilot MCAS etc.
            -The B737-10 is more work due to the new undercarriage, increased MTOW and synthetic air data on the alpha sensors.

          • @ William
            On the other hand, if certification of the 737-7 is so “easy”, then why is it taking so long to complete? Even with Southwest voicing increasingly stern discontent, BA just isn’t getting the cert in the bag.

          • @Bryce,
            -The Laws that require EICAS become effective after December 31 2022 so Boeing has just over 7 months to complete the B737-7 certification. It looks very likely. The B737-10 is less than 50% likely in that time frame.
            -It would make congress look very silly for American Jobs to be destroyed and going over seas with B737-8 and B737-9 flying and the B737-10 (or B737-7) cancelled over a few months since they are trivially different aircraft.
            Further predictions:
            We can say good buy to the LMXT. I’m here in the pacific and the military tensions are high. There is no time for LMXT it and the LockMart engineers will be needed building weapons not a tanker. Boeing needs to be financially rescued. There is a massive unprecedented Chinese Naval build-up and it needs to be taken seriously as the Russian build-up of an 130,000 man Army on Ukraine border. Xi and Putin are equal autocrats. The Australian Defense Department, Prime Minister and Défense Minister are bringing forward defence purchases by many years. They are reacting to something very serious.

          • @ William
            “It would make congress look very silly for American Jobs to be destroyed and going over seas”

            It would also make Congress look very silly to pass a safety-oriented law — and then brush it aside when it appears that safety is less important than trying to assuage the effects of BA’s ongoing ineptitude.

          • TBH I read it from FT. No doubt you are more familiar with teenage gamers LOL.

            If the process is as easy as you said, how come BA failed to get the MAX 7 out last year as promised to WN???

            It about facts on the ground, not your flimsy prediction.

            Looks like some have no idea of chess playing, found out that they’re (more than) a few steps behind. Will the new sub ready by the time the Collins retire? Won’t it be a little too late when the Pacific islands are flipped?

          • @William

            “It would make congress look very silly for American Jobs to be destroyed and going over seas”

            Funny – it doesn’t make corporate America look silly when they do it. They call that smart management…until something doesn’t work and aircraft start falling out of the sky.

          • @Frank

            The top executives were handsomely rewarded. The incentive is still there.

  5. Regarding the 787, everybody (including Leeham?) expect deliveries to resume, bring a lot of cash, bla, bla…
    But there is a big problem!
    Who in FAA is able to approve deliveries of planes with unsafe wings?

    Seattle times 20/11/2021
    FAA memo reveals more Boeing 787 manufacturing defects, including contamination of carbon fiber composites
    Nov. 19, 2021 at 5:39 pm Updated Nov. 20, 2021 at 3:04 pm

    Contamination of composite material
    The internal FAA memo relates how, early this year, Boeing reported to the FAA that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan — which builds the jet’s carbon composite wings — had discovered contamination of the composite material during fabrication that could potentially weaken the bonding when two composite parts are bonded together with adhesives.
    For example, when a stiffening rod is bonded to the inside of the wing skin.
    In the fabrication process for composites, carbon fiber tape impregnated with epoxy resin is laid on a mold, then hardened in a high-pressure oven called an autoclave.
    ADVERTISING
    Bags are placed around the composite material to create a vacuum, and a thin sheet may be placed between the composites and the mold to facilitate release when it comes out of the autoclave. The contamination occurred because some of the bagging and release materials contained polytetrafluoroethylene — commonly known by the brand name Teflon.
    The use of PTFE, which left a residue after removal, did not comply with Boeing’s manufacturing specifications.

  6. >the Emirates deadline is July 2023…so that gives BA just 15 months

    I suspect Emiriates will take them regardless. But that the July deadline may be when Emirates can cancel penalty free. That will let them cancel by using holding the threat of cancelation over Boeing. It will also let them tweak the order to better suit post Covid/Ukraine realities.

    • It seems to me that Emirates canceling the 777X and instead buying A350s makes a lot of sense, post-2020.

    • Emirates was due to receive its first 777X in July 2020; it therefore doesn’t have to wait until next year to start canceling penalty-free…

      • The Qatar 350s maybe had for a song, three of them – so far- unused, immediately available…

          • Emirates have said there is nothing else available for them.
            The quote is way down the page., But I’ll reproduce it for your edification
            …..hope it doesn’t happen, as there is nowhere else we could go. They are building the biggest aircraft, and we want it. …

          • Yes, that’s indeed what Emirates said.
            But it also said that, after a delay of four years, if it isn’t available in July 2023 then it evidently isn’t fit for purpose. The quote is in that same interview.
            There’s no point in continuing an order for a plane that is never going to materialize.

          • @DoU

            It’s almost hilarious how you cherry picked a quote, I guess you have no intention to discuss with an open mind but to spread disinformation/misinformation.

          • Careful, Pedro. No personal attacks.

  7. So, can someone please clarify something for me, regarding the Max 10 (and Max 7, by that extension).

    As I understand it, Boeing has to get the Max 7 & 10 certified before the end of 2022, otherwise they will have to put an EICAS system in the aircraft (synthetic 3rd AoA indicator?), as mandated by the FAA – for all new certifications, beginning on Jan 1, 2023, right?

    What has the rest of the world done? Canada, EASA, etc…

    Are they following the same rules as the FAA? Are they also letting Max’s pre-2023 get grandfathered in? Was this negotiated during the whole Max grounding mess?

    Thanks

    • Pretty much an open unknown.

      Its possible the regulators will give them a waiver as this is a long estalaosih program tht was not orignaly told to upgrade all the stuff.

      Like the -10, it may be a future promise to cut in the improvements.

      I don’t see any of them as relevant to avoiding crashes as the A320 (was) at the same rate at 737.

      What you do see is pilot issues and the Bitching Betty and alarms, bells whistles being ignored.

      In all of this what is really needed is a methodology to assess true human reactions, not the one the people who come up with the bells and whistles THINK are what should happen, but what does.

      The stark example most are familiar with are the AF447 pilots that stayed in a stall for 4 minutes when all pilot training told them exactly what the issue was (airspeed was in and out but you do not assess on a single instrument, you cross scan and in this case your nose high, VSI at a negative -10,000 feet per minute and your altimeter winding down at a horrid negative rate.

      So we have to stay tuned as it all plays out.

      • > I don’t see any of them as relevant to avoiding crashes as the A320 (was) at the same rate at 737. <

        And I'm unable to follow your reasoning, here.
        Two MAXes have crashed *already*..

        • The 737 crash record prior to the MAX was identical to the A320.

          All but a couple of bombings were a result of pilots induced.

          The record says that the updates of various displays is not a safety issue.

          The MAX was mostly from the NG. The single safety issue was MCAS and it was lethal. It was software not cockpit displays.

          Unless you knew what MCAS did, even added display items would have been irrelevant.

          While the majority of the blame is directly on Boeing, you can see from the First Pilot response (and experience) they might as well not been in the cockpit at all.

          Indonesian Crash the Pilot handed the aircraft off to the first officer who could not even maintain it (the Pilot clearly needed to sort out the conflicts he was seeing from his training). Again, he should not have to, but that was the crap hand he was dealt.

          You can’ have CRM unless you have a fully capable co-pilot and this was clearly where CRM might have changed the outcome (and no, they should never been exposed to needing that but this is the real world that is far from perfect)

          So, I don’t blame lack of displays for the issues and while cleaning up cockpits and good display and instrumentation is important, well trained pilots in upset and bizarre and unusual maneuvers is vastly more so.

          The US and EU is moving in that direction, but other places that allow a First Officer to have 150 hours is ludicrous. It is 1500 hours in the US.

          That problem is directly on the AHJ not Boeing or Airbus. Airbus so called flying friendly system has not proven to be idiot proof and no better than Boeing.

          The best training I got was not take offs and landings but severe unusual attitudes. If you are any good as a pilot you quickly learn how to deal with those. First lesson is, believe what the instruments are telling you, not what you think it should be. If the instruments do not cross check, eliminate the bad one (and in the case of the 737, there is a fully independent backup display which you don’t have in what I trained in)

          An example is you have a VSI telling you that your rate of decent is 5,000 feet per minute.

          You cross check to your altimeters as well as your Artificial Horizon.

          Ok, AF447, VSI of minus 10,000 feet per minute, altimeter agrees you are loosing altitude fast and your nose is way up (speed is wacky due to the program, ie anything below a certain speed is listed as no speed but it has been in and out and you have an audible STALL alert off and on)

          That is a stall. What do you do with a stall? Nose down, put throttle in (it was full on in that case) and you are good to go.

          • EASA:

            -> While the investigations assessed that the behaviour of the MCAS and related alerting systems were the clear main cause of the two crashes, EASA rapidly realised that a far wider review of the 737 MAX was needed. EASA therefore extended its analysis to the entire flight control system. With a particular focus on the human factors – the actual experience for a pilot of flying the plane.

        • “The 737 crash record prior to the MAX was identical to the A320.”

          Not sure but this is slightly misleading.
          A320 is nearly 15 years longer in service.
          in an environment of continuously decreasing accident rates ( normalized fatalities halved in that time frame. ) NG should show lower numbers than the A320 to be equal. ( sounds silly, sure 🙂

    • @Frank
      Good question.
      In the case of the MAX, I suspect that foreign regulators were inclined to be gracious and accept whatever was certified in the US — with the exception of the 3rd sensor input that EASA is demanding for MCAS in the -10. That stance may change if BA misses the Dec 31 deadline…it’s possible that foreign regulators will put the foot down regarding EICAS…

    • EASA and Canada are not the lead regulator for the MAX-7 and MAX-10, the FAA is, because EASA and Canada never got all cert documents (Boeing self certs) of the MAX. That’s why EASA and Canada were allowed to choose systems they wanted to have included.

      The new law to include EICAS came from Congress. If Congress and FAA want to keep the law and the timeline to include EICAS, the MAX-7 and MAX-10 won’t likely be certified because Boeing might not keep this timeline.
      If the lead regulator FAA won’t certify the MAX, it won’t be certified by EASA and Canada either.

      • “If the lead regulator FAA won’t certify the MAX, it won’t be certified by EASA and Canada either.”

        I understand that.

        What I am asking, is that BA is being allowed to grandfather in the Max 7 & 10 before the end of 2022, without EICAS/3rd AoA, by the FAA;

        Boeing says it’s too expensive to put it in.

        But if other regulators around the world regulate that the aircraft must have EICAS/3rd AoA – then those two variants will not be allowed into, say – Canadian and European airspace. right?

        Westjet has both the 7 & 10 on order.

        What about Ryanair and their ‘we want it/we don’t want it’, order?

        • Frank:

          There is no answer until it happens. Almost certain that the FAA, EASA and Canada are discussing this.

          Per prior data its not critical (fixing MCAS of course was).

          EASA was hung on on a third Air Speed Data and AOA. Frankly the synthetic is far better than what EASA mandates now as all 3 of those devices are prone to and have proven to be affected by the same conditions. Its stupid to have 3 that can all fail (ice)

          Airbus acualy uses 7 flight computers for a multi computer failure scenario. None of this group ever asks what happens if all 3 computers disagree? At work we at least did better than that, self checks and it would fault itself off line letting the backup take over.

          Its unfair to any Aircraft MFG to keep changing the base of approval. By that standard Airbus needs to fix the A320/330/350.

          I doubt if EASA and Canada are not inputting and will agree with FAA.
          I don’t see this as a real issue, more a cleanup for future.

          Who cares about Ryanair. Either they will order of they will not. If they don’t like Boeing they are welcome to buy Airbus (who won’t sell them aircraft at a low ball price). and good luck with the C919 that we might see by 2025 (which is not EASA recognized certification , there goes that deal) – they are stuck with Boeing.

          • “Its unfair to any Aircraft MFG to keep changing the base of approval. By that standard Airbus needs to fix the A320/330/350.”

            Not my area of expertise, but as far as I know Airbus, having the FBW cockpit since the 80’s, already has the system in place:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_centralised_aircraft_monitor

            They just market it under a different name….or am I misinformed?

          • @Frank
            Airbus first public appearance of ECAM was on the A300FF/(forward facing cockpit ) and the A310. In Airbus view it was mandated by going towards FF cockpit.
            It has been continuously improved and upgraded/expanded. Not quite certain how far the A320/A330CEO/A340 have been “pulled forward”. But in the end ECAM is a screen and software .
            B critique centers around keeping an outdated 1950ties interface in an in all other aspects modernized airframe. grandfathering gone overboard. But we know that already. 🙂

          • did they actually “relax” requirements? ( i.e. a downgrade from the NG?)

            IMU: MAX grandfathered from the NG < Classic < Jurassic 🙂
            An ever expanded scope of grandfathering is at the core of all these issues.

        • IIRC EASA wanted this 3rd sensor with the introduction of the MAX-10 and the FAA agreed to it too, even the FAA thought it’s not necessary, so the MAX-10 for the US market should get this 3rd sensor too.
          After introduction of this 3rd sensor with the MAX-10, all other MAX in service should get this 3rd sensor too.

          I don’t know if the FAA changed their mind, sure they can use the MAX domestically within the US in whatever configuration they want, but it would be useless if it can only be flown domestically.

          • “I don’t know if the FAA changed their mind, sure they can use the MAX domestically within the US in whatever configuration they want, but it would be useless if it can only be flown domestically.”

            This is what I was referring to. I guess the agencies are still talking it over

  8. In the past what we have heard is, we are making lots of aircraft, we don’t want to undermine the current production as everyone will want the new aircraft.

    So what is to change this time?

    Sounds like an excuse and then they come up with another one.

    Oh, that is right, we can’t do a moonshot (what a crock)

    • Must is doing a Mars and Moonshot on a fraction of the money. Those flyback boosters are very impressive.

    • One astute online person recently asserted that we in The West are now- have been for some time-
      effectively living in The Matrix. I’m not at all sure he’s wrong.

    • The ‘vertical’ stripes are a scheme no one else has used before, seems a bit ‘Alcatraz’ with the regular striping .
      I would have thought a graduated width scheme that fades towards the tail would give an impression of speed would work better.
      Condor has new owners ( alongside 49% Federal German and the Hesse state governments) and no longer under the wing of Lufthansa, Attestor Capital LLP is a private equity group doesnt seem to have aviation experience so will make clangers like this

  9. TC interview regarding the 777-9 EIS

    -> Honestly, if it goes beyond 2023 and it goes on for another year, we probably cancel the program. What else can we do? We can’t continue the way we are. Boeing really needs to get their act together and get this aircraft sorted. Don’t forget – the aircraft was originally designed for delivery in April 2020; it’s now 2024 if we are lucky.

    You’ve now got a four-year delay with the program. If they have another year on it, we are going to question if this is fit for purpose or not; what’s the problem with it? I hope it doesn’t happen, as there is nowhere else we could go. They are building the biggest aircraft, and we want it. It was done at our request back in 2010; I don’t even want to think about it not happening.

  10. At the time the MAX was about to return, BA projected to deliver about of of those 450 aircraft *before* the end of 2021, and the *majority* of the balance in 2022.

    How well it goes??

  11. – N.Y. Harbour jet fuel price jumps to >$7.5 a gallon.

    Can Biden save the aviation industry??

    – Bloomberg: Germany to Nationalize Gazprom Unit to Safeguard Gas Supply

    – Remember that we are getting into the summer season, and Saudi Arabia will have fewer barrels to export as oil domestic demand swings as much as 1m b/d due to direct crude burn in power stations to meet the surge in electricity for air conditioning

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1510980078028607495?cxt=HHwWjsCy2YOYivgpAAAA

    • The oil market wil get even tighter within the next 2 weeks, as the effect of US sanctions kicks in.
      Note that the US decision to release record amounts of crude from the SPR only caused a (slight) 2-day drop in the oil price…the price of WTI crude is back up where it was last week.

      • US hasnt sanctioned all Russian oil exports, merely prohibited the supply to US of crude and refined product. The oil would go elsewhere

        The SPR release , even over 6 months is just 2 days of global demand. Russia’s oil is a much bigger player than that.
        The IEA members have their own reserves which they did a coordinated release as well ( its supposed to 1.2 bill barrels but Im not sure if its actual barrels stored or ‘supply tickets’
        There is supposed to 586 mill gall of crude in SPR plus a smaller quantity of car gas & heating oil in NE US.

        • The unilateral US sanctions cover Russian oil and oil products:
          – Imported to the US; OR
          – Traded abroad by US companies/brokers; OR
          – Traded abroad by foreign companies/brokers with substantial dealings with the US.
          The total (for now) is about 3 million bpd.
          Of course this oil will *eventually* go elsewhere (e.g. India and China), but it takes time to move supply chains around. In the meantime, it represents a shortfall in the global supply.

      • -I suggest the sanctions against Putin, as far as oil and gas are concerned, have backfired. They have effectively doubled oil and gas prices and with much of Europe nowhere else to go for energy and Russia now demanding to be paid in Rubbles the Russians, I suspect, may actually gain revenue rather than loose.
        -It will take years to wean Europe of any Russian Oil and Gas but it seems to be possible to do it within 10 years, probably accelerating the process by 20 years. Once completed there will be no going back for the Russians. It is effectively an advance on Nett Zero 2050 by 10 years or more.
        -The immediate reaction should be to recommence coal mining and to build plants to convert coal to synthetic natural gas. This is a very established process, no problems doing it. Excess CO2 by-product can be sequestered underground in deep aquifers where the pressure will keep it dissolved.
        -The German energy company E.ON has placed an $50 billion order with Australian Mining Magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest for Export of Green hydrogen from Australia. It will be mainly in the form of Ammonia.

        -Long terms the process probably looks like this:
        1 Vast increase in Roof Top Solar (Wind can’t do it all)
        2 Vast increase in wind, especially from Nordic countries blessed.
        3 Heat Pumps. Basically a 65m deep bore hole is augured so that heat pumps can extract about 5kW of thermal energy for only 1 kW of input.
        5 Vast increase in battery storage to handle over night loads.
        6 Establishment of a hydrogen network for long term seasonal storage of energy.
        7 The battery improvements needed to switch European road traffic to electric seem to be happening. Expect some impressive and affordable cars by 2026.
        8 Sharing of wind resources from the Nordics.
        -As excess renewable energy becomes available it can be used to make hydrogen which can be combined with the CO2 from the coal to natural gas plants to make liquid fuels or Synthetic Natural Gas. The coal to SNG plants can then be switched to blue hydrogen.

        -The US has vast resources of coal from which to produce synthetic natural gas, blue hydrogen or synthetic oil and vast old oil wells to inject the CO2 into for permanent sequestering. Either the coal has to moved to near the oil wells (or aquifers) or the CO2 needs to be transported by pipeline or even train.
        -Much of this can be done within 2 years, certainly synthetic natural gas production.

        • “I suggest the sanctions against Putin, as far as oil and gas are concerned, have backfired.”
          Glad that that’s starting to become clear — it was actually obvious from the outset that that would be the case. But it seems that the penny hasn’t dropped yet in Washington and Brussels.

          Russian oil will eventually find its way to other buyers, such as India and China. That may then *eventually* free up some supply from other sources, such as the Middle East. The net effect will have been a gigantic game of musical chairs. But, in the meantime, the “west” is going to suffer significantly from the unrest in oil markets.

        • The French already solved this problem with a well run nuclear electric power program. 75% of their electricity is near zero carbon dioxide. Per person emissions in France are just over half of Germany’s. The German abandonment of nuclear power because of the simple minded Green party is an environmental and political disaster.

    • Some interesting comments on how the ‘runaway horizontal stabiliser trim’ memory items for pilots has changed from 60s to 2018

      *www .b737.org.uk/runawaystab.htm (Cant link directly as not https)
      it seems the ‘stab trim cutout switch to off’ will do the trick if earlier actions dont work. These are pilot memory items

  12. Not all greenshots are real!

    Reuters reported in March

    -> A 737 MAX built for China Eastern subsidiary Shanghai Airlines took off from Seattle bound for Boeing’s completion plant in Zhoushan last week, industry sources said, in a sign the model’s return to service in China was close. 

    The plane landed in Guam on March 15 as part of a multi-leg journey and *has not moved in the week since*, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24.

    • Covid lockdowns in China have had an impact in the last week

    • ” ..in a sign the model’s return to service in China was close. ..”

      Cargo cult: making the moves as if 🙂

    • After being stuck for more than three weeks at Guam … because of a *minor* technical issue. So all that inspections failed to find it??

      Reuters:

      -> Flight BOE631 from Guam came more than three weeks after the first 737 MAX bound for a Chinese customer since a 2019 grounding began its journey from Seattle to Boeing’s completion plant in Zhoushan.

      The plane, painted in Shanghai Airlines livery, had been stuck on the ground in Guam since March 15 due to a minor technical issue.

      • I just posted the same thing…you beat me to it.

        Indeed — what type of “minor” technical problem causes a *delivery* flight to be stuck on the ground for several weeks?
        And not just any *delivery* flight: it was a high-profile flight aimed at re-opening the MAX market in China.

      • no repair solution or no spares available?

        .. and nobody in a hurry?

        • BA is caught with its pants down again.

          Reuters March report:

          “Our team identified the issue and is working through the logistics to address it appropriately and resume the ferry flight when ready,” the spokesperson added.

    • The MAX in question finally landed in China last Thursday (April 7).

      “Flight BOE631 from Guam came more than three weeks after the first 737 MAX bound for a Chinese customer since a 2019 grounding began its journey from Seattle to Boeing’s completion plant in Zhoushan.

      “The plane, painted in Shanghai Airlines livery, had been stuck on the ground in Guam since March 15 due to a minor technical issue. It landed at 12:02 p.m. Shanghai local time (0402 GMT), tracking websites showed.”

      https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-737-max-jet-resume-china-journey-amid-uncertainty-over-models-return-2022-04-06/

      Interesting that this “flagship flight” to try to re-open the Chinese market is stuck on the ground in Guam for 2 weeks because of a “minor” technical issue — doesn’t sound too “minor” to me.

      Next question: what will the plane do now? China is increasingly in lockdown, and the China Eastern 737-800 crash is still under investigation.

  13. At the moment the EU is busily hamstringing itself with Russian Sanctions. ( IMU the planned damage is fully EU centric. )

    Has Airbus any chance at all to stay competitive under these circumstances? (increasing production or not.)

    • “Has Airbus any chance at all to stay competitive under these circumstances?”

      With who? Embraer? or Comac?

      • Energy pricing is going sky high here.
        chain reaction hitting any commodity and specialty.
        ( or our politics we’ve embargoed it for good measure )

        Airbus can produce but cost will choke them.
        Boeing can sit pretty. nothing to buy, nothing to lose
        as production is either finished ( stored frames ) or stopped.

        another “Hills & Knowlton Movie” published and the imbeciles will stop gas delivery from the EU side.
        no need to wait for Russia getting really irate.

        • The oil, metals and foodstuffs problems are worldwide, not just in the EU…though the widespread domestic and industrial use of natural gas in the EU creates an additional problem here. Remember that petrol/gasoline is $6 per gallon in LA…let’s see what happens when it hits $8 (before long). The effect on the travel and transport sectors is just starting to kick in.

        • It’s not going to go back to normal in a few months. Negotiations are not going to resolve this because the thinking is that Putin can not be allowed to gain anything. If anything it will get worse. Putin hasn’t been threatening the Baltics for nothing, they will be next. EU and Germany will need to ween themselves of reliance of Russian oil and gas forever. Alternatives to Russian Oil and Gas will be found, they will be a little more expensive, and then any nation that is not apply sanctions to Russia but still buying will be penalised with mild tariffs to nullify their cost advantages. To many things are at stake.

          • At the end of the day, if we have to pay more for gas at the pump, in order to strangle Putin – I think it’s well worth it.

            He cannot be allowed to just take over other countries without repercussions. Short of sending in troops to do the job, this is the second best option.

            It may take awhile, but shelves in Moscow are already starting to bare. China is not going to bail him out. They have a lot more to lose by getting into a pissing contest with the US, then they could ever gain by getting fully into bed with Russia.

            Defence contractors will be happy. All of that equipment sent to turn those vehicles into twisted metal will need to be replaced. Plus there is nothing like real world testing of equipment to drive innovation and development.

          • @ Frank
            Not so sure that that plan is going to work:
            “Russian Oil Is Too Cheap To Resist For China And India”

            https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Russian-Oil-Is-Too-Cheap-To-Resist-For-China-And-India.html

            India has openly quadrupled its imports of Russian oil.
            In China, the big “headliner” names are staying on the level at the moment, but smaller companies are buying increased quantities of Russian spot cargoes. Things are expected to pick up once some fixed-term contracts with Saudi Arabia / the UAE expire.

            Russia pumped an average of 11.01 million bpd of oil in March — a decrease of just 0.6% from February.

          • Beyond NATO,US,CA,AUS countries have not adopted the clear, simplistic view pushed by politics and in media here.

            Ask around and you’ll find that a wide range of those think the Russia has a case.
            Not going into Monty Pythons “Black Knight” antics like the EU.

            If lack of polarization success persists
            this creates pressure on the dollar.
            US standing, power projection ability will suffer.
            Add clear hinting that doing the US bidding is
            immensely dangerous for a country.

          • @Uwe

            By all means, please go right ahead and let us know what you think ‘Russia has a case’ for.

  14. Getting the 737 back to 50-60 month is essential, the cash flow is badly needed. As are 787 deliveries. Nobody disagrees.

    Looking forward Boeing can continue to look at a 180-250 NMA/MoM/797/ LTwin, like they have been for a decade.

    The future is for ultra lean, clean, quiet, slower, efficient 150-200 seater for flights up to 4 hrs. If Boeing doesn’t fill in that requirement, the airlines will buy ten thousand elsewhere.

    It’s time Boeing starts really listening, analyzing instead of just looking for confirmation of their old believes and existing portfolios.

    Avoiding investment for short term free cash flow rewards.

    To be honest the F15, F18, Chinook, Apache, A10, AH-6, B52, B1 and C17 on the defense site, what the average age these designs ? There’s a pattern..

    • “Getting the 737 back to 50-60 month is essential, the cash flow is badly needed. As are 787 deliveries. Nobody disagrees.”

      It’s not just the cash flow – it’s economies of scale.

      As any manufacturer increases production, the fixed costs can get spread over a larger number of units, lowering them.

      That girl in accounting get’s paid $50k a year, no matter if they produce 1 Max or 50 Max’s, per month. They gotta keep the lights on, the place heated, the janitors cleaning – no matter the amount of aircraft they put through there.

      I wonder what the breakeven number of Max’s produced are?

      • Frank:

        Maybe never with the incurred costs but cash coming in helps a lot

        To bad they pissed to much away on stock buy backs.

        • That claim says you know very little about investment shares.
          The buybacks are way of returning money to the shareholders right.
          Thats also what dividends do . So that cant be ‘pissing away money’ either.
          For Boeing the share buybacks and dividends are the way they reward shareholders- the whole point of buying the stocks in the first place.
          They are hardly unique in doing this, some like IBM have ramped up borrowing to pay for buybacks, which Boeing didnt do.
          If Boeing accumulated a cash hoard it would likely have been a takeover target – the biggest whale on Wall St.
          As far a new-derived plane development goes they have clearly lost their way and it seems internal struggles have blocked any way forward. Any choices seem to be poisoned chalices, like the preferred Charleston 787 final assembly line was the one with lowest quality – just as they needed to be ontop of the game for their crown jewel.
          For the 777X, major airframes parts were bought back in house after the 787 issues , but this time its the software side by contractors thats not thoroughly vetted to the satisfaction of the FAA. The pattern in the car industry too had a ‘malaise era’ followed by rejuvenation so thats most likely how it will pan out.

          • “If Boeing accumulated a cash hoard it would likely have been a takeover target – the biggest whale on Wall St.”

            What a red herring, typical of those trying to give cover to Boeing for bleeding suppliers, designs and everyone else of every last penny they could.

            Let’s see – what ever could BA have done with an excess of cashola flowing out of their coffers, instead of plowing into stock buybacks (to the tune of $43 billion)?

            Hmmmmm, have you got any ideas Duke? Is that the only thing they could have spent the money on?

            How about…investing in a product line-up and modernizing designs to compete with the only other OEM in their space, instead of trying to squeeze the most they could from outdated airframes?

            The financial engineers killed the company…

          • Dividend is clearly a payout to shareholders.

            On the other hand, share buybacks — although they can benefit shareholders — are primarily a tool of company management to dress up financial results. By decreasing the number of shares outstanding, one automatically increases the earnings per share — a critical parameter used by analysts to judge a company’s performance; consequently, any bonuses associated with achieving earnings targets will be “safeguarded”. During the actual buyback, the share price will be inflated — but that effect recedes once the buyback is complete. It’s not true to say that the company value is now spread across a smaller number of shares, because cash-on-hand has been spent to execute the buyback, thus diluting the balance sheet.

            BA could have produced a greater increase in share price and earnings if it had refrained from mass buybacks and instead invested that money in new products, R&D, streamlined production, better QC and employee training — it then wouldn’t be in the current mess!

          • “The buybacks are way of returning money to the shareholders right. Thats also what dividends do . So that cant be ‘pissing away money’ either.”

            It leaves sharesholders happy & executives loaded, but Boeing drained & exhausted.

            Because many share holders still feel share value reflects portfolio strenght, competitiveness, margin and progress. Not buying your own stock for short term cashing.

            Now the Free Cash Flow balloon popped, no reserves & a reputation monetized by “smart” people.

          • No doubt IBM is a fallen angel, much like the “champion” we’re discussing here. Freudian slip??

          • @Duke

            Let’s have a look at BA’s stock buy back plan and see how it worked out for them, shall we?

            From the financials:

            https://s2.q4cdn.com/661678649/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2018/q4/4Q18-Earnings-Release.pdf

            “For the full year, the company repurchased 26.1 million
            shares for $9.0 billion and paid $3.9 billion in dividends”

            This was from 2018, when BA was trading at about the $350 range.

            Today, Boeing is at $178.

            So that $9 billion is worth about $4.5-5 billion.

            But hey – the good news is, that the c-suite boys got paid, so that’s a load off our minds. Couldn’t have them go hungry now, could we?

          • Share buy backs are something you do if you _really_ don’t have any good other target to leverage that cash for further profits.

            From that vantage “buying back shares” an overly successful corporation is implied.

            Cargo Cult. superficially do what is expected in scope of big success.

          • In December 2018, Boeing raised its dividend by 20% and approved a $20 billion stock buyback plan.

            By kicking the can down the road repeatedly – couldn’t close the business case yet but still working on it, the top executives enriched themselves by pushing the share price higher thru’ ambitious stock buyback.

            What if BA’s board approved a clean sheet all-new jet program??

          • According to a CNBC report at the time, BA’s then market cap. was less than $180 billion. A *$20 billion* share buyback was like a 11.1% dividend, but it’s useful to push share price substantially higher.

          • No doubt BA’s “FCF” was inflated by financial engineering, e.g. PFS etc.
            (Key to PFS 2.0 is Boeing’s ask that payment terms be extended from 30 or 60 days to 90 or 120 days. Most suppliers don’t want to extend accounts receivables that far, says one source familiar with the effort.
            https://leehamnews.com/2016/07/07/boeing-pfs-2-0/)

            It became a downward spiral when production has to slow down.

      • “girl”?? is this 1970? Could have sworn it was at least the 21st century, better check.

        • Au contraire!

          Back in the 70’s, the accounting dept was heavily a male dominated domain. Back in the day, when I did my accounting degree, there were a handful of females in a sea of male accounting grads. The ladies were found in marketing and advertising.

          So yes, modern man that I am – ‘that girl in accounting’ is a very modern, 21st century thing. If they want to put on a conservative dark blue, brown or black suit – and pour through financials all day long….more power to them.

          OR…

          I guess you think that ‘that girl in accounting’ must be a simple data entry type person, AP/AR clerk or something along those lines – as opposed to perhaps a managerial accountant, project accountant or controller?

          Makes sense, now…

          • Everything is non-binary now…remember?
            There are no “boys” and “girls” anymore: those terms just represent extrapolated extremities on a bell curve.
            It’s now politically correct to refer to that “person” rather than that “girl”. 😒

    • Its a contractor thing mainly
      https://simpleflying.com/boeing-air-force-one-battle/

      The idea that everyone on site is a ‘Boeing employee’ just isnt how any sort of major modification contract works. The planes themselves are made from sub assemblies ‘ mostly made by sub contractors’ too. All the components come from outside suppliers

      • That’s how BA make its jets, don’t you know??

        Relying on contractors like Spirit, Raytheon, Honeywell, Mitsubishi HI, Subaru/Fuji, Kawasaki, GKN etc.

      • @DoU

        Why link to an irrelevant article? Gaslighting???
        There’s no mention in WSJ article that it’s not carried out by non-Boeing staff.

        From the WSJ:

        -> An examination of the mishaps later, however, found that a Boeing employee involved wasn’t properly credentialed for overseeing the work, crews didn’t follow established procedures and another employee involved in the operations failed a routine post-incident drug test …

    • Yeah, yeah Boeing is incompetent, Boeing is doomed, Boeing is evil blah, blah, blah…
      Do you ever get tired? Ever?

      • @Lars

        I couldn’t agree more!

        Focus on the positive. Look towards the future. Talk about the good stuff.

        You start…

      • Close the eyes, ignore reality and let’s imagine?

        The B787 will be back sooner or later, the market will recover sooner or later, the MAX 7 will be certified in no time, and the 777-9 and the freighter all arrive in time as BA says.

        All the problems are gone.

        Time for bed for a sweet dream??

  15. Just on CNBC:
    JetBlue has put in a counterbid for Spirit — despite the pending Spirit/Frontier merger.

  16. Bloomberg: “Boeing 737 Max 10 Faces Costly Delays as Lawmaker Opposes Waiver”

    “Representative Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat who leads the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an opening statement at a hearing that he would oppose Congress extending a waiver it granted to the Max 10.

    ““The aircraft certification bill gave the FAA a two-year grace period to certify aircraft without the advanced flight crew alerting system, but that grace period should not be extended,” DeFazio said in prepared remarks.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-06/boeing-737-max-10-faces-costly-delays-as-lawmaker-opposes-waiver

    • Oh boy…

      Let the blame games begin:

      FAA
      NASA
      ‘The Dems’
      Biden
      Foreign pilots
      Airlines

      Have I missed anybody?

      Anyone but Boeing…

      • DeFazio is about as far left as you can get (until immigrants start taking jobs in his state that is). Why he wants to hurt President Biden and the Democrat government of Washington state is unclear.

        • Being slightly less holier than though right wing is not what I’d call “left”.

          Both major parties in the US think and act more like German AfD 🙂

          • Spot on Uwe.

            There is no ‘left’ in US politics. Dems are in the centre, sometimes even centre-right and the GOP is now on the far right.

            But it makes for a good boogey-man to always reference the ‘radical left’.

            But – before ‘you know who’ let’s us know that we’ve strayed too far off the subject and shuts down the comment section, let’s get back on topic.

            In positive BA news, ALC ordered another 32 Max’s, bringing their total to 130:

            https://finance.yahoo.com/news/air-lease-confirms-order-32-170647581.html

          • @ Frank
            Not so fast regarding the ALC order:

            “… since the start of the Boeing 737 MAX crisis and the course of the pandemic Air Lease Corporation has been canceling orders for the Boeing 737 MAX and it did not start to add orders until this year. From March 2019 until April 2022, we see that the Air Lease Corporation order book has been more or less flat for the MAX. So, what you can say is that Air Lease Corporation simply re-ordered the aircraft that it cancelled during the MAX crisis and pandemic”

            “…Air Lease Corporation is likely acquiring the newly ordered Boeing 737 MAX at a significantly lower price than the aircraft it previous cancelled.”

            https://seekingalpha.com/article/4499917-behind-the-bullish-boeing-737-max-buy-from-air-lease-corporation

        • ” Why he wants to hurt President Biden and the Democrat government of Washington state is unclear.”

          Well – that’s one way to look at it.

          Another would be that perhaps someone is holding BA accountable.

          How very refreshing and unique that would be, after having come through 4 years of exactly the opposite.

  17. And continuing the saga of recent serious control issues in BA planes:

    “France opens safety probe into ‘serious’ New York to Paris flight issue”

    “French aviation investigators are looking into a “serious incident” involving an Air France flight from New York that suffered flight control problems on approach to its landing in Paris.

    “The Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) said on Wednesday it has opened a safety probe and information from the so-called black box flight data and voice recorders is being checked.”

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/d69dec9955404c878a9ac0c0641c7925/

  18. “Airbus winning battle for the skies as Europeans deliver three times more aircraft than beleaguered Boeing”

    “According to data compiled and calculated by Finbold, shared with City A.M. this afternoon, by the end of 2021, Airbus had delivered 1,376 aircrafts under all categories from the start of the pandemic in January 2020.
    The units almost tripled the cumulative 466 deliveries made by Boeing over the same period.”

    https://www.cityam.com/airbus-winning-battle-for-the-skies-as-europeans-deliver-three-times-more-aircraft-than-beleaguered-boeing/

  19. -> Udvar-Hazy said in a wide-ranging conversation at the ISTAT Americas conference on Tuesday. He added that he only found out “this morning” — March 8 — that all of ALC’s *2022 Max* deliveries are delayed. The delays average a month.

    The latest narrowbody delays raise series questions about the airframers’ plans to raise production rates.

    Cowen & Co. analyst Cai von Rumohr also questions Boeing’s delivery targets. In a report Tuesday, he said the 500 aircraft target increasingly looks “like a stretch” and cited the planemaker’s weak February numbers when it delivered just 20 aircraft.

    ALC has no view on when the airframer will resume 787 deliveries, Udvar-Hazy said and called a summer resumption “optimistic.” 

    Asked whether Boeing’s relationship with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is delaying the Max, Udvar-Hazy said no and again pointed to the airframer. Boeing needs to “get their act together,” he said.

    • Nice way to voice your displeasure with Boeing by ordering 32 more maxs’ yesterday !!!

      • It’s also the art of negotiation, trying to exert max. pressure for a better deal.

        If BA is serious about raising production rate, shouldn’t it have to get the backlog at pre-grounding level?

  20. Shocking, …
    No surprises there..
    Is that really worth mentioning!!!!
    When over 80% of both manufacturers deliveries are narrow bodies:
    What would you expect!!
    Kinda obvious with no 737 deliveries in that span!!

  21. Wasn’t there quite a bit of talk- including from some very sharp commenters here- that Boeing 787 deliveries would, or will, resume this month?

    How’s all that going?

  22. The KC-Y project is turning into a $30B lifeline thrown at Boeing.

    Even makes sense to me, seeing Boeings dire situation. No 787 deliveries, no 777-9 EIS commitment, 737 loosing out, no new aircraft development, a huge debt, scattered image.

    I foresee intervention, safeguarding Civil Aerospace in the USA.

    • “I foresee intervention, safeguarding Civil Aerospace in the USA”

      Yes…state aid will probably be required/invoked at some stage.
      How ironic 😉

      • I think a bit more would be needed than just financial aid. A totally different KPi / executive bonus structure

        E.g. with a wage ceiling of e.g. 10x POTUS. If you don’t like it hit the road, wrong mind set/ material.

  23. This week’s AF 777 incident appears to have been *really* bad:

    “Air France Boeing 777 ‘went nuts’ and became ‘unresponsive to pilot commands'”

    “Sickening cockpit recordings from the Air France 11 plane coming from New York to Paris reveal panic after the plane “went nuts” and stopped responding to pilot commands”

    “Radio traffic from Air France Flight AF011 from New York heard pilots struggling to get the plane ‘s control to respond to them as the flight neared landing.”

    “The BEA cited “instability of flight controls” in the final stages of the flight, as well as “hard controls” and “flight-path oscillations.””

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/air-france-boeing-777-went-26654950

  24. This is very innovative:
    “India to Convert (Six) Boeing 767 Passenger Aircraft Into Fuel Tankers”

    “India is looking to turn its Boeing 767 passenger aircraft into multi-mission military tanker transport aircraft in an attempt to address a critical mid-air refueling gap.

    “State-owned aerospace firm Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has already entered into a memorandum of understanding with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for the conversion initiative.

    “Sources told The Print that a total of six Boeing 767 commercial aircraft will be transformed into fuel tankers with cargo and transport capabilities.

    ““It is much cheaper to convert passenger aircraft into tankers rather than buy new ones,” the source said.”

    https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/04/07/india-boeing-fuel-tankers/

    Any bets that they’ll be up and running to spec before the KC-46A?

    • There’s $30B US-India trade deficit, so they’ll probably work out KC-46s.

  25. So Tim Clark over at Emirates is lamenting the A380 production stop and what it means for them , moving forward, at slot constrained airports:

    https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-decline-emirates-biggest-problem/

    “My biggest single problem will be the decline of the 380 because of the ability to meet the hub requirements in the 2030s when you’ve only got a limited number of slots at the primary hubs such as Sydney, Heathrow, Hong Kong and New York, etc.”

    So my question is:

    How come the A380 became such a white elephant on routes such as JFK/LHR and no US carriers ever thought to deploy the jet on it? Even the ones who had AB widebodies in their fleet?

    • The answer is:
      The slot cartel wants to push airfare higher, chasing S.T. profits vs. L.T. fleet planning.

    • The conventional narrative — from Tim Clark, at least — is that carriers other than Emirates didn’t have sufficient numbers of A380s in their fleets to really use the plane effectively.
      Exceptions (sort of) are Singapore Airlines and British Airways, who were well able to earn money with the plane.
      A380s of carriers like Malaysia, Thai and Air France had severely dated interiors — not a good recipe to attract customers.

      What’s particularly interesting is that Emirates make such huge profits from the A380, wheres Qatar can’t make a success of it at all.

      • Sher size.
        Emirates is a set of Addidas-Network connected back to back hubs, each with a large number of spokes that each provide enough traffic to allow 77W or A380 “buckets”. setup allows <=2 hops for any connection
        where the classic hub based model needs 3.
        IMU Quatar is too small to bring that off efficiently.
        not enough spokes per hub(half).

    • I wonder if Tim Clark has ever considered buying second-hand A380s? He’d get them for bargain prices.
      The plane generated 85% of his profits prior to the pandemic.

  26. AirAsia X has finally removed the uncertainty: 63 A330neos have been axed from its order, and 15 remain.

    “An announcement was expected already some time ago, but Airbus’ Orders and Deliveries overview over March 2022 finally confirms that AirAsia X has canceled most of its huge order for the A330-900. The ultra-low-cost airline retains just fifteen in the order book but cancels 63, which is a huge setback for the A330neo program.”

    https://airinsight.com/a330neo-gets-a-blow-as-airasia-x-cancels-63-aircraft/

  27. An interesting analysis:

    (Subsequent to the DHL 757 split accident)

    So – on this other nameless financial website I frequent, some individual made the claim that the ‘media’ was out to get Boeing (where else have we heard something like that?) and drive down the share price, so the ‘shorts’ could make money.

    Another supporter of that theory proposed that Airbus had just as many problems as Boing and mentioned a website, Aviation Herald – that tracked these kind of things. So, being ‘that kinda guy’, I put his theorem to the test:

    ========================================

    Thanks for that link – what an interesting website. You can toggle on/off Crashes (Red), Accidents (Orange), Incidents (Yellow), News (Green) & Reports (Blue)

    So I put your claim “Airbus is well represented” to the test.

    I toggled only for crashes, as they get the most press and went back a couple of pages, which takes us back to 2014, and here’s what we found, concerning Airbus vs Boeing:

    Monday Mar 21st 2022
    Crash China Eastern B738 near Guangzhou on Mar 21st 2022, lost altitude and impacted terrain

    Saturday Jan 9th 2021
    Crash Sriwijaya B735 at Jakarta on Jan 9th 2021, lost height and impacted Java Sea

    Friday May 22nd 2020
    Crash PIA A320 at Karachi on May 22nd 2020, impacted residential area during final approach, both engines failed as result of a gear up touchdown

    Wednesday Jan 8th 2020
    Crash UIA B738 at Tehran on Jan 8th 2020, lost height after departure, aircraft shot down by Iran’s armed forces

    Sunday Mar 10th 2019 *2nd Max crash*
    Crash Ethiopian B38M near Bishoftu on Mar 10th 2019, impacted terrain after departure

    Saturday Feb 23rd 2019
    Crash Atlas B763 at Houston on Feb 23rd 2019, loss of control on approach

    Monday Jan 14th 2019
    Crash Saha B703 at Fath on Jan 14th 2019, landed at wrong airport

    Monday Oct 29th 2018 *1st Max crash)
    Crash Lion B38M near Jakarta on Oct 29th 2018, aircraft lost height and crashed into Java Sea, wrong AoA data

    Friday May 18th 2018
    Crash Global Damojh B732 at Havana on May 18th 2018, lost height shortly after takeoff

    Monday Jan 16th 2017
    Crash MyCargo B744 at Bishkek on Jan 16th 2017, impacted terrain on go around

    Tuesday Dec 20th 2016
    Crash Aerosucre B722 at Puerto Carreno on Dec 20th 2016, overran runway on takeoff

    Thursday May 19th 2016
    Crash Egypt A320 over Mediterranean on May 19th 2016, fire on board, traces of explosives found

    Saturday Mar 19th 2016
    Crash Flydubai B738 at Rostov on Don on Mar 19th 2016, lost height on go around after stabilizer moved nose down following holding for 2 hours

    Saturday Oct 31st 2015
    Crash Metrojet A321 over Sinai on Oct 31st 2015, broke up in climb over Sinai, preliminary report states no unlawful interference

    Tuesday Mar 24th 2015
    Crash Germanwings A320 near Barcelonnette on Mar 24th 2015, first officer alone in cockpit, initiated rapid descent, aircraft impacted terrain

    Sunday Dec 28th 2014
    Crash Indonesia Asia A320 over Java Sea on Dec 28th 2014, aircraft lost height and impacted waters, loss of rudder travel limiter due to maintenance

    Thursday Jul 17th 2014
    Crash Malaysia B772 near Donetsk on Jul 17th 2014, aircraft was shot down from separatist controlled ground

    Saturday Mar 8th 2014
    Crash Malaysia B772 over Gulf of Thailand on Mar 8th 2014, aircraft missing, data indicate flight MH-370 ended west of Australia, first MH-370 debris identified, search ended

    ————————————————————-

    I put all the crashes, either AB or BA in there – doesn’t matter if the reason was pilot error, or shoot down, or maintenance or whatever. Just put them in and count them up:

    Airbus: 5 crashes
    Boeing: 13 crashes
    Total: 18 crashes over 8 years.

    Boeing has greater than 2.5 times more crashes (for whatever reason) than Airbus. Stands to reason they will be in the press more, right?

    ================================================

    I just left it there, but it struck me as quite a statistical anomaly, no? Anyone have any reasoning for this? Just bad luck?

    • A mathematically correct answer to your question is that you may have selected an insufficiently large base size and/or sampling time.
      However, the period that you selected also overlaps with the known “Flushed QC Era” at BA — which might be playing a role 😏

      On that note: BA stock went down yesterday because of that DHL 757 crash. It seems that Wall Street is getting a little spooked by all those recent incidents with BA planes.

      • This period runs through the BA heyday of 2018, when it delivered the most aircraft ever, the stock was at an all-time high and if there was an incident – it didn’t seem to matter.

        2013-2018 was also the period when BA spent $43 billion on stock buybacks and returned a ton of money to shareholders. Share price went from $93 to $440.

        The market didn’t care.

        • @Bryce – but hey! I aim to please and am willing to test your hypothesis, so going onto page 3:

          Sunday Nov 17th 2013
          Crash Tatarstan B735 at Kazan on Nov 17th 2013, crashed on go-around

          Wednesday Aug 14th 2013
          Crash UPS A306 at Birmingham on Aug 14th 2013, contacted trees and touched down outside airport

          Monday Apr 29th 2013
          Crash National Air Cargo B744 at Bagram on Apr 29th 2013, lost height shortly after takeoff following load shift and stall

          Friday Apr 20th 2012
          Crash Bhoja B732 at Islamabad on Apr 20th 2012, impacted terrain on approach

          That’s all for page 3 – back a full decade.

          Score (updated):

          Airbus – 6 crashes
          Boeing – 16 crashes

          Still over 2.5 times.

      • What’s that? Still not enough of a sample size? You’re such a BA Fanboy 🙂

        Onto page 4:

        Saturday Aug 20th 2011
        Crash First Air B732 near Resolute Bay on Aug 20th 2011, impacted terrain

        Thursday Jul 28th 2011
        Crash Asiana B744 near Jeju on Jul 28th 2011, fire in cargo hold

        Friday Jul 8th 2011
        Crash Hewa Bora B721 at Kisangani on Jul 8th 2011, missed runway on landing

        Sunday Jan 9th 2011
        Crash Iran Air B722 near Uromiyeh on Jan 9th 2011, impacted terrain during go-around

        Friday Sep 3rd 2010
        Crash UPS B744 at Dubai on Sep 3rd 2010, cargo fire

        That’s it for page 4. Bad one for Boeing. Cumulative totals:

        Airbus – 6 crashes
        Boeing – 21 crashes

        BA crashes 3.5 times more than AB.

        For anyone wanting to check the source:

        https://avherald.com/

        Make sure to toggle off everything but crashes. That’s 12 years

        Side note:

        Just to have full disclosure; AV Herald has a toggle system and I have only selected ‘crashes’ (as mentioned, being the most visible) and they have the recent 757 thing in Costa Rica listed as an ‘accident’ not a crash. In their FAQ they have this:

        Q: What do the classifications Crash, Accident, Incident, News or Report mean?

        Report indicates an articles about the release and contents of an official incident or accident investigation report, both preliminary and final, where The Aviation Herald did not report the original event. If The Aviation Herald did report the original event, the original article (series) will be updated and the investigation reports mentioned and linked in there.
        News indicates an article about commercial aviation events, that are not related to an occurrence (incident, accident, crash) or an active flight (a flight is active from entering its takeoff runway to leaving its landing runway).
        Incident marks any safety relevant event out of the ordinary during flight (from the first human with the intention to fly boarding the aircraft to last human with intention to fly leaving the aircraft), that causes no injuries or death to any people and causes only limited damage (exception: the engines of an aircraft may suffer even catastrophic damage in an incident).
        Accident marks an incident, that has caused injuries or death to humans or caused significant damage.
        Crash marks an accident, that is potentially catastrophic (has the potential to kill everybody on board of an airplane).

        Here is Page 1, with ‘crashes’ off and ‘accidents’ on:

        Friday Apr 8th 2022
        Accident Aliansa DC3T at San Felipe on Apr 8th 2022, runway excursion
        Thursday Apr 7th 2022
        Accident DHL Expreso B752 at San Jose on Apr 7th 2022, hydraulic failure results in runway excursion
        Monday Mar 28th 2022
        Accident Delta B752 near Denver on Mar 28th 2022, loss of cabin pressure
        Saturday Mar 26th 2022
        Accident JAL B763 near Nagoya on Mar 26th 2022, aircraft movement injures flight attendant
        Friday Mar 25th 2022
        Accident Spirit A321 at Newark on Mar 25th 2022, bird strike
        Sunday Mar 13th 2022
        Accident Westjet Encore DH8D at Calgary on Mar 13th 2022, turbulence injures captain and cabin crew
        Friday Mar 11th 2022
        Accident Wizz UK A21N at Belgrade on Mar 11th 2022, hard landing
        Wednesday Mar 9th 2022
        Accident TUI B738 at Manchester on Mar 9th 2022, tail strike on departure
        Friday Mar 4th 2022
        Accident Aerolineas B738 near Cordoba on Mar 4th 2022, loss of cabin pressure
        Monday Feb 28th 2022
        Accident Envoy E175 at Dallas on Feb 28th 2022, wake turbulence injures flight attendant
        Accident Republic E175 at Washington on Feb 28th 2022, hole in fuselage on landing, runway closed 90 minutes later
        Thursday Feb 24th 2022
        Accident Southwest B737 at Kansas City on Feb 24th 2022, bird strikes damage both engines
        Tuesday Feb 22nd 2022
        Accident Alkan D228 at Whitehorse on Feb 22nd 2022, nose gear up landing
        Tuesday Feb 15th 2022
        Accident Delta A319 at Mexico City on Feb 15th 2022, rejected takeoff due to engine failure results in runway excursion
        Monday Feb 14th 2022
        Accident Agefreco L410 at Kavumu on Feb 14th 2022, burned down while taxiing for departure
        Saturday Feb 12th 2022
        Accident American A321 at Dallas on Feb 12th 2022, fumes in cabin
        Tuesday Feb 8th 2022
        Accident KLM A333 at Calgary on Feb 8th 2022, tail scrape on departure
        Friday Feb 4th 2022
        Accident Sun Country B738 at Las Vegas on Feb 4th 2022, gear malfunction on departure
        Saturday Jan 22nd 2022
        Accident Jetblue A320 at Hayden on Jan 22nd 2022, tail strike on takeoff, B350 on short final in opposite direction
        Sunday Jan 16th 2022
        Accident Star Flyer A320 near Osaka on Jan 16th 2022, turbulence injures passenger
        Saturday Jan 8th 2022
        Accident Egypt B738 at Tunis on Jan 8th 2022, turbulence on approach injures 2 cabin crew
        Accident Aviastar T204 at Hangzhou on Jan 8th 2022, burst into fire during push back
        Friday Jan 7th 2022
        Accident Alaska A320 near San Jose on Jan 7th 2022, strong chemical odour
        Wednesday Jan 5th 2022
        Accident Caspian B734 at Isfahan on Jan 5th 2022, main gear collapse on landing
        Tuesday Jan 4th 2022
        Accident LANHSA JS31 at Roatan on Jan 4th 2022, gear collapse on landing causes runway excursion
        Monday Jan 3rd 2022
        Accident SA Airlink JS41 at Venetia Mine on Jan 3rd 2022, bird strike disintegrates propeller, cabin punctured
        Monday Dec 27th 2021
        Accident Virgin Australia F100 enroute on Dec 27th 2021, cabin and flight crew unwell in flight, possibly hypoxia
        Sunday Dec 26th 2021
        Accident Endeavor CRJ2 at Kalamazoo on Dec 26th 2021, wing tip strike on landing
        Saturday Dec 25th 2021
        Accident Canada A333 at Montreal on Dec 25th 2021, gear damage on landing
        Thursday Dec 23rd 2021
        Accident Malu SH36 near Shabunda on Dec 23rd 2021, impacted ground in bad weather
        Monday Dec 13th 2021
        Accident Allegiant A319 enroute on Dec 13th 2021, fumes injure flight attendant

        Bird strikes, fumes in cabin, gear collapse, turbulence, tail strikes…etc.

        Full disclosure, here

        • Frank, you’re on to something…this is evidently Fields Medal material 🥳

          It certainly is an interesting analysis. LNA has many thousands of subscribers, and there must be quite a few BA corporate suscribers among them — perhaps one of them has a plausible explanation? 😏

          • look at design dates.
            ( compare to the WP normalized fatalities per trillion nm.. )
            744 is old as is A600, 731,2,3,4,5 ..
            look at fleet size per type.
            I’d leave out type unrelated crashes ( I know that is difficult : what is type related, what is not. proven suicide : yes, contested : no.
            shootdown shouldn’t count either.)

          • You’re too kind – but I wish I was under 40.

            More so than being math driven, it’s a rather simple look at the reporting on both Airbus and Boeing.

            Put another way – there are claims that some try to drive a narrative, to derive a particular benefit. In this case it’s a supposed battle of the ‘bulls’ and the ‘bears’ or ‘shorts’. Those bullish on a particular stock, want positive news reported to drive the share price higher, while those shorting the stock want to highlight negative issues, to cash in when the share price falls.

            This is probably old news for you, but for some with no clue – anyone with a large position (either way) and a megaphone, can move the needle.

            “X Investment Group sees all of BA’s troubles baked into the current price and clear skies ahead – sets a price target of Y dollars and rates it a strong buy.”

            Consequently, when something like the recent 757 accident happens, bulls will say something like “Nothing to see. Foreign pilots/maintenance. Media is against the company – sensationalization. Airbus is just as bad.”

            Bears will say “You see!”

            So – given a source, I looked at all the crashes. I didn’t rate why it happened, just that it did.

            The reasoning holds – if over the past 12 years, 3.5 times more crashes happen to Boeing aircraft, then Airbus aircraft, then they should get the lion’s share of the coverage.

          • @Uwe

            This isn’t about design dates, fleet size or reason the crash happened. It’s about MEDIA COVERAGE.

            ‘Plane guys’ who understand that stuff, are not the general populace. We are a small niche within the public who follow that kind of stuff.

            The average person hears/reads: Plane crash, location, X number of people, airline, OEM and type.

            By the time the report comes out on what happened, it’s buried on page 6 of the business section, right below the ad for the ‘businessman’s lunch’ at the Golden Champagne Room Lounge.

            While you may leave out ‘unrelated crashes’ – you are not the media and this is about whether they focus more on BA than AB, because they are trying to drive a narrative, or if the scrutiny is deserved.

          • @Frank
            You are IMU commenting from a filtered view.
            Boeing always had and still has media protection.
            But in increasing amounts in the last two decades they produced so much negative material that even with that protection they appear in your judgement as overreported. This is not the case.
            Compare A380 for a single design problem with the “just a bit of bad luck” reporting on a rich bouquet of 787 issues.
            Or look at Airbus crash reporting that still talks about product faults where the real cause sat at the controls. On the other side notice the racistic preamble preparing the field for the Korean 777 crash.
            Boeing press protection has not worn off
            they just produce so much bad and inane stuff
            that more negative stuff escapes into the wild.
            Which has repercussion.
            ( bedause of that ) Boeing is in the process of loosing the “managed share value” tool.
            no longer oh and ahh for smoke and mirrors stuff but “FIRE” calls.

          • @Uwe / @Frank

            I don’t see this particular thread as being about media coverage at all.
            The aviation site that Frank quoted from just lists dry facts, which are categorized into different “bins”. Even though not part of a rigorous mathematical analysis, Frank has discovered an interesting and significant trend that deserves further investigation and comment.

            Maybe someone from CNBC is reading Frank’s posts and preparing a Headliner CNBC Exclusive to be aired this week…who knows? I’d certainly like to hear BA’s explanation.

          • @ Bryce:
            Frank wrote on 9.April:”This isn’t about design dates, fleet size or reason the crash happened. It’s about MEDIA COVERAGE.”

            i.e. it seems to be about media coverage (too) ?

            US centric media (owned, controlled, advert dependent) are much more into polarized/(blatantly)partisan publishing.

          • @Uwe

            First, some questions:

            “You are IMU commenting from a filtered view.”

            What filtered view is that, please?

            “But in increasing amounts in the last two decades they produced so much negative material that even with that protection they appear in your judgement as overreported.”

            Did you not read what I wrote?

            “it seems to be about media coverage (too) ?”

            Yes, it is about media coverage.

            Here – let me try again, this time in point form:

            1) Elsewhere, not here, the claim was made that the media is unfair to Boeing, doing so to drive down share price

            2) The OP posted a link to an accident reporting site, AV Herald

            3) The claim was further made that Airbus had just as many problems as Boeing, but it just wasn’t reported

            4) I investigated the claim, using the source.

            Methodology

            I searched on crashes and crashes only. They are the most significant event, that is reported on. Crash, bang, deaths…

            I went back 4 pages of crashes, which equaled 12 years.

            I counted Boeing crashes and Airbus crashes.

            Results

            Over the 12 year period, from 2010 to 2022; Airbus had a total of 6 crashes and Boeing had a total of 21 crashes – 3.5 times the rate.

            Conclusion

            IMO with a rate that much higher than Airbus, the media scrutiny is justified.

            I don’t know if I can be any clearer than that.

          • @Frank.
            so we are both barking up the same tree.
            Sorry I misunderstood you.
            ( with your data the difference in quality is even larger than I would have assigned.)

            My position is that Boeing ( and other US manufacturers have been pimped + in the media for a long time while foreign entities often got judicious hazings.
            IMHO Boeing reporting is still not as negative as would be justified in the evolved situation.

          • @Uwe

            “( with your data the difference in quality is even larger than I would have assigned.)”

            You can thank Bryce for that 🙂

            I guess he just wanted to be thorough

  28. Jet fuel prices are skyrocketing!
    From oilprice.com:

    “…jet fuel traded at ~$320/b in New York on Apr. 4 ($7.61/g), a massive ~$200+ premium to crude feedstock prices. The jet fuel premium is currently ~10x larger than any premium seen in the past 30yrs.”

    No relief any time soon, because:
    “- Diesel and jet fuel stocks are at historic lows, and seasonally-adjusted inventory draws are large and accelerating.
    – Jet fuel consumption is poised to accelerate into summer with a return to international travel.
    – High natural gas prices will lead to “gas-to-oil” switching in Europe and Asia.
    – The Russia / Ukraine war will reduce distillate supply, as Russia exports ~900kb/d of diesel fuel and ~900kb/d of residual feedstocks, which are largely upgraded into diesel by European and Chinese refiners.
    – Refinery operating costs are increasing, particularly in Europe.”

  29. Frank, you’re on to something…this is evidently Fields Medal material 🥳

    It certainly is an interesting analysis. LNA has many thousands of subscribers, and there must be quite a few BA corporate suscribers among them — perhaps one of them has a plausible explanation? 😏

  30. Yes, good comparison work from Frank. I’m sure there’s
    an Explainer out there who can make Boeing’s case.

    😉

    • Bill, I’m just looking to see if all the attention Boeing is getting is merited and secondly – is Airbus being held to the same standard?

      When defenders of any ilk (we saw this extensively during the previous admin in the US) don’t like what they hear – they often spout off about media bias. There is media bias in the world today, it’s big business.

      But the numbers suggest that the attention on Boeing is not as overblown, as is suggested.

  31. Very surprised- and a kittle concerned – nobody here has theorized as to the AF 777 loss of control at landing in Paris.
    It seems ready made for the usual,WAGs and SWAG# from this group.
    No conspiracy theory (5G interference anyone?), no pilot error, no Boeing systems FUBAR ,…
    WE MUST BE SLIPPING!

    • Well, *of course* it was a BA systems FUBAR…but those are so common nowadays that this particular one doesn’t merit any special attention as yet 😏

  32. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-08/boeing-investors-urged-to-vote-against-chairman-by-glass-lewis

    -> April 6 report faults Kellner’s oversight of 737 Max development as then-chairman of the audit committee
    “We believe he is in part responsible for the board’s failings in regard to its risk assessment and management. Given these factors, we question whether this director should continue to serve on the company’s board and as its chair.”
    Kellner is third-longest serving director at 11 years; CEO Dave Calhoun is No. 1 at 13 years
    Recommends against advisory vote on executive compensation, citing “poor overall design”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.