Every once in a while, it’s necessary to catch up on this and that….
April 11, 2022, © Leeham News: The announcement drew little notice because the topic wasn’t sexy. De Havilland Canada last week said that Norway’s Wideroe Airlines became the first operator to sign up to extend the service life of its Dash 8-100s from 120,000 cycles to 160,000 cycles. The carrier previously contracted to extend the life of the Dash 8 from 80,000 cycles to 120,000 cycles.
“Combined, our two Extended Service Programs add another 30 to 40+ years to the operational life of Dash 8-100 aircraft – that’s double the original service life of the aircraft,” DHC’s Robert Mobilio, Vice President Engineering, said in a statement.
The move is significant because there are no replacement aircraft in the 30-seat category. The market for airplanes this size is very small, and any replacement aircraft would likely be beyond the financial reach of many regional carriers. Extending the life of these airplanes—for an astonishing 30-40 years—is the only viable alternative.
DHC is separately evaluating hybrid technology, with engine maker Pratt & Whitney Canada, to make the Dash 8 series more environmentally friendly. A Dash 8-100 will be used for the hybrid-electric demonstrator.
A few stories emerged recently that the Boeing 737-10 MAX may not get certified this year. Boeing acknowledges the challenge of completing all the requirements for the 10 MAX but thinks it can still make the targeted deadline of Dec. 31. Others aren’t so sure.
One source with knowledge of the interaction between Europe’s EASA and the USA’s Federal Aviation Administration indicates that a year-end certification seems ambitious. This source also suggested that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a new type certification might be required. If so, certification could be pushed out an entire year.
This isn’t all. While Boeing long ago acknowledged that certification of the 777X is now targeted for late 2023, many—including Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline—think it will slip to 2024. From the same source as with the 737-10, LNA is told a new type certificate might be required for the 777X. If true, this could push certification to 2025, this source says.
Finally, caught up in all this is the certification of the Airbus A321XLR. Equipped with an entirely new center tank fuel system, replacing auxiliary fuel tanks used on the A321ceo, A321neo standard, and A321neo LR, there is some push that the XLR needs a new type certificate instead of an Amended certificate.
We don’t pretend to know anything definitive. But we can say that new-vs-Amended type certificates have been an issue long before the MAX crisis. Airbus argued that the 747-8 was so different from the original 747-100 that it should require a new type certificate. Airbus lost that argument. Of course, the same could be said for the 737. The 737 NG and MAX were so different from the original 737 and even from the Classic that some believed new type certificates should be required. This, too, was a no-go.
The future of the 10 MAX and 777X certifications remains one to watch carefully. Also, for the A321XLR.
I’m not a fan of New York City at all but going there has its advantages. I was at the Wings Club on March 30 for a book signing of Air Wars, The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing. Here’s the buzz from New York:
Air Wars is available in paperback and eBook form at Amazon and in paperback at Barnes & Noble.
What about certification of the MAX-7…how’s that proceeding?
Presumably it has lower priority than the MAX-10, because of the lower order numbers; on the other hand, a prominent/key customer like Southwest is complaining ever more loudly about the lack of progress…
I would expect it has a lower priority. After all even if Southwest is complaining, what are they going to do? Better focus on customers that can walk away.
If the MAX-7 isn’t certified by Dec. 31, then Southwest will have to switch to something else — because it’s very doubtful that BA will bother EICAS-modifying a sub-model with such low orders.
Southwest could switch to the MAX-8. Or it could defect to Airbus, and keep the old fleet running a little longer. Since it’s likely that there’s a recession coming — probably accompanied by a wave of deferrals — there may even be some early slots up for grabs.
Wow – you think the A220 might be back on the table?
Well, based on what @AP_Robert posted below, it sort-of(-ish) looks like BA may actually be able to pull this one off before the Dec. 31 deadline.
However, how many times have we previously been told that the MAX would be certified “next month”, or that 787 deliveries would resume “very soon”? Where BA is concerned, a bird in the hand is worth any number in the bush.
If the deadline is missed: yes, I then think that everything could be back on the table.
These endless delays are really p*ssing customers off! I wonder does anyone at BA care about that? Customers do, actually, have a choice.
Re: “Wow – you think the A220 might be back on the table?”
Peak production per year to date for the A220 has been 48 in 2019 and 50 in 2021 according to Wikipedia. In other words, in the peak production years, the number of A220’s made in a year has been roughly the same as the number of A32X’s that Airbus makes in a month or the number of 737’s that Boeing makes in a month.
Following are Southwest’s contracted 737 deliveries for years 2022 through 2024 according to their 2-7-22 SEC 10K.
YEAR / MAX 7 Firm / MAX 7 or 8 Options / Firm + Options
2022: 72 / 42 /114
2023: 52 / 38 / 90
2024: 30 / 56 / 86
To believe that the A220 is or was ever seriously on the table for Southwest, you have to believe that in addition to the approximately 50 per year A220’s that Airbus is currently producing for all customers combined, Airbus would have been able to commit to 86 to 114 ADDITIONAL A220 firm orders plus options per year for Southwest in years 2022 to 2024.
Airbus is doing a slow ramp up in production, but the capacity of the two facilities (Mobile & Mirabel) is 14 per month (4 & 10) for 168 per year and it’s expected to get there by 2025.
Could suppliers open up the faucet and supply AB with everything in the next year? No.
EIS for the LUV Max 7’s was initially expected to be in 2019, with the launch of the type in 2016 – so BA had 3 years to get things together. The groundings pushed everything back and now it’s 6 years later.
On reflection – Boeing gave LUV an awful lot of concessions, including a cheque for $460 million – because of the Max. Boeing paid a lot to keep them as clients. They would know they’re not going to get 72 – A220’s in 2022, but more likely if they gave Airbus the 3 years (now 6 years) it gave Boeing, they’d have them in 2025.
So yah, by 2025 – they could get their 72.
There is another string to this bow, though;
Boeing lost the A220-100 case but Airbus would have to be able to prove that the A220-300, at the very least, breaks even on a LUV contract – otherwise they might get hit with another suit by BA. They’d have to do this because they would need to be able to build some of the -300’s in Mirabel, as Mobile tops out at 4/month.
LUV never even approached Airbus about a bid (reportedly), but I think we all know there’s no OEM in the world that can make 72 aircraft for a new client, from square 1 – in 8 months.
2025 is doable.
To think that Southwest doesn’t have the A220 in the back of their mind (at minimum!)
would be foolish. It’s a much better-performing aircraft that also has the advantage of *not being obsolete* for the foreseeable future; can that be said about the Boeing 737MAX? Whether Airbus can deliver them en masse at this moment is not germane.
Let’s turn the question around and talk about what rates BA could achieve with the MAX-7.
The current rate for all MAXs is 31 p/m. There were plans to get to 45, but they look shaky because of new developments in China (see LNA article above this one).
There are 10 times as many orders for the MAX-8 as there are for either of the -7 or -9; so, proportionally, just one twelfth (8%) of production corresponds to the -7, which equates to 3 per month (rounding up), or 36 per year.
BA could, of course, go all-out on -7 production, but that would then p*ss off customers who are waiting for their -8s and -9s.
I don’t believe Boeing will have any trouble getting exemption from 31st Dec deadline for either MAX10 or MAX7. After covid and Ukraine war nobody remembers MAX crashes any more so it is time to go back to business as usual, at least for politicians. Campaign contributions must flow.
The first opponent in Congress has already aired his views.
If the MAX-7 needed a new Type Certificate, that would require all SW Pilots to undergo more training.
Why would the Max 7 need a new type certificate . It is literally just a small fuselage reduction of the Max 8. Nothing else.
Its totally unnecessary to have additional training for Max 8 pilots to fly the Max 7.
“It is literally just a small fuselage reduction of the Max 8. Nothing”
If that’s the case, then why is its certification taling so long?
The 737-7 certificate should have higher priority because its actually achievable. The B737-10 has significant engineering changes.
Re: “What about certification of the MAX-7…how’s that proceeding?
Presumably it has lower priority than the MAX-10, because of the lower order numbers;…”
MAX 7 certification is much further along than MAX 10 certification and will happen first. MAX 7 certification will not require the new synthetic angle of attack system, and MAX 7 flight testing was completed in October 2021, while MAX 10 flight testing is still in progress. Also, MAX 10 customers are not expecting deliveries until 2023; however, Southwest, as of its 2-7-22 SEC 10K filing, was expecting 72 MAX 7’s in 2022. Seven MAX 7’s have already been completed, long ago, and 3 MAX 7 fuselages have just recently been shipped from Spirit to the final assembly line in Renton, which would seem to suggest that Boeing thinks it will be able to start MAX 7 deliveries soon.
Below is an excerpt from the 11-14-21 Flight Global story at the link after the excerpt.
“Boeing expects to begin deliveries of the 737 Max 7 in 2022 followed by the Max 10 around a year later.
Flight test activities on the 737-7 are “complete”, Mike Fleming, Boeing senior vice-president for Max return to service and commercial derivative programmes, told a Dubai air show press conference today.
“We are getting very close from our perspective to having our work done on that airplane,” he says.
He says the company is finalising the required certification paperwork to present to the Federal Aviation Administration.
While he cautions that it will be the regulator that “decides when it’s completed”, he adds: “We still expect to get that airplane certified and make deliveries in the 2022 timeframe.”
Flight tests of the 737-10 began in June. Boeing will subsequently implement changes to the angle-of-attack system, a modification mandated by aviation safety authorities as part of the Max’s recertification following its grounding.”
The following is from Southwest’s 2-7-22 SEC 10K.
The delivery schedule below reflects contractual commitments, although the timing of future deliveries is uncertain. The delivery schedule for the 7 is dependent on the FAA issuing required certifications and approvals to Boeing and the Company. The FAA will ultimately determine the timing of the 7 certification and entry into service, and the Company therefore offers no assurances that current estimations and timelines are correct.
As of December 31, 2021,the Company had firm deliveries and options for Boeing 737 MAX 7 and 737 MAX 8 aircraft as follows:
7 Firm Orders / 8 Firm Orders / -7 or -8 Options / Total
2022: 72 / 0 / 42 / 114
2023: 52 / 0 / 38 / 90
2024: 30 / 0 / 56 / 86
2025: 30 / 0 / 56 / 86
2026: 15 / 15 / 40 70
2027: 15 / 15 / 6 / 36
2028: 15 / 15 / 0 / 30
2029: 20 / 30 / 0 / 50
2030: 15 / 45 / 0 / 60
2031: 0 / 10 / 0 / 10
Total: 264 / 130 / 238 / 632
A quick question… in your posting, at the beginning it mentions, the synthetic AOA not being required…
“MAX 7 certification will not require the new synthetic angle of attack system, and MAX 7 flight testing was completed in October 2021”
but, later on in your posting, Mike Fleming, Boeing senior vice-president for Max return to service mentions ..
“Flight tests of the 737-10 began in June. Boeing will subsequently implement changes to the angle-of-attack system,
a modification mandated by aviation safety authorities as part of the Max’s re-certification following its grounding.”
Is this just a timing issue on when the new synthetic AOA will be implemented, or has the requirements changed?
Re: “Is this just a timing issue on when the new synthetic AOA will be implemented, or has the requirements changed?”
What I have read (I searched for but could not find a good single source to link to), is that FAA thought having MCAS cross check the 2 AOA sensors the MAX currently has would be OK, but EASA wanted a third sensor. The compromise agreed to was that a third synthetic AOA input would be developed during MAX 10 flight testing for use on the MAX 10 and then later retrofitted to previous MAX models. Note that the 737 MAX 200 was certified by EASA without the synthetic AOA. What I remember is consistent with the following excerpts from the 11-18-21 Aviation Week Article at the link after the excerpts.
“Among FAA-mandated changes Boeing made to the MCAS is a way to ensure the two sensors compare AOA readings and are within 5.5 deg. before triggering nose-down stabilizer inputs. Although the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) originally pushed for the addition of a third sensor to calculate a reading independently to supplement the two existing ones, it subsequently agreed last January to allow the MAX to return to service after Boeing committed to develop a “synthetic” sensor pulling AOA data from different sources.”
“The enhanced system will monitor five different parameters “that will help us determine whether we have an erroneous signal or not,” Fleming said at the Dubai Airshow, updating Boeing’s progress. “And then, if we determine that we have an erroneous signal, we’ll suppress that, and you won’t get the issue.”
The revised system will be flight-tested on the 737-10 in 2022 and is likely to be rolled in as a retrofit to the MAX following certification of the stretched derivative, planned for 2023. Flight tests of the baseline 737-10, which began with the first flight on June 18, are going well, Fleming says. A third test aircraft focused on cabin and interior systems evaluations is eventually expected to join the two now in the program, he notes.”
I don’t have the links but I remember (possibly wrong) that the Synthetic system would be back fit or at least fit on MAX as they came off the line once it was certified.
I do not remember what hardware is needed, programing would be easy enough though it would require a solid run through to ensure its good. One good bit is that with two computes 737 has to have two different programmer groups doing the software. If there ever was an error in one the backup likely would not have it. Ergo 7 computes on an Airbus to ensure the fault tree can drop them out per fault checks vs the vote out.
I think the comment above is doing what’s sometimes referred to as “tap-dancing around the issue”- which is the obvious need
for a deeper, more resilient system to back up
the ill-fated MCAS; which itself is a kludge..
“oh, we’ll do it later / should be fine.. “
Patrick Ky of EASA struck a deal that synthetic air data would be on the B737-10 in lieu of the 3rd AOA sensor they thought it needed. Thereafter the other MAX would receive it as well in good time. This MCAS software changes were the short term solution and synthetic long term. Entirely reasonable as Boeing had experience in synthetic air data from the 787 program.
@anyone .. Is the Angle-of-Attack sensors on the 737 used for any other purpose / system other than the Autopilot/Speed Trim System/MCAS and cockpit display? I know that other planes may use it for input to their fuel balance (i.e. the KC-46 tanker). I know that the new spoiler system uses certain flap settings to change the AOA of the aircraft, but, I’m assuming the AOA sensors aren’t involved in any way? Is there any other system that might take input from the AOA sensors, or output into their calculations into the air-data computer? Thanks.
Re: ” Is the Angle-of-Attack sensors on the 737 used for any other purpose / system other than the Autopilot/Speed Trim System/MCAS and cockpit display? ”
I am the wrong person to ask about how the fancy electronics and computer displays may be using AOA sensors; however, I know that historically the main and primary use of AOA sensors in commercial jet transports was to for stall warning and stick shaker/pusher activation. AOA gives the most direct indication of margin to stall but doesn’t tell you whether your aircraft is in a near vertical climb or a steep dive. Keep in mind that pitch and angle of attack are not the same thing. An aircraft in a nose down spin has a large nose down pitch but is also stalled and thus has a large nose up angle of attack. A jet fighter pilot doing a loop can stall their aircraft if they pull up too hard on the yoke at any point in the loop, i.e. nose vertically up, upside down , or nose vertically down. An AOA indicator is thus definitely a valuable thing for a fighter pilot doing a loop, but traditionally seen as of less value to a commercial pilot keeping all maneuvers gentle enough to keep from spilling the complimentary soft drinks. Commercial pilots are typically taught to control their aircraft with power settings and attitude using the gyro instruments or their electronic equivalents as their attitude reference (artificial horizon etc.) and by flying the airspeeds in the approved procedures in the AFM AOA figures prominently in their instrument scans only in the event of an upset, stall warning, or ground proximity alert.
The following is from the October 2000 of Boeing Aero.
“AOA can be used for many indications on the flight deck to improve flight crew awareness of airplane state relative to performance limits. Dedicated AOA indicators have been used on military aircraft for many years, but this form of display has not been used often on commercial airplanes. On Boeing models currently in production, AOA is used to drive stall warning (stick shaker), stall margin information on airspeed indicators, and the pitch limit indicator (PLI) on the primary attitude displays. AOA information is combined with other data and displayed as an integral part of flight deck displays.”
“A dedicated AOA indicator shown on the primary flight display (PFD) recently has been developed in cooperation with airline customers. The new indicator is offered as an option on the 737-600/-700/-800/-900, 767-400, and 777 at this time.
During the development of the new indicator, discussions with airlines, the NTSB, and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pilots and engineers provided a unique opportunity to examine potential uses of AOA and the many existing uses that have evolved in recent decades along with advances in display and indication technology.”
“During takeoff climb, there is no single target AOA to fly that will guarantee certified takeoff performance. Takeoff-climb AOA will vary with such factors as airplane gross weight, thrust, altitude, flap setting, and CG. Takeoff-climb speeds (hence, AOA) are limited by stall speed, tail clearance, and minimum control speeds. The higher speed and greater thrust of an all-engine takeoff reduce the AOA significantly relative to an engine-out takeoff at the engine-out climb speed (V2 ).
The key to optimal takeoff performance is to “fly the speeds.” The takeoff flight path that guarantees clearance of all obstacles ahead is calculated based on flight at these speeds. Following rotation at VR , V2 is the resulting engine-out speed at an altitude of 35 ft and is usually slower than that for best lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio or angle of climb. However, if the nose were to be kept down and the airplane accelerated to higher speeds, short-term climb performance would be sacrificed and a close-in obstacle may not be cleared.”
737-7’s and 10’s built or in assembly as of 4-11-2022, according to the web page at the link below. According to this web page, LN’s 7907, 8214, 8241, and 8259 to 8270, are currently on the final assembly line.
LN / Status / Customer / Registration
6744 / Certification Flight Testing / Southwest / N7201S
6798 / Short Term Storage / Southwest / N7202U
7455 / Short Term Storage / Southwest / N7203U
7485 / Pre-Flight Prep /Southwest / N7204U
7510 / Pre-Flight Prep / Southwest / N7205U
7545 / Production Testing / Southwest / N7206U
7570 / Production Testing / Southwest /N7202Z
8139 / Production Testing /BBJ / N733 BA (probably temp reg.)
8285 / Fuselage Arrived at Renton FA / ? /?
8288 /Fuselage Arrived at Renton FA / ? / ?
8291 / Fuselage Arrived at Renton FA / ? / ?
7644 / Certification Testing / United / N27751
7705 / Certification Testing / United / N27752
7935 / Pre-Flight Prep / United / N27753
“A $30bn equity offering to pay down debt is apparently off the table. The stock is trading around $180 vs $250-$300 wanted for the offering”
No surprises there: after the hammering that the stock has received in the past 2 years, the last thing shareholders want now is further stock dilution.
So, what’s the solution?
A new bond issuance would trigger a ratings downgrade; apart from that, the whole bond market is being trashed as a result of ongoing Fed tightening, so a (very) high coupon rate would have to be paid.
Just sitting around waiting for delivery/certification problems to solve themselves causes further cash erosion.
hmm, imagine what they could do with all that money they flushed down the toilet on stock buybacks…
unbelievable corporate malfeasance.
If Boeing doesn’t get it’s price of $250-300 (prolly closer to $300) it’ll have to admit that the shares they bought back at top dollar aren’t really worth that much.
Why would I pay $300 when I could go to market and scoop ’em up at $180? Who knows, a little more bad news and they’ll be even cheaper.
Look at the Q1/Q2 EPS projections in this link and tell me if you see any chance of higher stock prices any time soon…
Analyst ratings are still predominantly “buy” with a consensus 12-month price target of $257, but all analyst ratings are currently undergoing revision in light of the increased recession/inflation risks that have emerged in recent weeks. I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes a “hold” consensus with a 12-month price target around $150.
Why is Boeing stock even as high as $180 ? What’s the upside? I am not seeing one (other than ‘TBTF’).
Because average financial analysts / investors — without engineering acumen — don’t grasp how truly dire the technical situation is.
A lot of times, you hear talk about a wide moat and a duopoly. There is also the whole ‘Uncle Sam needs them’, part of the TBTF theme.
There are also motivations involved; who has holdings in a particular stock/knows someone with a megaphone, to put out a good word?
If you bought in around $250 last June, thinking all the messes were behind them and are sitting down at $175 today, are you eager for someone to put out bad news? If you know people, you make a phone call…
The technical and financial acumen of experienced analysts ( who do this for a living) far outweigh the uninformed and nebulous words of the amateurs seen on this blog
The financial acumen of the analysts is excellent…but their technical acumen is a different story altogether.
Just watch the interviews on business sites/channels such as CNBC or Bloomberg.
Analysts may have financial acumen, but they certainly do not read Leehamnews…
They are very highly paid, but their analysis is mostly repeating the management stories…
Most of them are convinced that when inventories of finished planes will be delivered, BOEING will be flooded with cash, they are not even aware that the final settlement at delivery is a fraction of the selling price!
Obviously, not one of them is aware of the huge deferred accounts issue for the 787
Very little real research by these guys, they do not deserve their pay!
Lol. Those same guys (and gals) who put a buy rating in late 2018/early 2019 ….
-> “hmm, imagine what they could do with all that money they flushed down the toilet on stock buybacks…”
Turn back the clock or get the DeLorean that can time travel!
The money goes to benefit the stockholders.
Its how the US share ownership system works. The company exists to benefit the owners. Maybe you arent familiar with that system
> The money goes to benefit the stockholders.
Its how the US share ownership system works. The company exists to benefit the owners. <
How's all that workin' out, these days?
How's mcBoeing doing- and how in fact are the great majority of the USian citizenry doing?
What I see today:
Market share in NB gone from 50/50 split to 65/35 or 70/30;
AB has a relative strong financial position;
BA down on its knees while its equity raise went up in smoke.
no, it doesn’t. not really. it provides a short term boost to stock price that helps executives hit their stock price targets for their bonuses.
long term it strips a company of resources that they need for R&D, process improvement, capital and infrastructure investments and (shocker) to survive rainy days….
stock buybacks are what executives who only care about short term stock price do, not the long term good of the company or its investors.
Some companies like to have happy owners, happy workers, happy customers and happy suppliers in a fine balance. Losing “that magic feeling” normally ends years later to lost market share and on a slope towards being bought or chopped up with only a few divisions surviving.
Can we play “20 Questions” again with respect to the potential customer for the cancelled A330-900s and A350s? [see the LNA article above this one]
Let’s see: does the name of the airline begin with an “E”…?
In a matter of incredible twists and turns, maybe Hawaiian is dumping the 787s in favour of an Airbus? As they can actually get delivered?
I’m not sure if that won’t be a bit late with configurations etc.
Very clever of you!
Certainly is a possibility…
“The move is significant because there are no replacement aircraft in the 30-seat category.”
Its coming soon from Germany, D328ECO.
Or used Saab340B’s
A new type certificate always seemed logical for the 777x. Because it has new wings, engines, landing gear, tail, fuselage, cockpit and other flight critical systems. It is a new aircraft and I’m still amazed by all the people that have been denying this for a decade. And how the FAA was made to agree.
For the 737-10 MAX and A321XLR amended TC’s seems more logical. New engines, a stretch, a new fuel tank seem do-able, without getting overambitious on system interactions, similarity and grandfathering of (very) old requirements.
The fuselage is the same, the cockpit is the same too, just a new pilots instrument panel and underlying computer system ( remember the comments about the 737 max still having a 286 generation computer chips)
The new landing gear is the old landing gear just a new supplier, and is already on the existing variants
New tails have been added before without a new cert. A300 and A310. New engines and new wings have been the same for 737NG and A340-500 variants.
Granting Boeing 777x the 77W as certification basis by FAA, caused big eyes and question marks in 2014 already, from anybody with a little aerospace certification background. But they had no chance against Boeings political-industrial power.
777x fuselage: if you enlarge windows, move doors, use different frames, stretch and dramatically change loads (wings) it’s no longer a modified fuselage, but a new one. Boeing knows, now. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-777xs-fuselage-split-dramatically-during-september-stress-test/
777x Cockpit. It’s more a 787 cockpit, not a 77W cockpit.
777x Landing gear, new loads, new dimensions, new supplier, new materials. questions?
777x The tail has new dimensions, shapes, aerodynamic forces, interactions.
I think the bending of certification requirements, facts into desired directions, the overpowering of authorities, self approvals, dismissal of technical complications is what got Boeing into the deep, deep certification trouble it is in today.
At some point (2012-2018) the feeling they could get away with anything took over & stock value/bonusses washed away any writing on the wall. Realities kicked in after.
Admitting you did wrong is usually the first step to healing & improving. But we are not good at that..
Glad you raised that point about the fuselage rupture.
We may not have heard much about it since, but I suspect that that matter has grown a LOONNGG tail behind the scenes. Even if the FAA didn’t care, EASA would still want more data on this issue, and potentially also (substantial) fuselage modifications.
Since the complete fuselage had a full pressure test indicates that they havent done your ‘normal’ amended type certificate.
Quite rightly the new structures have had the full gamut of tests.
The hold ups seem to be with the new computer systems and there was an in flight issue with actuators for the flight control surfaces . Built by a supplier and embedded software by (maybe ?) another contractor. I think this is something Boeing has taken in house.
No doubt the non experts will pile in with their own ( uncertified) gobbledygook
“the cockpit is the same too, just a new pilots instrument panel and underlying computer system ( remember the comments about the 737 max still having a 286 generation computer chips)”
If something is the same – that usually means there are no changes and everything is identical. How you can say, “it’s the same” but it’s different, in the same sentence is quite something.
It’s either new….or it’s the same.
The cockpit framing and structure is the same as before
The change in instrument panel and the computer system underlying it is to be expected after the original was introduced 30 years back.
The newer systems are exactly the sort of thing an amended type certificate can address in very fine detail. Thats what happens with stretched fuselages too ( we arent talking 2 or 3 frames) Concentrate on whats NEW
Its laughable that someone mentioned the larger window area. Windows of course are ‘between frames’, the width of which hasnt changed and are minor changes when you think about it
Really the only one in question is the MAX. That is dated tech. Its well outside modern systems.
The A330 and 777 are newer tech.
Belly tanks are not a new feature.
Personaly (not that the AHJ’s care) I think its something of a coin flip.
I always went with is there enough difference in current regs vs the regs of the time to push it over the edge to new cert?
I can see splitting the difference as well. With all the software changes to the 777 as well as the cut and paste of 787 software into it, fully legitimate to make them run full cert software/flight tests.
I don’t see a belly tank as falling into that same category though I can see Airbus having to meet the latest safety specs (like the wire issue in the MAX, yes it was there but it is a safety aspect).
Route proving and such? No. Cabin proof? With how many different cabins? Yea if you get a new coffee maker then it should be tested to the latest standards, otherwise, no.
“It’s the same, just different.”
Reading corporatist propaganda these days reminds
one of Alice in Wonderland, being urged to believe
Six Impossible Things.. before Breakfast.
But this is the zeitgeist.. happily, it won’t last.
Look at the design window.
A300B, A310, A306 cover less than 15 years
and include significant _Interface_ upgrades: an FMS and ECAM.
compare to 737 where you still work in the same Flintstones environment after 50+ (Jurassic to MAX) years while performance aspects have been carefully pushed ahead leveraging grandfathering.
All that in a world were others have moved forward in a more homogeneous way.
Boeing never much went for an abstract common interface the way Airbus moved into the future.
777 covers 3.5 decades, Classic to X is a major revamp and also changes the Interface to a 787 style cockpit.
Lastly: what relevant safety related certification items have been changed over the product lifetime _where the upgrade avoided compliance by grandfathering_ !
Hmm: in the end the FAA processes that gave B a free ride and Airbus close scrutiny seem to not have had the intended effect in the long run. Certification attacks on Airbus have run their course mostly.
It’s blowback for Boeing now.
It looks as if the recent Malaysian 737-800 pitch anomaly event was caused by Pitot problems:
“Faulty pitot system likely cause of Malaysia Airlines 737 altitude loss”
What is the impact of a new type certificate on the A321XLR? 1 or 2 years?
There may be an order drought in the widebody segment, but narrowbodies seem to be doing okay:
“Airbus Wins 80-aircraft A320neo Order from BOC Aviation” (60 are A321s, of which 10 are XLRs)
“BOC Aviation has ordered 80 A320neo-family narrowbody airliners in a deal that nearly doubles Airbus’s net order count for the year and takes the lessor’s portfolio of owned, managed, and ordered aircraft to 610. The order, which is one of the biggest commercial aircraft deals announced so far in 2022, consists of 10 A321XLRs, 50 A321neos, and 20 A320neos and calls for deliveries to occur from 2027 to 2029.”
BOC is a lessor . Offshoot of Bank of China but based in Singapore
It sounds a little bit like the Max 10 certification is going to be horse traded for the A321XLR certification. Boeing made noises over the tank and now it’ll pay dividends…
That will only work in the EU.
In the US, the Dec. 31 EICAS deadline set by Congress still holds.
What’s the retrofit deadline for the already built and flying -8 and -9 is the bigger question?
As noted above or below, I never saw anything that said one way or the other, just that it would happen (I believe)
> As noted above or below, I never saw anything that said one way or the other, just that it would happen (I believe) <
The above comment would get today's High-Weirdness Award for Obscuration, except I'm not sure its writer knew what he
meant by it, either. 😉
April 11, 2022
What’s the retrofit deadline for the already built and flying -8 and -9 is the bigger question? <
That is the big question, isn't it? My impression is that until the MAX-10 is so outfitted, then the currently operating MAXes don't need to be, either. If that's correct,
then it benefits Boeing to stall (heh!) as long as possible.. unless another MAX crashes, of course.
It is sad that one nation has to weaponize “anything” in reach. A wide range of international _neutral_ organizations have been subverted and misused later on.
I know Mike Fleming. He’s not a pleasant person to work for and very good at talking from both sides of his mouth.
It’s clear that Boeing management of certification (and their financials) is a train wreck and following the CFR for Product Change Rules is a whole new paradigm they just can’t seem to grasp. Technically I bet they think that the FAA and Washington will bow to political pressure and allow an exemption, once again, for the mad max -10 to certify under the grandfather clause (whatever that is!). EASA tho will not sway!
Meanwhile since 787’s are parked outside waiting….. waiting and waiting the paint is starting to degrade, CFRP without paint is a disaster. Boeing is not set up to strip paint, so how will they repaint 787’s will be interesting and receive an airworthiness ticket from the FAA.
Reference this link:
Nothing Airbus could do to Boeing is as damaging as Boeing Management is to Boeing.
You could not have suborned or put in place 5th columi9nst that would have been as effective as Boeing management not only shooting the company in the foot but using a Mini Mac 10 and milling both feet off.
A thousand years from now they will be using Boeing Management of this era as the classic example of how not to do it (not that it will deter anyone of course)
You could not write fiction that would be believable, but there it is.
There was a famous US Football game that they called Snatching Defeat from the jaws of victor (Cowboys vs the Dolphin in Dallas snow game)
I still can’t believe it, but there it is.
That’s the Leon Lett game, isn’t it?
Missed field goal, leave the ball alone. Game done.
This precise phenomenon (UV damage of composite materials) is why Qatar risks a finding of “lack of exercising of all due care” vis-à-vis the paint-damaged A350s that it’s just allowing to sit outdoors in the desert sun and sand. It was offered free re-painting for all frames involved: it should have accepted this offer — and then filed its suit.
Yes, the main difference being the Qatar A350’s were, at one time, fleet airworthy and operational making money. This 787 in this article was built in September 2020…. 18 months ago!
With a customer that needs the jets. But here they sit.
Airplanes, like automobiles, need to be flown/systems exercised to keep them healthy. Otherwise in the elements seals, fluids, tires, PAINT, degrade. And don’t get me going about fuel systems building algae and contaminated especially here in the extremely wet PNW.
Oh yeah, it’s an absolute disaster.
Bad enough for the 787s in inventory — and similarly for the ca. 16 777Xs that are sitting on the tarmac — but a total drama for the 737MAX inventory, some of which has been sitting in parking lots for 3 years now.
By the way: don’f forget insect damage!
Insects are one thing. The big problem up here in the PNW are rats and mice crawling into wheel wells!
Many of the mad max’s are parked along the Duwamish river waterway.
Airplanes stored in the desert of Victorville have the snake problem.
American Philistine! This is an art installation by French artist “Christo”. 🙂
Oh yeah, it’s an absolute disaster.
Bad enough for the 787s in inventory — and similarly for the ca. 16 777Xs that are sitting on the tarmac — but a total drama for the 737MAX inventory, some of which has been sitting in parking lots for 3 years now.
By the way: don’f forget insect damage!
Your analogy on Boeing mgmt is spot on.
The NFL game you referred to was called the famous ‘Ice Bowl’ (NFL championship game 1967) with the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers, temp was about -20.
Quote: “I was at the Wings Club on March 30 for a book signing of Air Wars, The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing.”
I just received my own copy of Air Wars that I had ordered on Amazon. My first impression after opening the bag was that I was holding a high quality book in my hands. First of all it as a relatively big book, not for the number of pages, which amounts to 253, but because of its size which is much larger than I expected. I am also impressed by the paper quality and the printing. A quick glance inside tells me it’s going to be a fascinating read and also very informative.
I agree about ‘Air Wars’, which I’m reading at leisure, mostly in the morning with a cup of coffee in hand.
It’s good to have a hard copy of it, in my opinion.
My prevailing impression is Boeing had plenty of warning about Airbus’s potential as a real competitor-
which they repeatedly ignored.
Upton Sinclair’s maxim again comes to mind:
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something,
when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
How’s that Boeing NMA/NBA/NSA cutting-edge competitor against Airbus coming along, anyway?
More prosaically, any news on resumption of Boeing 787 deliveries? This is April , right?
I’m wondering what the current “guidance” is from said esteemed and erudite Wall Street analysts RE: Boeing 787 resumption of deliveries (current production, for those slow to understand); Boeing 737MAX deliveries to China; Boeing 737MAX10 certification in general ; and Boeing 777-X
certification and [eventual] delivery ?
I won’t mention the by-now quaint idea of a *new Boeing aircraft* that might in fact be able to compete with something like the A321XLR, which itself is nothing new in terms of technology.. kudos
to Airbus for staying in fighting shape, even with no comp around.
Reading further into ‘Air Wars’, it sure looks to me like Boeing is going the way of McDonnell Douglas when it comes to the commercial passenger aircraft market, and with nary a whimper. Odd.. unless something else is up. 😉
I think its essential for healthy competition and innovation there are at least 2 civil aircraft suppliers / conglomerates in the West. The balance sure is disturbed, The better you look, the more clear it becomes. Maybe Collins Aerospace combined with Spirit can play a role.
-> I’m wondering what the current “guidance” is from said esteemed and erudite Wall Street analysts ….
No doubt most would only regurgitate mgmt’s guidance to maintain access/business relationship between client and more profitable IBs.
Quoting Bill7: “I’m wondering what the current “guidance” is from said esteemed and erudite Wall Street analysts.”
It took me a long while to understand why the stock was remaining relatively high despite Boeing’s predicament. It’s relatively simple to understand after all.
Boeing cannot fail; not because it is “too big to fail” but simply because it is in a duopoly and operators need all the aircraft that can be produced, wether they come from Airbus or Boeing.
And all these Boeing aircraft, the ones on order as well as those that are sitting on the tarmac, are worth more than the GDP of many countries. In addition to that Boeing is one of the few remaining aerospace suppliers of the US government.
That being said, Boeing could still have to restructure because it’s accumulated debt might eventually become too costly to service. But if they ever get to that point restructuring is something they could get over with relatively easily, simply because in this day and age Airbus cannot supply the whole world by itself.
There are a couple of adders to that and it should be understood clearly all the emotional rhetoric aside (the sky is falling). Clearly aspects are Boeing management failures. Many can be righted with the right Management moves though its may not happen real soon. You have two years to make progress then you no longer can blame the previous managements (aka Calhoun garbage) and you being to get the looks and 3 – 5 years you are given the boot which times out to Calhoun’s retirement (maybe a bit sooner)
While its dated, the 737-8 is competitive against the A320NEO. Supplemented by the -9/-10, its a good lineup. You can buy those and be equally competitive.
Boeing has a lot of MAX that can be delivered sooner than Airbus.
The 787 is equally a good aircraft and at some point that too will start getting delivered. Yes its insane how long its taking.
That leaves the 777X as an open. It and the A330NEO are on par with equal number of orders (and how much Airbus is willing to cut price for that Air Asia ridiculous aspect of kicking the order down the runway that has finally come to a halt.
Timelines for this stuff run out to 10 years which is a lifetime. There is nothing coming for the Soviet Union now nor China. Saving grace for Boeing is only one competitor as noted and the ability to shift and increase production is 2-5 years out.
‘There are a couple of adders to that and it should be understood clearly all the emotional rhetoric aside (the sky is falling).’
No one ever said the sky was falling – just a couple of Max’s.
“Boeing has a lot of MAX that can be delivered sooner than Airbus.”
Yah – there’s a reason they’re available…
It seems that airlines prefer the A320Neo family, 2 to 1 – to the Max. There’s a reason you can go onto a used car lot and have your pick of any Jeep Patriot or Compass, but try to find a Toyota 4Runner.
“Saving grace for Boeing is only one competitor as noted and the ability to shift and increase production is 2-5 years out.”
I disagree – this is past BA vs AB now. This is a credit card problem for Boeing, which is why they quietly sought out $30 billion for equity.
Boing paid $2.7 billion in interest last year. From a revenue standpoint, they have to sell $27 billion in aircraft at a 10% margin (which they haven’t gotten since 2018, btw) to cover interest payments, alone.
$27 billion is also ~50% of the revenue BCA made, in their best year ever (once again 2018), when they sold 800 aircraft.
That’s why they’re trying to wipe out $30 billion in debt, so they can get rid of $1.5 billion in interest payments and get their head above water.
Q1 deliveries just came out: 95 aircraft (86 Max’s), which translates to 400 for the year. Another ~$700 million in interest to be paid , over the same period.
The company’s Q1 results will be out on April 27.
Thanks for the above informed comment.
“Boeing has a lot of MAX that can be delivered sooner than Airbus.”
Lol. I beg to differ: why doesn’t BA deliver all the MAX it has sitting on the ground? A lack of will or a lack of capability??
You know, that statement; ‘the market is too big for only one OEM’ deserves to have a look.
Although it’s impacting the aviation industry, it’s difficult to predict how the Ukraine invasion will affect things, so we’ll just put it on the side, for a second.
The best year Boeing ever had, was in 2018 – before the Max groundings and pandemic. It delivered ~800 aircraft and had record revenues. Of that 800, some 580 were 737’s. Page 12…
Airbus, in 2018 – also delivered ~800 aircraft. Also a record year…
646 were narrowbodies.
Total narrow-body deliveries in 2018 from both; 1226, in a banner year.
Airbus has been talking about ramping up production to 70 a month, on the A320Neo line and 14 a month, on the A220 line. 84 NB aircraft produced a month, gets you to 1008.
Are there a lot of moving parts to get there?
Boeing better be careful here. They’ve got a 60 year old design up against the newest aircraft in the skies (A220) and the best selling NB of all time, and they have nothing to match up at the ends of the market.
Funny thing – everyone says Airbus can’t handle the demand all by themselves (amongst competition reasons, which is true) but when they talk about a plan to bump production to 70, all of a sudden you get a rumble about how this is a bad thing, most noticeably from lessors, who stand to lose leverage from airlines. No middleman ever likes to get cut out, when they can profit off of scarcity.
From a production/in service side:
This is the planespotters production list, sorted by delivery date, most recent deliveries:
The Max 8 has aircraft that have been delivered to lessors, then stored. Arctic Aviation, SMBC, MSFL, Boeing Capital, ICBC, AerCap – going back to 2021. Just go back a page or two.
Lessors are having no such trouble placing their A320’s with clients:
It seems that airlines aren’t gagging to get their hands on a Max. Some can be had, if you want them…right away. Airlines still have a few aircraft parked, due to the pandemic – by it doesn’t seem that any lessor has an A320Neo sitting around, stored.
Er, if the certification for the MAX-10 is done from scratch, on a fresh start, doesn’t that effectively define the design date, i.e. it’s now too different an aircraft for Grandfathering, and it is now effectively a new design?
And, if I’ve picked things up properly, weren’t there quite large changes between the design standards that applied in the 1960s (original 737) and those that apply for a Whole New Aircraft today?
To me it sounds illogical if they were to say “we have to certify this from scratch” and “We’re going to certify it to 1960’s standards”. If the design’s certification can’t be grandfathered to cover the -10 iteration, then why should the design standards be grandfathered in (if that’s what’s actually being done).
Anyone out there know for sure what is actually on the cards, e.g. is the design so altered that it complies with modern standards?
The current design doesn’t have EICAS.
Nor does it have 3 AoA sensors (or equivalents).
And it isn’t FBW.
Such shortcomings belong to a bygone era.
Yeah that is pretty classical lack of wisdom opinion, just not founded in reality.
I had a lot of machinery that was so called obsolete and it did the job just fine.
All that wiz bang modern stuff and the A320NEO does not do the job any better than the MAX-8/9/10 .
They wanted to replace two perfectly good cast iron sectional boilers at work to. (one had a crack in a section and no replacement section)
Yep , just cut one section out and any HVAC mechanic could fix it (without going to the factory school).
Flips side was the modern Viesman Low Loss Boilers that no one could ever get tuned to work right. We had to have 4 of them to be sure we had one that worked.
Lot of A320 types lost when they thought any pilot could manage it.
Always a flip side to a record.
‘All that wiz bang modern stuff and the A320NEO does not do the job any better than the MAX-8/9/10 .’
I think some airlines would disagree with you, being that the type is down 2 to 1 on orders, but what do they know, right? They only fly the things…
‘I had a lot of machinery that was so called obsolete and it did the job just fine.’
Well heck – let’s start up an airline with DC-8’s & 727’s. They did the job just fine, no? Should be easy to find parts for ’em too! I really like the L-1011…we should try to get our hands on some of those, as well…
‘Lot of A320 types lost when they thought any pilot could manage it.’
Yah – it’s not like the 737 was ever grounded for crashes, or anything like that – right?
And how many A320s or A330s have done sudden plunges even with FBW and 3 AOA sensors
Theres been situations where 2 sensors have been faulty and ‘outvoted’ the remaining correct one.
The actual pilots are still responsible for the flying no matter what the sensors do or dont say. Pilot error is far away the leading cause of accidents , miles ahead of sensor error. Its only a topic of speculation because of the Max 8 crashes and that was underlying cause of the MCAS systemic faults
Hey Duke – you know what the really nice thing about the internet is? That unsubstantiated claims can be investigated!
So this is Aviation Herald, and they list crashes:
Recently, I’ve had the pleasure of going through 12 years of crashes, back to 2010 – concerning Boeing and Airbus aircraft.
Well – over those 12 years there, have been 6 Airbus crashes:
Egyptair, bomb on board
PIA, landing with gear up
MetroJet, bomb on board
Germanwings, pilot suicide
UPS, hit trees, fatigue – pilot error
Not an A320/330 sensor or AoA plunge crash among them.
So if you’d be so kind – could you head over to AV Herald and list out the reasons for the 21 Boeing crashes over the same time period.
I know it’s 3.5 times more work, but that’s Boeing for you!!
Plane crashes broken down by model
Here are the Airbus, Boeing, Douglas and McDonnell-Douglas types listed in the link posted above by Richard Davenport sorted from lowest to highest fatal crash rate per million flights. Boeing haters: Note that although the 737 MAX is dead last, for obvious reasons, 4 of the safest 5 are Boeing types, and that the 737-600 / 700 / 800 / 900 rank slightly ahead of the Airbus A318 / A319 / A320 / A321 at 0.07 fatal crashes per million flights vs. 0.09.
Boeing 747-400: 0.06
Boeing 737-600/ 700/ 800 / 900: 0.07
Airbus A318 / A319 / A320 / A321: 0.09
Boeing 737-300/400/500: 0.15
Boeing 777: 0.18
Airbus A330: 0.19
Boeing 757: 0.22
Boeing 737 (All Models): 0.24
Boeing 767: 0.28
Airbus A300-600: 0.30
Airbus A300 (All Models): 0.46
Boeing 727: 0.50
Airbus A300: 0.61
Boeing 737-100/200: 0.62
DC10 / MD 10: 0.64
Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP: 1.02
Airbus A310: 1.35
Boeing 737 MAX 7/8/9/10: 3.08
Footnotes From the Original:
The following airliner models are ranked by the rate of fatal passenger events per million flights. Only flights involving at least one passenger death are included. Excluded would be events where the only fatalities were to crew members, hijackers, saboteurs, stowaways, or people outside of the aircraft. Also excluded are aircraft models have no fatal events involving airline passengers:
• Airbus: A220, A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A340, A350, A380
• Boeing: 717, 747-8, 787
• Embraer: ERJ 135, ERJ 140, ERJ 145
Please note the following for the estimated number of flights:
– ATR models are current through 31 December 2014.
– 737 is current through March 2019.
– All other models are current through December 2017.
@RD / @AP
Frank’s analysis looked at *recent* years (since 2010), and also only at *crashes* (a subset of “incidents”). He gave a complete list of crashes for both OEMs. Go and take a look at it.
The outstanding work we have come to expect and always
appreciated (at least by yours truly)
It does offer an interesting data set in that very new (787/A350) vs something with a long history (737) as well as aircraft with a history not as long (A320)
A thought would be to base it on flight hours as well as models.
Is there any way to merge the 737 data? Just curious how the 3 vs the .07 would blend in based on flight hours.
Another thought of is equipment eras. Early 737/707/727 had a pretty bad crash history (as did the Comet).
The A300/310 when shifted to FBW brought in a new era and movement to assisting the pilots (and a bit latter the A320)
Just an aside and a thought, 30 years ago, when the weather service began to get computer systems and easier to compile data, the forecast were spot on for 2 and 3 days ahead.
Now? some days its pouring rain and the forecast calls for partly sunny.
What changed? In my view the experience forecasters who were pretty good (AK is known as the hardest place in the US to forecast for as we have very minimum data from out S.W. and West and N.W). the new guys just look at the terminal screens and don’t step outside and don’t have any feel for the weather (literary in the case of rain and figuratively at all times). Inside Geeks.
the Airline industry exploded the last 20 years and the old pilots are gone and the new ones don’t have the experience the old ones did.
So more and more assist and less and less experienced pilots. AF447 a classic example.
see my post in an older thread:
overall industry fatality rates halved from A320 EIS to NG EIS.
Per the Boy Who cried wolf, not worth sorting through the hash to get to any relevancy, if any.
No, its not the two out of 3, its all 3 as I recall failing and then the upset of it has not data to work with as all 3 agree (despite it being bogus, garbage in garbage out)
That is the failing of 2 out of 3 voting. In reality an Airbus FBW has 7 computers, one faults (amount the causes would be 2 our of 3 vote but in others just an internal detected fault) it then switches to the backup for that computer (3). 7th is a backup to the 3 units by vote or fault.
That is why synthetic is vastly superior (bless the 787 for that) – its the one source that can’t failed per 3 Pitot or 3 AOA.
Something that the mighty Airbus has failed to implement. And like MCAS, the cause of at least one crash and potential of around 9 others that resulted in faulty response and could have.
Program wise there is nothing that says the system can’t go to a degraded mode that inputs the right response to loss of AOA (85% thrust and 5 deg nose up). The systems is only as good as the thought that goes into it.
Your numbers are misleading Frank
The Air Asia-Indondesia crash WAS faulty sensors ( theres always some issue that causes the system malfunction)
The Air Canada Halifax crash was indirectly a sensor problem as the airlines SOP was to ‘let the plane land itself’
“‘. As per Air Canada’s practice, once the flight path angle was selected and the aircraft began to descend, the flight crew did not monitor the altitude and distance from the threshold, nor did they make any adjustments to the flight path angle.
3. The flight crew did not notice that the aircraft had drifted below and diverged from the planned vertical descent angle flight profile, nor were they aware that the aircraft had crossed the minimum descent altitude further back from the threshold.”
As I said earlier the pilots are always in charge no matter what the sensors say, very rarely do they get out of that responsibility ( such as Max crashes.
Notice you didnt look at A330 ‘crashes and sudden plunges’
Im not trying to show one make has more issues than another , but adding sensors doesnt really make it safer
AOA is just taken up on social media , probably because it easy to understand.
Its like for people and the ‘wellness industry’, small issues largely of no importance get outsize prominence, especially for the ‘worried well’
“You are, what your record says you are”
(You follow NFL football?)
EgyptAir, Pakistan, MetroJet, Germanwings, Indonesian & UPS.
The Med, Karachi, Sinai, Barcalonnette, Java Sea, Birmingham
A320, A320, A321, A320, A320 & A300
Bomb, pilot error, bomb, pilot suicide, maintenance, pilot fatigue
I’m sorry – the data range is back those 4 pages, to 2010 on AV Herald. Maybe you didn’t hear me, I thought I was speaking English.
You wanna move the goalposts, you run along and make your own survey.
“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”
Once again – maybe you didn’t read things properly – let me help you:
– Back 12 years
– All crashes on AV Herald
– Regardless of type
5 – A320 family aircraft
1 – A300
I didn’t look at A330 crashes, because…AV Herald didn’t have any there, during the past 12 years.
But do you know what they did put there?
21 Boeing crashes.
(Here’s a helpful hint for you; Aircraft crashes are like a golf score. A higher number is not better.)
All of us await your insightful analysis of those 21 crashes, with bated breath…
Perhaps you didn’t read the other thread on the other Leeham article that Bryce referenced to you. Let me be clear;
The genesis of my post was because someone made the claim, after the DHL757 accident:
“The media is so unfair to Boeing”
Someone else chimed in:
“Yah – look at AV Herald and see that the media doesn’t report on Airbus, like they do about Boeing. Airbus has just as bad a record.”
So – the worst thing and the most talked about thing that can happen to an aircraft, is a crash.
I used their source, AV Herald. I sorted by crashes. I counted. I went back two (2) pages, about 8 years.
Then Bryce said go back more for a better sample. I went back 4 pages, 12 years.
After 2 pages – Boeing crashed 2,5 times more than Airbus.
After 4 pages – Boeing crashed 3.5 times more than Airbus.
I didn’t even look at why a crash happened; a crash, is a crash, is a crash. It’s going to get reported heavily in the media.
The extra media attention on Boeing would seem to be warranted, they’re aircraft have crashed more.
John Q Public is not going to parse the reasons for a crash, like we would, in here, with the exception being the Max – for obvious reasons.
@ Frank aired a nice analysis in an LNA article below which showed that, in recent years (before the grounding), BA airliners have crashed 2.5 times more frequently than AB airliners.
The analysis is very detailed — you should take a look at it.
When asked to go back further, to 2010 – it was 3.5 times
Some guy thought the sample size was too small…the nerve of him! 🙂
I think you know who you’re referring to — a real high-profile BA cheerleader 😉
Its not an analysis its just blather . There is essentially no difference between the manufacturers and their planes safety ( outside the Max debacle) as the main cause is pilots and their training nor is the extra AOA sensors the magic answer ( ‘synthetic’ airspeed and AOA seems a real advantage)
Facts speak for themselves — even if they’re inconvenient.
The data shows that, since 2010, BA planes have crashed 3.5 times more often than AB planes.
It’s that simple.
Blather? Oh my – Blessings from the Pope!
So I’m guessing you haven’t given those 21 Boeing crashes a look, huh? You’ve just dismissed them outright, thinking it’s unfathomable that Boeing has had that many crashes vs 6 for Airbus, over the past 12 years.
It’s gotta be propaganda, right?
So – I’ve got a couple of questions for you. Real simple;
1) Do you agree, that those are the numbers – according to AV Herald. Yes or no?
2) If, as you put it: “the main cause is pilots and their training”
Do airlines that fly Airbus just train their pilots better or choose better pilots to fly their aircraft?
Determining when a new type certificate is required, is about as clear as mud. It’s quite subjective legally.
Yep – what happens when you don’t give thought to possible outcomes.
-> Airbus’s first A321XLR — number 11,000 off the line — left the factory in Hamburg today as it heads for its first flight expected later in the spring for service in 2023.
BA will do everything it can to impede the certification of this model in the US.
But it should be flying in the rest of the world quite soon. There are lots of potential routes in Asia, Europe and South America that would be a good match to this plane.
“BA will do everything it can to impede the certification of this model in the US.”
Would it be smart for Boeing to do that and derail American and United’s plans? Boeing has already done something similar with the Cseries, hurt Delta Airlines and suffered the consequences with orders going to Airbus. And let’s not forget that Boeing will need to certify the MAX 10 at EASA.
If it doesn’t meet the Dec. 31 deadline, will BA bother going to the trouble/expense of putting EICAS in the MAX-10 — thereby completely losing the commonality with other MAX models?
There may never be a need to get the -10 certified by EASA.
> And let’s not forget that Boeing will need to certify the MAX 10 at EASA. <
A situation worth watching, I think.
Under the changed circumstances: will the FAA give Boeing a leg up by “hostage” entangling the A321XLR certification?
( what is the situation with that mutual cert acceptance treaty that was used to shove MAX past EASA )
IMU the tank has less impact than the major revamp of the high lift design.
But even with a separate TCDS it remains the same user interface and behavior.-> same type rating.
“( what is the situation with that mutual cert acceptance treaty that was used to shove MAX past EASA )”
Are you talking about the BASA (Bi-lateral Aviation Safety Agreement?)
yes, this one:
during MAX certification EASA had some additional wishes but those were ignored.
going back EASA stamped the 787 in time with the FAA while with the A350XWB FAA was dragging it out.
Afaics the “bilateral” is a bit lopsided.
Boeing dropped 152 aircraft from its backlog due to the accounting requirement in March, two-thirds of which were related to the war in Ukraine, a spokesman said. The tally includes jets ordered by lessors for customers in the region.
In March, clients canceled orders for 15 Boeing aircraft, including a 737 MAX for Aviation Capital Group, 11 737 MAX units for an undisclosed buyer, as well as two 787-9 Dreamliner jets for Air China (OTC:AIRYY) and Avolon.
And that’s excluding the ASC606 deletions resulting from the Ukraine crisis…
More trouble and embarrassment for BA:
“Boeing 737 Max Simulator Glitch Leaves 90 Indian Pilots Grounded”
“(Bloomberg) — India’s aviation regulator barred 90 pilots from flying Boeing Co. 737 Max jets after finding problems with a simulator they had trained on.
“India will take “strict action” against those responsible for the glitches with the simulator, Arun Kumar, chief of India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation, told Bloomberg News, without specifying what the issues were.”
“A routine check of the simulator revealed deficiencies, and an investigation is underway to discover what caused them, Mr Arun Kumar, chief of India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation, told Bloomberg News.
“Indian regulators found glitches with the flight controls and a stick shaker, according to people familiar with the matter.
“Boeing owns the simulator, which was provided to SpiceJet Ltd and new carrier Akasa Air for pilot training, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information wasn’t public.
“Boeing installed the simulator in Noida, near New Delhi, meeting a requirement by India to clear the 737 Max to return to the country’s skies.”
Careful with news reports out of India and Pakistan They will always in initial versions blame ‘outside causes’ -sometimes to ridiculous extent- which are later found to be from the operator and or maintenance issues.
Saving face and avoiding blame is just as important there as in other asian countries, not that western countries are immune to this
Careful with news reports out of the USA. They will always in initial versions blame ‘foreign pilots’ -sometimes to ridiculous extent- which are later found to be from the operator and or maintenance issues.
One OEM is still stuck in the era of cables and pulleys…another OEM is doing this:
“Airbus hits the wind tunnel to pursue bird-inspired active wing control”
“Airbus is moving ahead with its vision of aircraft with active wing control, following successful wind tunnel tests at its facility near Bristol, England. The company is working to mimic the behavior of bird flight with wings that adapt their shape on the fly to optimize aerodynamics, making for more efficient aircraft with lower carbon footprints.”
Wings have been able to change shape since flaps were invented. Surely you seen how much bigger then get when seen from a window during the landing phase. Same goes for the leading edge with various devices
Active load alleviation has been around for a while too
The ‘flapping wing tips ‘ is a new approach with this 30% scale flying prototype
A next stage to the 777X folding wing tips which are only used on ground to a version for in flight use.
Biomimcry ‘could’ provide a lot future wing improvements. Airlines might be resistant however as their eyes only light up when theres extra seats on offer
Their eyes also light up when there are fuel savings involved.
As always you really need to understand the area of expertise and we all have to make allowances for those who don’t have that.
For some this is dry reading, but its the real world of rubber meets the road at the acualy level of making something work vs a completely uninformed opinion. Having had good Docs when we needed them, I did not try to tell the Doc their business, I listened, asked question (often told how perceptive they were but the reality was we went with what the recome3nde, just a clear understanding of why)
As both an Instrument rated commercial pilot and having worked to support a flight simulator, I have some unusual credentials. The Sim did not fly unless our power and HVAC system was working 100% (if not the Sim shut itself down and things hit the fan figuratively usually)
Scott and Leeham has a whole different set. In Scott’s case, its the upper management and direction plus the tech expertise the Bjorn and others of varying types (Bjorn is in depth specific aviation engineer as well as a former fighter pilot that is pretty unique (Leeham’s very own Chuck Yeager ! – though he may not agree)
Its not at all unusual for a Simulator to have issues. I know of at least half a dozen times ours was red tagged and restricted to fixed motion training – if that even (and the Sim Techs rarely let slip it was down though if our support end for power, HVAC was broke or deficient we were on the public hot seat – the difference between keeping it internal stovepipe and our external stovepipe we got blamed for, sometimes our fault and sometimes not (never mine, I was the one who had to sort through the tough problems and come up with an answer – I had 40 years experience at it and was very good at it)
As to why the India Simulator is off? It could be any one of hundreds of problems and we will never find out (most not Boeing related) .
What I can tell you is that regulatory (I believe ours was once a month or once a quarter) it was put through a whole motion tests vs the data set/parameters, if it failed then it was red tagged until they corrected it. Always motion training was not allowed and sometimes motion and fixed position training both off the table till corrected.
In my case, we were actually responsible for a single red tag and it was not something we caused. They had bought a fan A/C unit that was out of balance on the fan. That was early days and once we were made aware we got a fix in place. The Sim Manager would not listen, jumped the gun and had a sound proof enclosure ordered and then installed around the unit though we had it fixed withing days (getting a balance tech and an opening to work on it was the delay).
That Unit was Sims and Sim Tech responsibility , not Facilities. In reality the Sim Techs were not HVAC and it made more sense for us to try to keep it running (we wound up replacing the whole unit latter as the blower fan had been kludged on by former owners and it was almost 100% certain we could never get it back on when the fan motor bearings needing replacing.
The certification required that enclosure from then on to be in place even though we had fixed the fan (balance issue that was corrected with adding weights in the right location much like a car tire)
Our answer was to make the Sim Techs put the enclosure back on after we took it off for repairs. Or course they did not want it off to do maint so it never got maintained which meant it failed fairly often (finally the replacement itself was was replaced with a Fan blowing air over a building supplied cooling coil and that stopped the issues as we had full access though that in turn meant a belt drive rather than direct drive so you have a possible belt failure in addition to the motor and fan bearings – trade offs, you never get something for nothing though some fool themselves you do.
For the older unit the Sim Techs got tired of putting it back on (it was falling apart as it was not designed as a take down enclosure as stupid as that was but the nature of knee jerk reactions ).
Nothing like being on the incentive plan, they ran the sound test again and it passed with flying (pun intended) colors. That in turn allowed them to present the data to the FAA which then removed the requirement for the sound enclosure on for its recertification. We could then maintain it, at which point age caught up with it and we had so many failures that two of use were on call 24 x 7 to fix it, lot of good OT but no life for 6 months.
Another failure was the Motor Generator set that burned out the contactor busing. Again it was their equipment we maintained, old unit, 30 years old and there was a fastener loose in the back of the Contactor, factory original so it was not something that ever came off so you could see it. Like a connecting rod journal in your car engine, its supposed to be 100% good for the life of the engine. I had it jumpered out and running inside of 45 minutes, got a 25 million dollar Simulator back on line, I should have got a medal for time vs results.
That is the reality of Simulators as boring as it may sound (pun) and the context you need for something that can become a fake the sky is falling comment.
AP Robersts has my respect because he acualy brings facts to the table. You can dissect what the facts mean in context but the facts are what makes for an intelligent discussion vs the noise of an out of balance fan.
Using your own quote from above:
“Per the Boy Who cried wolf, not worth sorting through the hash to get to any relevancy, if any.”
Analysts are divided into sell-side and buy-side.
Goldman Sachs analyst Noah Poponak has reflected positively on the report as he expects deliveries to accelerate over the coming months as air travel recovers.
“Boeing continues to deliver no 787 aircraft, reflecting the ongoing temporary halt following the FAA requesting more information about Boeing’s proposed solution to the previous quality issues. The FAA is at various stages of the process on their end, in an ongoing dialogue with Boeing that may require some additional input from the company. However, Boeing has a recommended fix for every currently identified issue on the aircraft, and does not expect to find any new issues. We expect deliveries to resume in 2Q22,” Poponak said in a client note.
Wolfe Research analyst Mike Maugeri is more cautious than Poponak.
“We continue to see the fundamental demand backdrop for commercial OEM deliveries as favorable, particularly for narrowbody aircraft, but BA still has idiosyncratic issues to work through.
BA seems to be the most polarizing name in our A&D coverage based on our conversations and the results of our quarterly survey of investors published this morning. BA was voted both top long/overweight and top short/underweight in our survey,” the analyst said in a client note.
Positive BA analysts tend to be motivated at the current juncture by sentiments along the line of “the stock has taken such a battering…it just can’t sink any lower”.
Oh, but it certainly can…
From investors.com, a neat synopsis:
“Bottom line: Boeing stock is not in buy range as it continues to remain under its downward sloping 50-day line. Investors looking for more stocks to buy can find companies with stronger, more consistent earnings growth and better stock technicals.”
So now you are quoting the analysts who before you said were clueless?
Funny how that works.
Yes, quotes and links are a regular part of the discussion here — hadn’t you noticed?
I gave a positive and a negative quote, in response to Pedro’s comment about positive/negative analysts — hadn’t you noticed?
Do try to keep up.
I noticed that analysts are idiots until you agree with them.
Not hard to keep up with at all.
Says those who are incapable to separate the wheat from the chaff
1) Stock out imminent!!
2) The Biden administration both calling an emergency food summit in Washington for next week and at the same time boosting demand for corn-made ethanol with its E15 gasoline blend move is, well, something..
More news on BA’s ASC 606 deletions / cancellations in March — featuring 130 MAXs, 5 777Fs and 6 787s:
So I’m just kinda combing through the Max backlog on Planespotters;
Belavia – from Belarus. 4 Max’s on order. They under the Russian sanctions by the West?
S7 – shows 14 aircraft in some state of production. Planespotters shows them as NTU – not taken up. Is that deal officially dead?
Ural & UTair – 8 jets NTU
One thing I noticed – seems to be quite prevalent; When (because it will eventually happen) the Max gets recertified in China, they will have a bunch of product to ship over there. Given the length of time those aircraft have been on the ground (all costs considered) they make not make much, if any, of a margin…but they will have a ton of aircraft coming their way.
I didn’t do a count, but they could probably send one a day, for a year – over there.
-> For the last few years, the number of MAX that was labeled within ASC 606 has been around 730-750, reflecting the uncertainty of deliveries to customers in particular China and Russia, where the type still needs to receive re-certification approval. In February, the number dropped to 686 aircraft, the lowest for some time. But the numbers for March show that Boeing labeled another 130 extra MAX again, bringing the total to *806*.
-> Not related to the Russian crisis, Boeing also adjusted the number of 787s on the backlog. The total backlog is now down to 405 from 411, with three added to the ASC 606 sections and three canceled by Air China, CIT Leasing, and Avolon. These cancelations must be related to Boeing defaulting on the deliveries of the Dreamliners as it is still waiting for the FAA to approve re-deliveries of the type following production quality issues that halted them in May 2021. BOC Aviation said last week it hoped to receive its first 787 later this month or in May. Boeing will announce an update on the situation during its Q1 earnings call on April 27.
Here it is, straight from the horses mouth
Why did this Boeing 777 recently deviate by itself at low altitude on Final?
Could it be related to the recent roll out of 5G?
5g is in Purple (Charles de Gaulle airport is 1 o’clock from the Center of Paris) It sticks out in the map, as the airport itself is clear of 5G/4G etc.
France has had a complete 5G network since November 2020.
How many 777s have landed at CDG in that time? Air France alone has 64 of them in its fleet.
And the Air France 777 in question wasn’t doing an ILS landing.
European 5G Band usage does not hug the radio altimeter slot like the US 5G installations do. And afaik ERP per base station is lower as cell sizes are smaller.
Anything of substance and avherald would show that info. Nothing on the AF011 incident or the China 738 crash yet.
Here’s my take, we’ll have to wait for the BEA report to see if I am close.
The aircraft was following the ILS glide slope on autopilot. There was interference with the localizer (horizontal) for some reason (airfield truck passing… something) so the aircraft shifted laterally.
Pilots startled by the lateral deviation, so grabbed the controls to pull the aircraft back to the glide slope. As the controls will be heavy (fighting autopilot) they report aircraft not responding to controls.
Pilots now disengage autopilot (heard over radio) hit TOGA then land on alternate runway uneventfully (good call by ATC to rule out issue with original runway).
No idea what their company SOP would be, but I suspect that as they were startled, the pilots didn’t disengage autopilot before attempting to correct back to the glide slope, only after realising they would be going around did they disengage the autopilot.
I’m not a pilot, I think any pilot worth his salt must know that “fighting the autopilot” is not “aircraft not responding to commands”
I just read a theory on another aviation board which seems to fit the situation. 1) Pilot hand flying the approach. 2) Flying pilot asks the other pilot to ‘arm the localiser’. 3) Other pilot mistakenly hits the ‘arm A/P’ button (they are close together and about the same size and shape) 4) Flying pilot thinks something is strange with the controls, as he thinks he’s still hand flying. The warning buzzers come from the landing gear not fully deployed yet as the landing flap was selected. The A/P disconnects with it’s chime and then the pilots get things back
under control. Hopefully the black box read out will solve the mystery.
Or perhaps it had something to do with this software screw-up:
“US aviation regulator issues safety bulletins over flaws in software updates for Boeing 747, 777, 787 airliners
— Autothrottle cuts to idle and flight computers fail after latest updates, warns FAA”
a) Airbus vs GB
– England will not be part of the FCAS, they make their own plane, AB was not happy
– England left the EU, AB was not happy
– The AB /Qatar court is in London (oil vs. Airbus wings)
=> could that be the final nail for the wing-production in England?
b) A350 neo
– The delay and the weak sells of the B777 also hase an impcat for GE, they can’t sell their big engines. Could they look toward AB for reengineering the A350? Impact for RR with their Ultrafan and in context with the AB/England struggle described on top? (sorry for these english skills).
There is no Airbus vs UK at all. Airbus has been increasing its production outside its european base for a long time and now includes Spirit ( using its facilities in US and UK) and airframe suppliers in Asia, including China and Korea plus more recently Canada.
Airbus facilities and design centres continue in UK, largely the wings.
Italy, in the EU, is part of the Boeing supply consortium not Airbus.
And when it come to engines , Frances Safram is closely linked to GE and Germanys MTU is linked to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce has large plants/design centers in Germany and US and other countries as well as its home in UK .
The facts show that all airframe and engine suppliers are integrated across european countries ( not just EU) and others
And for fast combat jets the UK is working with EU members Italy and Sweden and may well have some connection to Japan ( who like China copy or license other countries designs and call it their own)
I think you raise an excellent point.
Recent geopolitical events have shown us that it’s a very bad idea to be dependent on one country for critical supplies. They’ve also shown us that friend can turn into foe at the drop of a hat. It’s a very risky policy to have wing manufacture concentrated in the UK, particularly in view of the acrimony that regularly re-surfaces between the EU and UK over the post-Brexit border status in Northern Ireland. Recent events have shown us that trade can and will be “weaponized” to serve political ends.
At the very least, Airbus needs to open a parallel wing manufacturing facility in the EU — Bremen seems to be a self-evident candidate, since it already does wing *assembly* work.
Airbus have a second wing making plant – In China.
opps that may not be so good after all especially for its volume selling model
Like so many other issues , you misunderstand the government to government trade issues, minor as they are , dont effect Airbus at all- I understand aircraft type assemblies arent covered by tariffs anyway. [The EU is like a hen house- the chickens are constantly in squabbles and henpecking each other, the egg laying continues]
This is global thing which allows plants all over the world to contribute to final assembly lines- occasionally broken by that ‘maker of but not follower of’ the international rules based system- The USA.
There are international contracts that prohibit *import* tariffs on aerospace products, but there are no limitations on *export* restrictions. If the UK parliament so wishes, it can put an export ban on AB wings in the morning. You should be aware of this (if you were paying attention) because the US is already barring the sale of CFM engines to COMAC, for example.
The wings made in Xi’an represent a tiny fraction of the number made in the UK — and China isn’t in the EU, is it?
Proof of how seriously misinformed our fellow poster is … peddling same old same old baseless allegation.
It’s time to go back in time and reread old news:
-> Airbus has told MPs that Britain risks losing the “crown jewels” of its aviation industry to China as a result of Brexit, putting up to 7,000 *wing-manufacturing* jobs in Wales at risk.
This is about two units :
A: wing manufacture
B: aerodynamic wing design, research.
Post WWII a group of German aerodynamic researches joined up with their British coleagues merged their knowledge and move forward: creating in the end the industry leading range of Airbus supercritical wing designs.
Boeing got their hands on German research papers.
Richard Whitcomb ( actually a Brit ) mostly “relabeled” preexisting research results tagging them as major American inventions.
I am uncertain if this British centric competence is “movable”.
Apple: designed in California, made outside the U.S.
M1/M2 Chip: designed outside Taiwan, made by TSMC in Taiwan
“Airlines to receive first six MC-21 aircraft with Russian engines in 2024”
“MOSCOW. April 13 (Interfax) – Rostec State Corporation intends to deliver the first six MS-21 aircraft with Russian PD-14 engines to airlines in 2024, Rostec chief Sergey Chemezov said during government hour at the Federation Council on Wednesday.
“The first production MS-21s numbering six with domestic PD-14 engines will be handed over to customers in 2024,” Chemezov said.
“Before the imposition of sanctions on Russia, which limited, among other things, the supply of components for the aircraft industry, Rostec had planned to deliver the first four MS-21s in late 2022. Rossiya Airlines (part of the Aeroflot Group ) had been selected as the recipient.
“The share of Russian components in the MS-21 is currently about 50%, said Yuri Slyusar, head of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC, part of Rostec). Deliveries of fully import-substituted versions of the aircraft should start in 2024, he said. By 2025, UAC plans to produce 36 MC-21 aircraft per year and further increase it to 72 per year, the UAC chief said.”
Russia has published a list of 52 “friendly countries” with which it is continuing to do business as usual — including the entire BRICS block, Turkey, most of the Middle East, and parts of SE Asia (including Thailand). So there are plenty of potential customers outside of Russia.
Re: “By 2025, UAC plans to produce 36 MC-21 aircraft per year …”
Thus, if UAC meets their announced production plans, three years from now they will be producing in the course of a year roughly the same number of narrow body aircraft that Airbus and Boeing each produce in a month, and about 25% of the number jets built by Embraer in Brazil in 2021 (i.e., 141) . A very sad decline for a country that was in the past a superpower and leader in aviation. Actually, in the case of Airbus, UAC’s planned annual production of MC-21’s in 2025 will probably be closer to one-half the number of A32X’s that Airbus is by then producing per month, than it will be to the number of A321X’s that Airbus is by then producing in a full month.
Yes, I agree that the numbers are paltry by the standards of other OEMs.
However, every MC-21 delivered is a missed order for BA/AB. And the “Russification” of the plane only serves to strengthen the Russian aerospace industry…and perhaps also that of China (indirectly). If China invokes Russian help with the “Sinofication” of the C919, then BA/AB will miss out on an even bigger slice of cake.
Big things have small beginnings.
Many times it starts as a drizzle before it becomes a downpour
Forget this. No MC-21 will be entered in service in the next 5 years I’m sure.
Those Putin’s liars are used to lying, not having any intentions and opportunities to do what they promised.
Most on the street are pretty pessimistic about the chance BA would achieve its goals of delivering 500 737s and production ramp.
Ron Epstein: I don’t think they will hit their target for this year.
BA is likely to miss its delivery target by roughly 10%.
“90% of planned”
looking back that would be nicely positive, wouldn’t it?
Good news about titanium supplies. It seems the metal from Russia isnt under sanctions after all. Paying for it seems to be straightforward as well as they deal with VMSPO subsidiaries outside Russia.
As always sanctions are for the ‘little people’
For as long as it lasts.
The US and EU are ethusiastically looking for new things to sanction.
Cathay is currently carrying only 1% of the passenger numbers that it carried prior to the pandemic!
Not just in China: the travel situation across Asia is still very suppressed.
FG: EASA certifies A330-800 with 251t take-off weight
Re: “BA could, of course, go all-out on -7 production, but that would then p*ss off customers who are waiting for their -8s and -9s.”
The percentage of each MAX model that Boeing builds in a month or a year will be determined by the percentage of each model that customers with delivery slots in that month or year want Boeing to build for them in that month or year, not by the percentages of each model in the total order backlog. If Ryanair has 25 of the next 50 final assembly slots and wants MAX 200’s, then 25 of the next 50 MAX’s coming off the line will be MAX 200’s. If Alaska has 25 of the next 50 final assembly slots and wants MAX 9’s, then 25 of the next MAX’s coming off the line will be MAX-9’s. If Southwest has 25 of the next 50 final assembly slots, then 25 of the next MAX’s coming off the line will be whatever mix of MAX-7’s and 8’s that Southwest wants, and as of 12-31-21, according to Southwests 2021 Annual Report dated 2-7-22, Southwest wanted 184 MAX-7’s delivered in 2022 through 2025 before again starting to take deliveries of MAX-8’s in 2026. A footnote in the annual report notes that between 12-31-21 and 2-3-22 Southwest exercised options for 12 MAX-8 deliveries in 2022 and an additional 12 MAX-7 deliveries in 2023. I suspect that Southwest has decided to take MAX-8 deliveries in place of MAX-7 deliveries until the MAX-7 is certified, whether this is true or not should become apparent during Southwest’s 1Q 2022 earnings call on 4-28-22. If I am right about this, then Southwest would not be pissed about Boeing going all out on MAX-7 production, their preference would have been to get 184 MAX-7’s in 2022 through 2025 before again starting to take MAX-8 deliveries in 2026. See below for Southwest’s MAX orders as of 12-31-21 according to their 2021 Annual Report (see page 43). Note also that as of 12-31-21 the number of MAX-7’s Southwest had on firm order (264) was more than twice the number of MAX-8’s that Southwest had on firm order (130).
“As of December 31, 2021,the Company had firm deliveries and options for Boeing 737 MAX 7 and 737 MAX 8 aircraft as follows:
7 Firm Orders / 8 Firm Orders / -7 or -8 Options / Total
2022: 72 / 0 / 42 / 114
2023: 52 / 0 / 38 / 90
2024: 30 / 0 / 56 / 86
2025: 30 / 0 / 56 / 86
2026: 15 / 15 / 40 70
2027: 15 / 15 / 6 / 36
2028: 15 / 15 / 0 / 30
2029: 20 / 30 / 0 / 50
2030: 15 / 45 / 0 / 60
2031: 0 / 10 / 0 / 10
Total: 264 / 130 / 238 / 632”