Boeing appears finally on track to resume 787 deliveries

April 25, 2022, © Leeham News: Boeing appears on a path to resume deliveries of the 787 in the second half of this year.

By Scott Hamilton

Filings by American and United airlines with the US Securities and Exchange Commission show each carrier expects 787s later this year. And, according to a Reuters report, Boeing privately told the airlines and the supply chain that deliveries will resume in the second half.

Boeing declined comment.

A United 8-K filings (an unscheduled filing) indicate two deliveries in the third quarter and another four in the fourth quester. These are 787-10s. American indicates seven Dreamliner deliveries by year-end in its 10Q filing. These are 787-8s.

At the start of this year, American said it expected deliveries to resume in April. Boeing, on its 4Q2021 earnings call, did not confirm this but it didn’t dispute it, either. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversees when Boeing can resume deliveries.

Deliveries were suspended in October 2020 when a gap the size of a piece of paper (ie, the thickness of 0.004 inches*) was found in new production airplanes. While not a safety of flight issue, the gap was a non-conforming production requirement. The FAA asked Boeing to halt deliveries while the scope of the problem was determined, and a fix identified. Coming during the grounding of the 737 MAX, coupled with increased scrutiny of Boeing and the FAA, scoping the breadth of the gap problem and determining a fix has taken an agonizingly long time. During this period, the FAA rescinded Boeing’s authority to certify each 787 for delivery, assuming this responsibility instead.

FAA authority

The FAA previously revoked Boeing’s authority to certify new 737 deliveries. This authority remained with the FAA following the ungrounding of the MAX in November 2020. Deliveries of the MAX are now a combination of the legacy inventory, at one point around 450 planes, and new production aircraft. More than 200 legacy MAXes in inventory have been delivered, according to Aviation Week. (Boeing doesn’t break out numbers.) New production 737s accounted for more than 200 deliveries since the airplane was recertified. There are about 110 787s in inventory.

The FAA has limited numbers of personnel to certify the MAXes and 787s, slowing deliveries of the former and affecting plans to restart 787 deliveries, according to market intelligence.

Certification of the 777X also has been delayed by the knock-on effects of the MAX crisis. Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline, is a vocal and public critic of the delays. The first X was supposed to be delivered in 1Q2020. An initial delay of about nine months was taken because of technical issues with the giant GE Aviation GE9X engine. Then, flight testing revealed some control issues and the MAX crisis, with its scrutiny of the FAA and Boeing, spilled over to the 777X program. Repeated delays have been announced. Boeing set a certification goal of late 2023, but many observers quickly concluded this would slip as much as a year. Clark publicly predicted the entry-into-service (EIS) may not occur until 2025.

Boeing program delays

Throughout the jet age, Boeing prided itself in meeting schedules for EIS. There were few delays and those mostly were measured in months.

But since the 787 program, launched in December 2003, all but one commercial airplane program experienced long delays. (The military KC-46A tanker is based on the commercial 767 airplane.) Ironically, the only 7-Series program to meet schedule was the 737 MAX—it delivered about two months early. Then, it was grounded for 21 months beginning in March 2019 following the second accident that revealed a fatal flaw in a control system and a plethora of systemic development and personnel issues.

Boeing has taken more than $20bn in charges for these five programs. Nearly $5bn more in charges have been taken for the new Air Force One program, converting two whitetail 747-8s into presidential configuration.

*Boeing supplied this figure. In response to reader comments, Boeing clarified that this should read 0.004.

100 Comments on “Boeing appears finally on track to resume 787 deliveries

  1. So, if 787 deliveries are supposed to resume in 2022 H2, then when will the production rate of new frames be upped? And to what level will it initially be upped? The current production rate is 2 per month.

    Is BA planning on clearing inventory first?

    And, apart from the well-known fuselage gap issues (and wing composite contamination issues), is the FAA green-lighting some sort of fix for the “general” 787 quality issues that were plaguing deliveries before the pandemic?

    “Airlines Reveal Shocking Boeing 787 Production Issues”

    • Congratulations Bryce
      You are the only comment so far to mention the wing composite contamination issue.
      And for people knowledgeable in composite this is very serious: no rework is possible part changeing contaminated wings!
      Here below the key paper from Dominic Gates.
      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.

      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.

      • Do we have any idea how extensive the wing contamination issue is, e.g. how many wing sets are affected, and when the contamination first started to occur?

      • You normally save coupons of the carbon fiber run for strength analysis after the autoclave run. Still hard to predict spread of contaminants. One issue is will there be new inspections on the +1000 already built and if they need to be fixed or just a reduction in certified airframe life depending on findings.

        • To Bryce
          “Some of the bagging contained teflon” People familiar with composites will tell you that bagging without teflon are special production far costlier than bagging with teflon. They require special orders from bag manufacturers.
          In my opinion, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has not been aware of this requirement for years, and 100% of wings made before early 2011 are contaminated.
          To Claes
          You mention inspections.
          How can you inspect contaminated wings?
          contamination occurs during wing assembly . Each composite component is 100% OK. Only the finished wing is not OK, due to improper adherence of composite components.
          As long as the load is not high, contaminated material will behave exactly as uncontaminated material.
          Above a certain level, it will delaminate all of a sudden…
          Non destructive Inspection is certainly a challenge ….

          • Thanks for the above comment.

            > As long as the load is not high, contaminated material will behave exactly as uncontaminated material. Above a certain level, it will delaminate all of a sudden.. <


          • @ flying frog
            Thanks for this continuing information.
            Sounds like it would be a good idea to do some wing load testing on a contaminated wing to see how much earlier failure will set in. Are there reliable numerical simulations for this, or does an actual wing have to be loaded to destruction?

          • @ Julian
            The wing contamination issue became public in 2021, so presumably he means 2021 rather than 2011.

            Of note:
            “The bags and the material used to allow release of the bags contained Teflon and it left a residue on the composite. That residue can weaken the bond when parts are joined together using adhesives. Initially, Boeing tests showed the bonds to be within specs but recently the company has found bonds that are weaker than designed. The Teflon contamination has been found in parts made by at least two of the contractors making big pieces of the aircraft like wings, fuselage and tail.”


          • sorry
            should have written 100% of wings made before 2021 are contaminated!

          • You can inspect in service parts for delamination, often by ultrasonic scan or thermography. It is when defects connects to each others then detectable flaws life gets created.
            It is similar to metals especially large precision castings, you always have defects and its distribution in size, density and orientation determine the parts life for each load case.

  2. Check out the pictures on pprune of what appears to be a 787 with what appears to be a ridiculous amount of speed tape applied(not well applied). to the upper wing.Just how much is acceptable?
    In my experience, what is actually failing is the resin immediately next to the paint and I am slightly concerned about damage to the structure and the fact that no-one seems to have a handle on this problem yet.

    • There have been various pictures of speed-taped 787 wings for several months now, and several airlines have reported the issue — including KLM, BA, AA, United and Air NZ.
      Various planes have been flown back to the US to have the wings re-painted at Boeing’s expense. Boeing is claiming that the issue is being caused by UV-induced degradation (e.g. polymer de-crosslinking).

      • Unlike the A350 The lightning mesh on the B787 is not exposed and the issue is easily solved with more UV resistant coating. Boeing has a fraction of the problems Airbus has on this issue. This may still blow up for Airbus.

        • The exposed lightning mesh on the A350 is far less of a problem than Qatar is trumpeting about. The mesh is made of copper — which is a very durable material when exposed to air/water; there are copper roofing elements in Europe that are hundreds of years old and are still in excellent functional/structural condition. When a thin layer of oxide forms on copper, it inhibits further incursion of air/water into the metal matrix. Even if there’s a hole in the mesh, it still functions perfectly: after all, each of the fuselage windows is a one-square-foot hole in the mesh, and that doesn’t cause problems.
          The five other airlines that have reported problems with A350 paint de-lamination seem to be perfectly happy with the solution offered by Airbus.

          Qatar seems to have fallen on hard times. I was recently booking flights for a relative and the Qatar website was experiencing a variety of outages / persistent IT problems for several days in a row. Attempts to contact the customer care department were a joke: the online chat personnel were clueless, and phone calls were put through to equally clueless and totally indifferent call center personnel in India, with a wait of more than an hour. Absolutely not the “five star airline” that I experienced in the past. Makes you wonder if the whole “Paintgate drama” is a ruse to get some cash and/or shed some widebody orders.

          • Copper roofs drip greenness down the side of the building for 100 years and then need replacing.
            The mesh on the airbus wing is very fine and this greenness creeps along copper wires destroying them. This could be causing quite a mess. I might have the opportunity to ask some knowledgeable people about this coming up, so I’ll let you know if I find out anything.

          • @ Grubbie
            The Statue of Liberty is made of pure copper, and it’s been standing in a harsh marine environment for 136 years; yet, there is no “greenness” creeping along its stone pedestal. This is because copper oxides (of both valencies) are completely insoluble in water.


            The “greenness” to which you refer is a thin layer of algae/lichen. The guttering along the edge of a copper roof is soldered (with tin) at the joints. These solder joints eventually fail, causing water to leak through and dribble down the stonework of the building beneath. If this happens in the shade, the moist stonework of the building starts to develop a layer of algae/lichen. The cure is to re-do the solder joints — there’s no need to replace the whole roof.

          • I see AAB back to the negotiation table (with tail between his legs).

        • The 787 is a living proof of how well moonshot projects work for BA!! From conception, development, execution and production …. only if my head is buried deep in the sand.

  3. I hope 787 production will resume and no further non conformities are indentified.

    The “gap the size of a piece of paper was found in new production airplanes” sounds a bit like a “nothing to see here, move on” attempt. During 777x testing we were told for months, a door blew out, probably a latch failure, normal, A380 had 147% Max Load too, no delay expected. Then everything became quiet, until a fuselage rupture photo appeared.

    • IIRC the “gap the size of a piece of paper was found in new production airplanes” is just one of a long list of production issues found. Lol.

      • keesje:

        Its more complicated than that.

        There were in fact two issues. One was the shims the other was the shell that did not conform.

        The tech term is called stacking tolerance where it goes over the edge and you have a (in this case) safety issue of stresses that could create a failure.

        The good news is this has all come out and Boeing acknowledged it so there is some aspects going right.

        Boeing management wanted the cheap solution and that did bite them as the FAA is not going to allow that and wants a 100% confidence in the quality control.

        Boeing looks to have wanted minimum random sampling and the FAA wanted a lot more or all of it checked.

        The irony is as long as they did not have the two issues together, so far its been no assessed as a safety of flight issue.

        In theory Boeing could redo the who cert program and accept that one or the other and if they proved it, it would be part of the build.

        Reality is that re-doing the whole aircraft mfg cert would cost them years.

        So Boeing has to up the Fuselage build quality as well as get the shim pack right.

        At some point if they can prove their QC works they can reduce to random sampling.

        It looks like the FAA is making Boeing check every shim location for now. They are holding Boeing to the build spec and that is great.

        The slow numbers of release seems to confirm that.

        Overall the Boeing engineers felt they had enough cover to bring this out and the FAA supported them, yippeee, its how things should work.

        The Boeing board has to be looking at Calhoun sideways and thinking, the Emperor has no cloths.

        How soon can we dump this Bozo and find someone who can manage a company right?

        • A note on how to go about the QC.

          There are a number of ways to achieve that. In this case Boeing has been angling for random sampling. So I focused on that.

          In the case of the fuseale barrels you can direct measure (that is an assumption, at least on the aircraft they are not rigid until they have the circular reinforcements.

          Another method is what you find on vehicle emissions. You go so far over and above their is no question its good.

          Some places had emissions checks and we got to see how ours compared. Most values were 60% better than spec. We actually got cleaner air and the mfgs did not have to in depth test on each vehicle.

          That is where random sampling works nicely, you just need to spot check once in a while.

          Once you have full confidence in the system you can run it on auto.

          • Therec are limitations for random sampling to be representative of the population. It’s in elementary STAT course.

            The problem is BA wants to take a couple recent fuselages and presents them as substitute of true random samples!

            Furthermore, it is costly when you have to tear up the interior to inspect fuselage. That’s why FAA has to be on the shop floor for random check not relying on fig leaf ODA.

        • Transworld thank you for the QC explanation, I think on the 777-9 fuselage, afaics it’s not build quality, consistency that is the issue, but certification.

          The 777 fuselage used as certification bases was the 777-300ER fuselage. The door locations were changed, the wingbox was changed, as were the wingloads, fuselage spars, bigger windows over the full length and the fuselage length itself was changed. The certification was done explaining, validating all these changes and their interactions with the rest of the aircraft.

          During testing loads and failure modes didn’t match the predicted, calculated failure modes and strengths. Then FAA required a deep look and established what was deep down know before, that is was new fuselage really not a changed product. Back to the offices for re-certification, years of work.

          And that’s the big story behind the long 777X delays, post FAL modifications and certification discussions.

          The second story is how FAA allowed Boeing this grandfathering certification strategyu for the 777x..

          • The fuselage issues on the 777X are kept under a lid, but they’re almost certainly much more significant than we’re being led to believe. A wing load test is not meant to cause a ripped fuselage — a rip indicates that the fuselage is not able to (elastically) deal with the forces being transferred to it from the wing.

            Another commenter here regularly posits that the main holdup is a software issue — but such an issue wouldn’t cause a cascading delay of this magnitude.

          • So, there is a retired Boeing engineer, who will remain nameless – who stays in contact with the guys back at work.

            Apparently, the shop talk is that there is a high alpha problem with the 777X – speculation being that the tail is too small. It is also postulated that the engines, with their huge demand at the intake, does strange things with the airflow, burbling the air, then sucking it back in if spooled up, most noticeably on the glide slope when landing.

            I don’t know. I have no aero engineering expertise. Much of what I am told, I can understand, but the technical details behind it all sounds like Mandarin to me, sometimes.

            Could it be? Yes. Could it be wrong? Sure. It’s just what I’ve heard.

            I will say this – given the time it’s taking to get the aircraft into service (and some of it can be attributed to the FAA and Max fallout) it would make sense that BA is facing some real engineering issues on the airframe that need to be worked out.

            There is also this;

            About 3 years ago, when the Max was grounded and scrutiny on BA was increased, the same guy said to me, when I commented how long it was taking (10 years) to get to EIS,

            “The 777X is trying to be grandfathered in as a derivative, but it is essentially a new aircraft. It needs a new cert”

            Please don’t shoot the messenger…

          • @ Frank
            Wow…what a scoop!
            Those are serious problems, which can’t be solved by posturing and waffle.
            Sounds like the 777X is in a dead end.

          • Thx Frank!

            Guess that means the paper aircraft 777-8F looks good, too good to be …. any time soon.

          • @Bryce @Pedro

            A word of caution;

            Shop talk is like a group of old ladies, sitting in the mall’s food court early in the morning, drinking coffee and pontificating about family, people and things. No disrespect to any old ladies…

            From what I understand, the high alpha problem is trying to be fixed with software. Has software scrutiny increased, lately? Without a doubt. Could be a reason for some of the delays.

            It was mentioned that the folding wing has received additional scrutiny. Seeing how the aircraft flies if both wings fold up in flight. How it flies with one up, asymmetrically. Then the other.

            At the end of the day, with an EIS in 2025 – and additional scrutiny happening since the Max crashed in March 2019, it will be about 5 years to get it going, since oversight ramped up. This was with test models already flying and some production aircraft made.

            So like it or not, whether the FAA says it’s a new cert, or not – Boeing has spent 5 years…the length of time it would take, to get a new aircraft certified.

            Boeing has also written off $6.5 billion in Q4/2020 and I’m sure that there will be a Deferred Production Balance that needs to be amortised over the sale of each aircraft in the block of 350, BA estimates they will sell.

            So Boeing has essentially spent

            1) The time
            2) The money

            that a new cert requires.

  4. I wonder if Ladbroke will open a betting book on the matter.
    Given B’s prior stellar performance performing to promises made (see MAX/Muhlenberg saga) I might favor the longer odds in this case…

  5. I will continue watching Boeing’s QC and delivery situation with interest.

    • Bills7:

      As will we all but we also see what the FAA is doing. So far they are doing the job right.

      Best if Boeing does it on their own but if the FAA has to hold Boeing hand to the fire so be it.

  6. To clarify, the gap at issue in the fuselage sections is the thickness of a piece of paper not its size.

        • They do have those . Its called a window

          The commercial airliner production issues have always been there but the world of social media makes it more public , whereas before it was kept within the technical press, airlines and regulators.

          • Significant enough to halt delivery for like almost two years?? Never heard of that before.

          • Duke:

            Oh good grief, I suppose you would complain about a rough rope if they were going to hang you.

            No its not always been kept from the public. The DC-10 hatch and engine issues were not (crashed aircraft) as well as the 737 Rudder issues.

            Comet was quite public.

            Back in the day they might have hidden the shim gap issue, as noted, currently its not a flight safety issue (yes that could change)

            Make sure you did not have both and go on.

            Clearly with Boeing that approach would not work (management, most of the employees are going to want to do the job right and have safe aircraft)

            PS: Duke you might look at page 92 of Scotts book to clarify your belief on the 787 spun fuselage vs a conventional structure composite on the A350. It makes that quite clear.

          • Clearly Im talking in the context of the 787 fuselage issues

            As for the composite structure , theres no doubt that the 787 and A350 use a different fabrication technique for the skin only.
            Airbus once its skin panels are complete stitches them into
            circular barrels ( the furthest rear section under the tail is the only one made on a mandrel as a sort of irregular cone shape)

            So at that stage they have the skins and their horizontal co cured stringers as fuselage barrels . Then both add closely spaced internal ring frames made in composite too but under separate process.
            Why do you continue to convince yourself that the 787 doesnt use internal ring frames like the A350, added after the skins are fabricated. Im absolutely sure Scott doesnt say different to that. The photo evidence Ive given you before is all your eyes need but something else is disrupting the synapses

            Heres even the story behind Boeings internal ring frames supplier which are then shipped to the barrel fuselage makers

  7. Boeing ‘appears’ and ‘expects’ 787 deliveries to resume later this year and the airline customers are banking on these frivolous terms?
    Back in December they told us all that April was ‘looking promising’.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. Is anyone noticing they don’t produce a schedule or publish firm dates but just expects….. how pathetic!

    Tim Clark was promised his first 777X in 2020 and now this date is pushed to sometime in 2025, I bet you all that date will go to 2026.
    When will Emirates say enough is enough 🤷‍♂️

    The contrast with how Airbus operates in comparison to Boeing is stunning.

      • – Airbus has just certified the 251t version of the A330-800 (on time).
        – The first A321XLR is preparing for its first flight (on time).
        – The A350F specs have been published (unlike those of the vague 777XF) and the project is progressing (on time).
        – AB is progressing with its ZeroE hydrogen projects (on time).

        And that’s just the commercial aircraft division.

        If the idiots in Toulouse can do it, surely the illuminati in Chicago can?

      • Airdoc:

        Boeing is acualy saying nothing publicly. If they are telling Airlines what the delivery schedule is they have reason to understand what process the FAA allows for now so I have no issues with that.

        But we also have multiple crisis with China spread of Covid and lock down in a lot of cities they are not talking about (nice to have that power) as well as Ukraine invasion.

        I suspect a lot of Airlines are happy to see where it goes and if they need the 777X now or latter.

        Boeing clearly can’t manage to fix more than one program at a time.

        I am happy to see the FAA doing its job and Boeing engineers raising the issues. Some day that will get through to management.

        Airbus looks like a bright sun compared to the Boeing dark but they too have had their issues and all this is cyclical.

        At some point Boeing board has to deal with the total failure in profits and get out of the LCA or fix it.

      • I am old enough to have been there when the Alaska Statehood ceremonies were held in Juneau Alaska!

    • @Airdoc:

      All these bait and switch delivery coming soon is to ensure customers continue paying progress payments, the remaining BA lifeline.

  8. If the gap is the width of a piece of paper, that would be about .004, not .050

      • Your knowledge of corporate financing is minimal.

        Boeing is a manufacturer not an investment house , short term investments of spare cash is what cash flow is used for

        ‘Cash and investments in marketable securities decreased to $16.2 billion, compared to $20.0 billion at the
        beginning of the quarter, ,primarily driven by debt repayment partially offset by operating cash flow. Debt was $58.1
        billion, down from $62.4 billion at the beginning of the quarter due to the prepayment of a term loan and repayment
        of maturing debt

        Cant offer mentoring on corporate finance , sorry

        • Lack of “cash on hand” impedes the ability to finance new projects.

          When you sell the family silver to repair the roof, you won’t be having any more fancy dinners.

        • @Duke

          “Your knowledge of corporate financing is minimal.”

          I guess when you don’t like the message, try to run down the messenger…but numbers don’t lie – Donnie

          We’ve been through this before Duke.

          Nice how you focus only on that quarter. What do the numbers say, year over year, not just for the quarter?

          Cash and cash equivalents $8,052 $7,752
          Short-term and other investments 8,192 17,838

          What were the figures at the start of the year and a year later?

          Cash and cash equiv were 25,590 at the start

          Cash and cash equiv were 16,244 at the end

          That’s 9,346

          Long-term debt 56,806 61,890

          Over the year, they repaid 5,084

          What happened to the other $4.262 BILLION in cash and equiv?

          It was used to fund operations because the company didn’t generate enough cash to do so. They smashed the piggy bank/401k/rainy day fund because they didn’t have enough money…

          Mentor me on corporate finance?

          Geez, Imma send you to junior college to learn how to balance your check book…

    • From Investing:

      Boeing has fallen almost 25% over the past year

      Boeing has consistently underperformed expectations in recent years, with quarterly earnings that have missed the consensus expected values for three of the last four quarters, and nine of the last 12 quarters. Q4 of 2021, reported on Jan. 26, 2022, was particularly bad, with expected EPS of -$0.42 and actual EPS of -$7.69. Management attributed the disappointing Q4 results largely to higher-than-expected costs in the 787 program.

      • Analysts expect BA to burn through billions in cash for operation.

    • @Bryce

      BA was up over $180 about a week ago, it’s down to $167 this morning:

      Don’t you just love the market? No one is supposed to know what the details of the quarterly are, but everyone seems to know what the details are…lol

      • @ Frank
        Investors have an old saying: “Buy the rumor, sell the news”

        In the case of BA, that seems to have morphed into “Sell the rumor, sell the news…as matter of fact, if it moves then sell it!”

        BA stock is now down 8,6% ($152.71).

  9. A piece of paper is more than an order of magnitude less than .05″ thick (given as the thickness of a sheet of paper in the article). Look at a stack of 500 sheets of printer paper; it is about 2′ thick. So 250 sheets/in. or .004″ per sheet.

    So are the gaps in question actually .05″ or are they like a sheet of paper which is 12 or 13 times thinner?

  10. On the Qatar/Airbus spat: there’ll be a (preliminary) ruling today on whether Airbus can use a cross-default clause to cancel Qatar’s A321 order.

    “LONDON (Reuters) – A British judge will on Tuesday rule whether Airbus must keep building A321neo jetliners for estranged Qatar Airways in a decision with implications for future multi-billion-dollar jet deals, as their public bust-up returns to London’s High Court.”

    Chiming with what I said in another comment above:
    “It has accused Qatar Airways, the A350’s biggest customer, of airing invalid safety concerns to avoid taking jets at a time of weak demand, and to activate a $1 billion compensation claim.”

    • I think it wasn’t very smart of Akbar Al Baker to keep pushing, ignoring when he was negotiating with Airbus sales. He should have accepted a deal. This isn’t a Qatar office, where he always gets what he wants anyway.

      Now the case has moved into the hands of lawyers, strategist, who damage his brand by telling the court / free press he is airing invalid safety concerns to avoid taking jets at a time of weak demand, and to activate a $1 billion compensation claim. And holding back deliveries they can miss, but Qatar Airways not, at a time the 737MAX, 787 and 777-9 aren’t the hottest boats in the harbor.

      Maybe bad timing, ego, Akbar.

      • At this point the judge has only ruled that Airbus may cancel Qatars Airlines A32o orders, for now. The Judge has it seems left reinstatement of the order open presumably at later slots but has taken into account that Watar may lease aircraft.

        The Judge has not ruled on the issue of the deteriorating paint and exposed lightning grid.

    • A BNN Bloomberg article on today’s court ruling against Qatar:

      “(Bloomberg) — Airbus SE was given the green light to cancel an order for in-demand A321 aircraft from Qatar Airways, giving the planemaker an interim victory in a heated legal dispute with one of its biggest customers.

      “The Gulf airline had asked a London court for an injunction to stop Airbus from scrapping the contract for 50 planes, which was denied on Tuesday by a U.K. judge. The ruling clears Airbus to remarket the jets to new customers and means the carrier will have to find other ways to meet its narrowbody needs.

      “Lawyers for Airbus had argued the planemaker has the right to cancel the contract under a clause due to the airline’s failure to accept delivery of A350s. They also said relations between the parties have broken down to such an extent it would be wrong to force them to work together.”

        • If the judge allowed the cross-default argument, it means that he considers Qatar to be in default on the A350 issue — after all, if there’s no default, then there’s also no cross-default.
          That would seem to indicate that the court is heading toward ruling that Qatar’s A350 case is without merit.

          • English law has the concept of “anticipatory breach of contract” and Q refusing delivery of planes while litigating the damage issue (not yet resolved in law) fits to a T.
            No doubt AAB’s English solicitors and QCs would have advised him regarding this, but he is not known to listen…

        • “Qatar Airways will now have to find other ways to meet its narrowbody needs. It will also have to pay 260,000 pounds ($331,000) to Airbus in legal fees in the next 14 days.”

          From the article

          “The judge said that Qatar’s argument that it needs the A321s to fly to new destinations such as Bilbao, Spain, or Lyon, France, was “flawed and uncertain” and in any case the routes could be served by other aircraft. “

      • Reuters:

        “The judge rejected Qatar’s claim that it could not find alternatives, for example by leasing jets or deploying 737 MAX jets that it has provisionally ordered from Boeing.”

        “Airbus won backing for its case that the two contracts are connected by a “cross-default” clause that allows it to pull the plug on one deal when an airline refuses to honour the other.”

  11. Reuters:
    Republican Senator blasts U.S. Justice Dept’s Boeing 737 MAX plea deal

  12. While its not a direct source, the one I have confirms indirectly that the 787 deliveries will be resuming. Yes that is cryptic, not going to reveal anything about it other than I believe it as there is a logic stack to it.

    • Dear oh dear…the Q1 loss was TEN TIMES larger than the analyst consensus (which was -26 cents per share).
      I wonder if that might be the reason why the stock is down 8.81% ($152.32) as I write this…?

    • It’s imp. to note that, per their mgt, BA needs 10 to 12 billion of cash on hand to run, they can’t dip far below that.
      Secondly, [every] co. window dress at q.e. and y.e.

  13. “The manufacturer said it will pause production of its 777X plane, which has not yet been certified by U.S. regulators, through 2023, a plan the company says will create $1.5 billion in abnormal costs starting in the second quarter.

    Boeing also doesn’t expect deliveries of the plane to start until 2025, more than a year later than it previously forecast.”

    So that’s a $7 billion loss on the 777X program. But hey – it’s not all gloom and doom! Look what Dave had to say:

    “Through our first-quarter results, you’ll see we still have more work to do; but I remain encouraged with our trajectory, and we are on track to generate positive cash flow for 2022,” Boeing’s CEO David Calhoun said in a note to employees Wednesday. “We are a long-cycle business, and the success of our efforts will be measured over years and decades; not quarters.”

    See – it’s coming together!

    BTW – there is absolutely no truth to the rumour that Calhoun asked the executives to move the chairs around the conference room, prior to releasing this statement.

    • -> “We are a long-cycle business, and the success of our efforts will be measured over years and decades; not quarters.”

      Is Dave/the board/BA talking about an all-new passenger jet program? Oops. WTH is he talking about? What’s his/the co.’s LT vision/strategy/plan? The SAF fig leaf, again?

      Did he explain what’s the cause of 777X’s delay? Is it because Greg cut R&D to the bone so it’s overburdened? As BA said to file a certification plan for 787, shouldn’t those engineers supporting that work can now be released for other programs? If so, why the delay for 777X. It doesn’t smell right for me. BTW how about the impact on EIS of 777-8F??

  14. Nobody mentioned the evolution of interest rates.
    Debt is massive, this will have a huge impact.
    Nobody would be surprised if debt is downgraded to junk, or if BOEING is booted out of the Dow Jones, (as GE was some time ago)

  15. claes said: “ can check in-service parts for delamination.”

    That was well-worded. 😉

    Yes, you can inspect for delam, but what if the part
    is so far *intact* ? There lies the rub.. as we will see, I think. Way more uncertainty in that issue for comfort.

  16. Qatar is becoming increasingly desperate/erratic:
    FG: “Airbus and Qatar Airways wrestle over right to resell rejected A350s”

    “Among the legal jousts between Airbus and Qatar Airways arising from their court clash is an attempt by the airline to prevent the airframer from reselling A350s built for the carrier but individually cancelled after Qatar’s refusal to take delivery.

    “Airbus has been cancelling A350s which had been completed and were ready for delivery to Qatar, citing breach of contract, but the carrier is trying to stop the airframer from acting on the termination notices and selling the jets to third parties.

    “Qatar Airways also wants to stop Airbus from cancelling any further A350s.

    “Airbus argues that there is no basis for an injunction to prevent resale of the rejected A350s to other carriers.

    “If the rejected aircraft are defective, as Qatar maintains, they cannot be redesigned or rebuilt. Qatar must therefore never want to take delivery of them, and cannot claim to suffer if Airbus sells them to a third party.

    “Airbus’s court filing claims the “obvious inference”, from Qatar Airways’ seeking the injunctions, is that the airline “does not genuinely believe” that the A350 is defective – and that it is looking to “preserve a pool” of new A350s which it would accept at a later date.”

    Looks as if AAB might be slowly realizing that his 777Xs are never going to come, and that he’ll have to put up with peeling wing paint on 787s.

Leave a Reply

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