April 27, 2022, © Leeham News: Boeing’s 777X program took another hit Wednesday, when the company said it won’t deliver the first 777-9 until 2025 due to new delays getting the plane certified. It has halted 777-9 production through 2023, which the company expects to incur $1.5 billion in abnormal costs until the assembly line starts moving again.
The aerospace giant’s Q1 earnings report is soaked in red ink: a $1.2 billion net loss, a $3.6 billion loss in free cash flow and a $2.06 GAAP loss per share and a $2.75 core (non-GAAP) loss per share. The results fell far below the roughly 20 cents per share loss and $15 billion expected by Wall Street analysts.
The company said it has filed a 787 certification plan with federal regulators, as it tries to resume deliveries of its premier twin-aisle jetliner.
Boeing Defense booked more than $1 billion in charges from two programs–Air Force One replacement and T-7 Red Hawk trainer for the U.S. Air Force.
Boeing’s posted first quarter revenue of nearly $14 billion, an 8% drop from Q1 2021, when it brought in $15.2 billion in revenue, according to its quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
It also missed investment analysts’ expectations of $15.2 billion in revenue, according to Fact Set, despite an uptick in first quarter deliveries for Boeing Commercial Airplanes from 77 during the first three months of 2021 to 95, including 86 737 MAXes, this past quarter.
It was “another dreadful quarter from Boeing,” Rob Stallard, an analyst with Vertical Research Partners, wrote in a note to investors.
Despite the setbacks, Boeing President and CEO David Calhoun assured analysts during a conference call following the earnings release Wednesday that better days are ahead. Through the rest of the year, “our financials will accelerate, and going forward, there is an opportunity for the company to return to sustainable growth.”
In a statement with the release, he said, Boeing is “focused on our performance as we work through certification requirements and mature several key programs to production. Leading with safety and quality, we’re taking the right actions to drive stability throughout our operations, deliver on our commitments to customers and position Boeing for a sustainable future.”
The company spent $633 million on research and development during the first quarter, a $134 million increase from the same period in 2021. The year-over-year quarterly increase was roughly evenly split between commercial and defense. However, the total expenditure was less than the $678 million it spent in the last quarter of 2021. Boeing Commercial Airplanes spent $321 million on R&D, slightly less than the $323 million it spent last quarter.
The aerospace giant’s 787 program continues to struggle.
Boeing stopped 787 deliveries 18 months ago after inspectors discovered a 0.004-inch-side gap, just wide enough to slide a sheet of paper through, in new production aircraft in October 2020. The company said it has filed a certification plan with the Federal Aviation Administration. Nonetheless, it recorded $312 million in abnormal costs for the program in the first quarter, and it still expects about $2 billion in costs by the end of 2023, according to the company.
In early 2022, American Airlines executives said they expected deliveries to resume in mid-April, and Boeing’s Calhoun indicated at the time that was accurate. Now, American and United Airlines say they expect to take new 787s later this year, according to SEC filings by the airlines, as LNA recently reported.
One hundred fifteen 787s were parked, waiting for delivery at the end of March. The problem has been fixed in aircraft currently rolling off the assembly line, and “importantly, we completed the rework on the initial airplanes and are preparing them for delivery,” Calhoun said.
Boeing 737 MAX production is “essentially at 31 airplanes per month,” Calhoun said.
However, the pace of “deliveries are slightly below our expectations,” due to supply chain disruptions and how long it takes to take planes out of storage, he said.
The company hopes to deliver most of its 737 MAXes inventory by the end of next year. It had 320 in inventory at the end of the quarter. “The timing of the pace of delivery to Chinese customers and supply chain stability remain key factors to our delivery profile,” he said.
China still has not cleared the MAX to resume flying in the country, and COVID lockdowns have slowed down that process, according to the company.
In the meantime, Boeing is “doing everything we can to complete the certification of the MAX 7 and MAX 10 and ensure their respective first deliveries this year and next,” he said.
Boeing Defense recorded a $660 million charge on the two new Air Force One aircraft it is producing and $367 million in charges on its T-7 Red Hawk trainer program.
The company attributed the Air Force One program charge to supply costs, technical problems and schedule delays. Calhoun said the company should not have agreed to contract’s terms.
“Air Force One, I’m just going to call a very unique moment, a very unique negotiation, a very unique set of risks that Boeing probably shouldn’t have taken, but we are where we are, and we’re going to deliver great airplanes,” Calhoun said during the call.
The contract was negotiated under his predecessor, Dennis Muilenburg. Calhoun was on the board at the time.
Supply costs, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and inflation are driving up costs on the T-7 trainer replacement program, according to Boeing’s SEC filing.
Both contracts are fixed-price, meaning Boeing has to swallow any cost overruns.
I wonder if those massive losses in free cash flow are due to the significant discount offered on the 737MAX. Anyway, this will certainly affect the launch of the NMA.
Vero Venia claiming that all these are actually good news for Boeing in 3… 2… 1… GO!
Well we just need to get Calhoun more bonuses for fixing programs that he was responsible for (The Sgt Schultz thing where he saw nothing does not wash)
And of course they are focusing on performance. Tee hee. The FAA is making them adhere to spec. Yipeeee!
And if those already built 787s are fixed why are they not being delivered?
Of course you have to pay off your losses before your profits mean anything. Calhoun will be gone by then (but the soooner the better)
And as I said lower down, sucking up to you know who, and the difference between 3.9 billion and 4 and a 1 billion loss? Well as someone said, a billion here and a billion there and we start talking about real money
Boeing could have walked away and what would the Congress have done? But no, Calhoun and his clown board just cost the company another billion, but when you freely cost 20 billion chunks, its oh well.
In his prissy and circuitous ways he already did that on the 26th: “Very Huge Opportunity”. some poster must have angered him deeply.
-> Boeing reported a $1.2 billion loss, a $3.6 billion loss in free cash flow and a $2.06 GAAP loss per share and a $2.75 core (non-GAAP) loss per share. The results fell far below the roughly 20 cents per share loss expected by Wall Street analysts.
Boeing’s first quarter revenue of nearly $14 billion was far below expectations ahead of its earnings report and an 8% drop from Q1 in 2021, when the company posted $15.2 billion in revenue.
Are we there (the bottom) yet?? Sigh.
Hindsight is 20/20, especially if you’re on the hook for any cost overrun.
-> Boeing CEO David Calhoun says company executives should not have agreed to former President Trump’s terms for the new Air Force One. The company today announced it lost $660M building the two planes
-> “Air Force One I’m just going to call a very unique moment, a very unique negotiation, a very unique set of risks that Boeing probably shouldn’t have taken, but we are where we are, and we’re going to deliver great airplanes,” Calhoun said on the company’s quarterly earnings call
787 deferred accounts still amount to 13,5$Bn
This is a depreciation going to happen sooner or later…
I would add: 13.5B of deferred production cost + unamortized tooling despite a recent 3.5B write-off (reach forward-loss).
Sadly for many, inflation is really going to help Boeing in this instance. Enough inflation, and this would just be the cost of a pack of cigarettes – if you can still buy them at that time.
Sorry to disagree!
Inflation also means big jump in interest rates
Boeing debt is massive let us say 60$Bn
not junk yet but interest rate paid by BOEING might quickly rise by more than 5%
that means 0,75$Bn additionnal losses /quarter
You are right. I was only referring to the deferred production cost. Inflation would have many other pressure points, including perhaps a reduction in demand, potential problems for suppliers depending on their contracts, etc.
In the late 90’s, Phil Condit talked about his 20 year plan – what it took to “still be in the phone book” in 20 years. Of course, we had phone books back then, so the metaphor itself says something about what it takes.
Condit’s answer was to put shareholder interests first, seek leadership from McDonnell Douglas, cut costs, sell off legacy resources, and divert free cash for 20 years to repurchase $70 B in shares.
Harry Stonecipher said there’s nothing wrong with Boeing’s plan. “We just didn’t execute it.”
If you can’t execute your plan, there’s something wrong with it.
Now, 25 years after Phil Condit’s question, I’m going with Upton Sinclair’s insight. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
As someone who worked in Boeing engineering for more than three decades, retiring a few years ago, the situation there can only be described as sad, and entirely foreseeable. Just last week I was cleaning up some old personal emails, and came upon this which I wrote to a friend in October, 2008:
“I continue to endure the on-going train wreck called the Boeing 787, where the stupid management tricks never cease to amaze. I watch something like Lehman Brothers disappear overnight, and mentally fast-forward 10 years and hope it’s not Boeing making those kinds of headlines. It’s that bad.”
I hope that we’re not approaching a Lehman-type event, but if a cubicle dwelling grunt could have seen this mess coming, I wonder what the mahogany office geniuses were thinking back then (that is a rhetorical question).
Well done, it could not have been put better.
Upton Sinclair’s insight. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Obviously, the new MBA’s that bid the Air Force One and the Red Hawk programs don’t know anything about Defense Contracting. Haven’t they heard about cost plus 10%? Or did they bring them over from KC-46? Time to fire this Board of Directors. Boy, Airbus has these guys on the ropes… Great planning.
Correction: CEO Calhoun himself more-less admits to being snookered by Trump in the Air Force One deal.
The Board would only have a minor say in the AF One deal.
Thats how boards work.
However should never never have the CEO as Chairman and President as he does have all the details or is OK with knowing its a cut price deal
The “blame it on Trump” ploy is really much overused.
No, I didn’t vote for him- or the other guy.
Its more complicated than that as usual.
AF1 who would bid and its a prestige thing. Sucking up to you know who as well or maybe mostly.
I knew one of the top people on the last AF1 project with a top notch crew, it still was in arrears. They have far too many stupid things in the mix including Alien Abduction that causes the whole thing to go South.
T-7A is a case of deliberately low balling to have a base for digital design and we have to see how that comes out in the end.
KC-46A was also deliberate, what bit them was if you are going to low ball you need to put your A team on it and they clearly did not.
But then they have at best one A team – so they can’t cover all the low balls.
MQ-25 is a wait and see
-> Boeing’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings also showed a $165 million charge for the KC-46A Pegasus, driven mainly by higher supply chain costs, and a *$78 million charge* for the MQ-26 Stingray stemming from additional testing requirements from the Navy and supplier quality problems.
Interesting stuff from Boeing- thanks for the post.
I’m amused by this Calhoun quote:
“Leading with safety and quality, we’re taking the right actions to drive stability throughout our operations, deliver on our commitments to customers and position Boeing for a sustainable future.”
Almost every part of the quote is the **antithesis** of what BA has become:
– It doesn’t “lead”.
– It is in no way synonymous with safety or quality.
– It doesn’t appear to be taking any actions at all — not to mind the “right actions”: ask an exasperated FAA, which recently asked (again) for “mature timelines” vis-à-vis the 777X and MAX-10.
– There’s no “stability in its operations”: almost everything is halted, delayed and/or incurring new write-offs every quarter.
– It certainly does not deliver on its commitments to its customers — ask Tim Clark and Southwest about that.
– The only “sustainable future” that it’s working to achieve is SAF-compatibility of its engines — which actually entails effort by the engine makers rather than by BA.
Could this quote be any more detached from reality?
Boilerplate corporate-speak from Mr. Calhoun..
Not the right stuff under Calhoun for sure.
But as the losses mount the board starts to look at him out of the corner of his eye.
The rule of thumb is you have two years to blame the previous management and then people start to give you the stink eye.
We are there an 2025 for the 777X and ???????????????
Sooner he is gone the better.
I thought the same thing when I read it. It’s a typical situation where his silence would have been “less ridiculous.”
It’s almost like the absurd, oblivious language
from Mr. Calhoun is intentional.
I still think something much larger than (still behemoth) Boeing is at work.
What do you believe would be happening, Bill?
It’s murky, but something is “off” to me. I don’t recall a big CEO ever essentially shrugging his shoulders, repeatedly, and saying “oh, well..” with so many
major issues in play.
You need to understand that it was Southwest that drove the internal decisions at Boeing for how the mad max was designed and to ensure the same type certification would not change from the NG/Classic.
As for Tim Clark I’m not sure why he hasn’t told Boeing to pound sand with this latest 777X schedule announcement.
Thats easy to answer for the class.
Emirates first 777W came into service in 2005-6 thats 15 airframes that will be 20 years in service coming up.
Theres another 20 or so for the 2 years after that. And so it goes for each year after that for its fleet of 125.
If they delay replacement it just pushes the problem further into later years where the numbers get higher.
Emirates is now where Southwest and even Ryanair are. Those big discounts to become the biggest customer tie you even more tightly with Boeings travails.
Any comments class ?
– Emirates already has 50 A350-900s on order, with deliveries starting next year.
– The Qatar and Aeroflot A350 slots are available for early takers.
Tim Clark may be able to jump ship much sooner than you think.
Oh yes, Professor. We were wondering if you could solve the following financial equation for us, concerning cash burn, at the aforementioned entity, for the quarter:
Cash and cash equivalents $7,409 $8,052
Short-term and other investments 4,873 8,192
Also as a follow up, Professor – given how over the previous year, there was a similar cash burn of $4.262 BILLION (after LTD repayment), with a full burn of $9.346 billion and you’ve said that :
“Boeing is a manufacturer not an investment house , short term investments of spare cash is what cash flow is used for”
In 2018, Boeing carried just $2.0 billion in net debt.
In 2020, it sported $34 billion in net debt. Today, we are over $45.4 billion in net debt, with dwindling cash reserves:
We were wondering if you could please show us your certification in corporate finance, as you mention ‘mentoring on corporate finance’
Yet the entity you choose to support seems to be in a tailspin.
Perhaps Professor, you might want to add this textbook to your reading list:
“Reading Financial Reports For Dummies”
(here endeth the lesson)
EK decides to retrofit its 777 fleet, don’t you know? Did you oversleep and miss the class, guy?
Careful, Pedro. Share the information. Hold the attacks.
I read the statement differently. Not claiming leadership, simply stating that the top/lead priorities are safety and quality. Neither of which the statement indicates are achieved, simply they are the top priorities.
And since a severe failing in both is the specific cause of the lack of stability and therefore the ability to plan effectively and therefore be sustainable, absoluteley right that these should be the leads.
Of course, the statement’s wording could well be deliberately readable multiple ways so that at least some people believe Boeing are leaders.
I bet those bankers that BA quietly approached for a $30 billion equity investment at between $250-300 per share, are laughing their asses off at the c-suite boys now.
I guess it’s easier to put out a memo to the employees that says:
“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.”
and fool the little guy into over-valuing the company – than it is to fool the guys with the purse strings who take a long hard look at what you’ve done with the company.
If it was not so sad it would be funny how much Boeing management has cost the company vs who they fired and gutted the company (aka savings) and the cowering workers would have cost to keep doing things right.
Boeing as a company does not reserved this nor the workers but the gut them like a fish management keeps striking.
Pay Calhoun the ill gotten gains he is going to get anyway and get someone worth a hoot.
But is there anyone in the world who would take the job and then actually get the 777X into service before 2025 ?
One thing that Calhoun said is true “We are a long-cycle business, and the success of our efforts will be measured over years and decades; not quarters.” That’s the beauty of being the CEO of a large company. The board knows it can’t expect instant results, and doesn’t know how to calibrate the changes that are being made, or not being made. So the trick is to know how to get the job, not how to do it !
In 2020, Boeing had a historically bad year, as the company reported a $12 billion loss and laid off 30,000 workers. At the same time, Calhoun earned $21.1 million in compensation
21st century win-win:
Heads I win, tails you lose
For those with a strong stomach, see how much corporate waffle and smokescreening you can endure: here’s the transcript of today’s earnings call.
I wonder why Emirates just won’t cancel the 777-8 already and just order the A350-1000. The writing is on the wall for that plane.
A350-1000 orders are way down too.
Now 164 down from 211 peak and Airbus does even do ASC adjustments
Emirates may already be in the process of doing that — discretely at first, and then openly once the details have been ironed out.
A350-1000 orders have fallen significantly as well.
What does that tell you. Big planes unless they carry cargo arent the flavour of the month
I agree absolutely: the A350-900 has greatly outsold the -1000, and the 787-9 has greatly outsold the -10.
However, you’re the one repeatedly saying that Emirates needs big planes, so the A350-1000 seems to be a more natural choice for that airline…on top of the A350-900s and A330-900s that it has already ordered.
I think Emirates did not order the A330-900.
It was an MoU…though Emirates described it as an order
-> The problems Boeing employees found initially were minor by themselves: improper-size shims in the minute gaps they had found between sections of the fuselage, and areas where the fuselage skin wasn’t sufficiently smooth.
But the imperfections could add up to a more serious problem with the plane’s structural integrity, according to industry and government officials. Undetected flaws can result in premature aging that airlines don’t know to check for and repair, the officials said.
Another issue seems to have been that allowable tolerances were set to a perfect interface.
in reality two of those meet. result: (negative) margins can be twice the allowable.
Either a major competence failure or a fib.
Can somebody describe in technical terms the intended repair procedures? Are the Barrels bolted together or are they glued? What needs to be removed to get access to the shims? The complete interior and also the paint and coating on the exterior? That looks like an open heart surgery to me.
From Reuters, February 2021:
“But before any jet is delivered, it must go through invasive inspections and costly repairs.
“First, technicians must pull out the passenger seats, open up the floor paneling and use specialty tools to measure whether defects invisible to the naked eye are present, according to three people with direct knowledge of the process.
“The repair work – already underway at Boeing factories in Everett, Washington and North Charleston, South Carolina – is even harder.
“In the bowels of the jet, technicians have to remove multiple specialty fasteners on both sides of the inner fuselage skin, then install newly produced “shims” that fill out gaps and remove the structural dimpling. Workers then replace all the fasteners, re-paint, and re-install the interior, they said.
““It’s like open-heart surgery,” one of the people said. “They’ll be retrofitting the fleet for potentially several years.””
Theres 2 problems that have been run together.
The shims , which were made in an automated process , the software was suppose to prevent outsized shims being made to fill the gaps
As well another anomaly was discovered where the flatness on the inner mold line ( IML) was outside tolerances
Both types of defect were, relatively speaking, involving tiny discrepancies
A few planes had both types of anomaly.
This Boeing video which describes the repairs , but is 95% waffle
You forgot to mention the (serious) wing composite contamination issue…for which there is no fix.
Sorry to disagree!
Inflation also means big jump in interest rates
Boeing debt is massive let us say 60$Bn
not junk yet but interest rate paid by BOEING might quickly rise by more than 5%
that means 0,75$Bn additionnal losses /quarter
Puting new uncontaminated wings is not an option?
Obviously very costly, but Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has deep pockets
And might lose the business now that there is a brand new composite wings facility in Seattle
Built for the 777X so probably under used!
It certainly is an option; I was reserving the term “fix” to indicate some sort of repair.
What serious wing contamination ?
I dont recall it being discussed extensively on LNA like the fuselage issues have been. There was an FAA memo , but the FAA does similar manufacturing defects of a minor nature about a half a dozen per week over all the major manufacturers and their planes in service.
There are informative links above for you…do try to keep up.
Here you go…makes things easier:
Those are just cut and paste operators who plagiarise others work.
Not serious aviation website like LNA. Still not a big issue
Looks like someone didn’t notice the nested link to the Seattle Times article within the AVWeb piece. It’s good practice to provide other readers with material that isn’t located behind a paywall.
Look: this article also references the Seattle Times article…see?
And here’s the original Seattle Times article:
Mmmhh…looks like a very serious issue…
So much focus on the woes of Boeing, I’d like to divert to s different, but similar subject:
In April of 2022, Airbus has delivered eight A220’s to it’s customers. Most recently Breeze took it’s 4th aircraft, #55148.
It looks like Airbus is dead serious about ramping up production of the type.
It seems they are dead serious based on the Maribel/ Mobile investments. Not on deliveries yet..
They just delivered 8 in April, whereas in previous years, the rate has been 4 a month. If they can keep this up and it isn’t a blip, that’s halfway to the full rate of 15 a month by 2025
“The results fell far below the roughly 20 cents per share loss and $15 billion expected by Wall Street analysts.”
The WS analysts never had a clue for the last 10 years. They are only interested in free cash flow/ value extraction for as long as it takes. Not creating long term value for the US economy / tax payer. WS should be banned from the Boeing cockpit, where it has been hanging out way too long.
“Here’s How Airbus Will Beat Boeing”
“Boeing’s been skimping on R&D, while Airbus has invested in its future.”
“Simply put: With the sole exception of in 2016, Airbus has heavily outspent Boeing in terms of R&D over the past decade.”
“…the more I look at these numbers, the more I’m convinced that Airbus airplanes and Airbus stock are going to outperform Boeing for a long time to come.”
-> Boeing’s struggles with Air Force One laid out by @jonostrower:
The wiring on the 747-8, because it’s a derivative of an older plane doesn’t meet the latest FAA safety standards. (Where have I heard of that before?)
But for the President, an expensive upgrade is required.
Looks like BA didn’t do its homework before accepting the Trump deal.
No surprises there.
Its an USAF plane . Doesnt need FAA certification. I would think that the changed requirements and military comms and protection meant a whole new rewire was needed anyway
Anyway the 747-8 WAS certified by FAA a decade back. Hardly old by my modern standards and if there ever was a grand father exemption the VC-25B is it. Its not an upgrade to the really old 747-200/VC-25A
Story doesnt add up
The FAA certifies civilian aircraft converted to military aircraft:
I said it doesnt ‘need’ it being an USAF plane . They do their own cert standards.
I think they run these converted civilian designs in similar track to take advantage of the civilian maintenance infrastructure and Boeings self certification
‘The U.S. Air Force awarded a contract to The Boeing Company to design, modify, test, certify and deliver two presidential, mission-ready aircraft by 2024.’
-> “Anyway the 747-8 WAS certified by FAA a decade back”
Thanks to grandfather exemption only! And BA had to record a charge for the 747-8 program.
New-built won’t have to be re-wired! That’s the root of the problem, isn’t it??
Taipei Times: BA seems to be pulling out all the stops:
“The newspaper yesterday reported that Graham, the ranking member of the US Senate Budget Committee, was “forcefully” trying to convince the government to buy commercial airplanes made by US-based Boeing Co.
“The senator from South Carolina relayed this message again in a statement on Friday last week, saying: “I’m hoping in the coming weeks that Taiwan will announce that they’re going to buy 24 787 wide-body jets made by Boeing.”
“That would be a US$8 billion package,” he said. “It would be a tremendous boost to Boeing in South Carolina, and I’m hoping Taiwan will make that decision.””
Why the government there need *24* Boeing 787??
Perhaps the senator thinks that the Taiwanese government procures aircraft for Taiwanese airlines?
Looks like he may be confusing Taiwan with China…
Hes spot on . China Airlines is state owned flag carrier of ‘the other China’
But doesnt make sense as CAL has A350-900s in its fleet. But I can see the 777X being bought to replace older 777 and 747
The subsidiary Mandarin Airlines does flights to Big China and other regional locations
EVA Air is the other big local airline, part of Evergreen and has 787 and 777
So the government of Taiwan, is forced to direct its airline what aircraft to buy like paying *pizzo* to “mafia”??
Ah I see: this is what others called the post-War International Order?
China Airlines is a publicly traded company. The Taiwanese government is the majority shareholder — but not the sole “owner”. Fleet decisions are made by the board of directors — not the shareholders.
As if anyone would make a deal right now to buy 24 787 for 8 billion. Maybe this senator is going by list prices for the 787-10?
Look…what a truly STUNNING event: a KC-46A in Spain was actually able to refuel its first foreign aircraft!!!
Very aptly: the event took place at the Moron Air Base (no joke).
“The KC-46A, its aircrews, maintenance and support personnel […] pushed hard to run the aircraft through its paces during the ECE, including supporting a bomber task force, refueling U.S. fighters over Eastern Europe, and completing the first-ever operational refueling of an international aircraft,” said General Mike Minihan, Air Mobility Command commander. “AMC continues to drive toward increased refueling capability while working to overcome programmatic challenges.”
What an astounding achievement: 11 years after “winning” the KC-X contest, the Flying Lemon actually managed to refuel a foreign aircraft (without causing a major incident). Kudos to BA and the USAF!
The contract for the 1st production lot was signed in Aug 2016,the first production KC-46A only flew in Dec 2017 and 1st plane handed over to USAF in Jul 2018.
So the first foreign fighter refuelling- not really a core requirement- came 4 yrs after the 1st acceptance by USAF
“…not really a core requirement…”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the USA a member of NATO?
And doesn’t NATO make use of “foreign aircraft”?
Thats because Nato airforces have their own planes to refuel their
Many are using A33o types , Italy has 767 tanker.
The US designs it planes for its requirements first, but even so its 4 yrs from first USAF acceptance flight to first Nato fighter refuelling. Not a milestone at all
Duke: you need to raise your level.
A brief study of the English language might help, though in your case I have my doubts.
Right now our Alaskan correspondent is well above you, at least in relative coherence- and that’s saying something.
Why the 777X, a derivative program needs the better part of 14 years from start of development to service entry is beyond me!
Maybe they are just trying to make the 787 development hell look good by comparison.
Or maybe, just maybe the company’s product development managers and of course the C-suite need to be let go.
Mostly because they had strong orders for the existing 777W and 777F production so spread design effort and development costs over a longer period.
The new engines ( from a supplier) and not much else still took 5 years plus for both Boeing and Airbus for the same reasons
Don’t forget that 5 of those 15 years were/are due to delays that could have been prevented by a “normal” OEM…
You mean like the A350;was produced on time ?
Even then Airbus engine supplier RR only had to do a technology upgrade on it’s Trent engine to produce the Trent XWB.
GE had to climb a bigger mountain with it’s new GE9X, which is one of the development pacings , indeed delayed intial flights.
The A350 was launched in July 2006. Its first flight was in June 2013, and its first delivery in January 2015. That’s 8.5 years from launch to delivery — for a clean sheet design.
Which brings us back to the original comment from @ IanH above: if an AB clean sheet aircraft took 8.5 years from launch to delivery, then how does BA justify 14 years (and counting) for a derivative? The GEnX engine has been around since 2006, and the GE9X has been “ready” since 2018.
Well, the 777X is not really a derivative.
it just reuses the 777 classic fuselage 🙂
changes that go much further than the 737 Classic to NG transition.
Trent XWB is a major revamp vs the original Trent1000 ( the TEN and 6000 show a lot of tech backports from the XWB line.
What I do wonder: sfc targets for the GE9X : are they still “as offered for EIS” or have GE achieved something beyond?
The XWB seems to have move forward since its EIS.
The Boeing 777X’s repeated, now-interminable delays, and fuselage rupture, and flight control/software issues, are clearly, clearly the *engine* mfr’s fault.
Looks like someone has hired Loren Thompson to raise the topic of a federal bailout for Boeing.
He resurrects the old bone of “illegal startup subsidies” at Airbus, and even blames them for Boeing’s woes — though he conveniently forgets to mention the other side of the WTO dispute and the illegal tax breaks for Boeing. He also gets in a dig at the Biden administration.
“Indeed, Europe’s continuous support for Airbus with illegal launch subsidies is part of the explanation for Boeing’s current circumstances. The Biden administration walked away from many years of litigation before the World Trade Organization without resolving that issue.
“The company isn’t likely to survive on its current vector. Either management will improve performance, or Washington will need to step in. That’s what Europe would do if Airbus were in trouble.
“So, is Washington now going to allow the nation’s leading exporter and sole surviving producer of jetliners to simply languish, or is it going to do something to help fix the problem?
“This is where the rubber meets the road on industrial policy, and so far our leaders have been content to criticize the company without doing anything constructive to support its recovery.”
I love how the rhetoric goes from “Free Markets!” when the little people are getting squashed, to “To Big to Fail/America’s Future at Stake!” when it’s affecting the
great country or what
> Boeing stopped 787 deliveries 18 months ago after inspectors discovered a 0.004-inch-side gap, just wide enough to slide a sheet of paper through, in new production aircraft in October 2020. <
Is this now deemed accurate? The Boeing 787's fuselage gaps for which deliveries were halted are only four ten-thousandths of an inch?
My misreading, and apologies.