Airbus 1Q2022 results; A better year ahead but conditions tricky

May 4, 2022, © Leeham News: Airbus presented its results for the first quarter of 2022 today. The results were better on all accounts compared with the first quarter last year, and the year’s outlook is unchanged.

However, Airbus CEO, Guillaume Faury warned that the geopolitical and economic conditions are volatile. The guidance for 2022 is unchanged, and longer-term Airbus now plans for 75 A320 series deliveries by 2025 (was 60).

The 1Q2022 delivered a 15% increase in revenue to €12bn as 140 airliners were delivered during the quarter (125 1Q2021). EBIT Adjusted (reflecting the operational profit) increased by 55% to €1.263m (€694m).

Group-level results

Revenue for 1Q2022 was €12bn (€10.5bn 1Q2021), operating profit €1.3bn (called EBIT adjusted, -€0.7bn 1Q2021), and net profit was €1.2bn (€0.35bn).

Free cash flow for 1Q2022 was €0.2bn (€1.2bn), and the net cash position end of 1Q2022 was €7.7bn (end 2021 €7.7bn).

Guidance for 2022 is unchanged at:

  • Airbus targets 720 commercial aircraft deliveries for 2022
  • Airbus expects an EBIT Adjusted of €5.5bn
  • Free Cash Flow of €3.5bn

Commercial aircraft

Net order intake was 83 aircraft compared with a loss of 63 aircraft 1Q2021. The backlog is now 7,023 aircraft.

For the 140 delivered aircraft, 142 were produced: 109 were A320/A321, 11 A220, 16 A350, and 6 A330. Two of these aircraft could not be delivered due to sanctions.

Market demand has made Airbus increase the rate for the A320 family to 75 aircraft per month during 2025 and increase the rate to 65 next year (was 60 for both).

The A321XLR needs some additional work around the certification of the rear center tank, which is integral to the fuselage. The delivery of the first aircraft will, therefore, slip one quarter to early 2024 (was last quarter 2023).


The helicopter increased revenue by 8% to €1.3bn (€1.2bn) and profits by 45% to €90m (€60m).

Defense and Space

Defense and Space increased revenue by 16% to €2.5bn (€2.1bn) and profits five times to €95m (€17m). One A440M was delivered in 1Q2022.

70 Comments on “Airbus 1Q2022 results; A better year ahead but conditions tricky

  1. Airbus looks to be in good shape, though mention
    of 75/mo in 2025 for the 320 family seems a little
    questionable, given the volatility them themselves

    Regarding the sudden 321XLR blip: maybe it’s nothing, but we’re living in Funny Times, I think.

    • Agreed.

      I don’t see anyone made Airbus go to 75 a month and its planned not done, odd phrasing.

      At a guess they want to hit Boeing as hard as they can and gain real market share. 75 seems excessive and more so when you add in A220 production that really is part of that single aisle market formally exclusive to A320/737.

      China is in a world of hurt going forward and orders from there are going to be dismal for Airbus for a while.

      • As I see it, Airbus don’t need to gain market share; just doing what they’ve been doing will

        A220 [-500 to come]
        A321 [re-wing to come?]
        A350 [re-engine to come?]
        Seems good.

        The other guys:

        737MAX no comment/no new money
        787 no comment/no new money
        777X no comment/cancellations?
        777XF no comment/?
        NBA™: ha ha ha ha ha ha ..

      • >China is in a world of hurt going forward”

        How so? I’m quite interested in your response.

        > and orders from there are going to be dismal for Airbus for a while.”

        I am pretty sure any orders for Airbus aircraft that China might not accept would quickly find other homes: i.e., Airbus has a large backlog of orders from multiple
        sources, if I’m not mistaken. Regardless, is there evidence that China is not accepting the planes they’ve ordered from Airbus?

        • China has refused western vaccines and is relying on its own lack of diversity) so it’s COVID recovery will be slow and scattered with lockdowns. It’s bad news with dark cloud but also with a silver lining since reduced activity has reduced oil prices.
          Renewable energy suppliers are facing 80% increases in costs for such things as LiPO battery materials and wind turbines due to oil increases, interest rates. Went to a conference yesterday on this topic.
          I bet you Airbus has the same problems getting metals supply and cheap interest rates.

          • Hey buddy- check both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s
            records of fraud and duplicity with regard to their “medications”, and the repeated finings of both companies.. you trust these “people”, and their grossly undertested, underscrutinized “vaccines” ?

          • > China has refused western vaccines and is relying on its own lack of diversity)

            I’m wondering what the above might mean,
            and have refused the so-called Western “vaccines” myself. I’m hoping my good friend
            William realizes that the so-called Covid “vaccines” are grossly misnamed: they will not- are not claimed to!- prevent one from
            contracting or transmitting covid™.

            In the two years since the “pandemic’ was rolled out, I’ve yet to meet or know of anyone
            who’s been made seriously ill by “covid”.

            I *have*, however, known a number of persons
            who’ve been made seriously ill by the so-called
            “covid vaccines”, and will continue to stay the hell away from them.

          • The Company’s 2022 guidance is before M&A.

            On that basis, the Company targets to achieve in 2022 around:

            720 commercial aircraft deliveries;

            EBIT Adjusted of € 5.5 billion;

            Free Cash Flow before M&A and Customer Financing of € 3.5 billion.


            The best ever year that Boeing had, was 2018, when they delivered 806 aircraft, commercial brought in ~$60 billion in revenue and ~$8 billion in profit.


            The guidance for 2022 isn’t very far off from BA’s best year ever.

            I guess we’ll see.

      • -The supposed 3 month delay on the A321XLR concerns the tanks crashworthiness, its ability’s to insulate the passengers from a fire within the tank and its resistance to catching fire from pooled fuel from the wings burning outside the tank.
        -The consequences can be decreased range, increased MTOW (0.7 ton) and further delays.
        -I suspect Dukeofurl’s 5 year rule is correct which puts entry into service to mid 2015. We shall see.

  2. No wonder CFM recently agreed to the early hike in prodution rate: there’s so little output of the MAX that the company might as well use the spare capacity to serve the A320/A321.

    75 per month = 900 per year.
    Add in the A220, A350 and A330neo and AB is heading (well) north of 1000 frames per year.

    • I have this feeling that the A330neo will prove to be
      a well-positioned plane, over time. And they have

      How’s that New Boeing Aircraft coming along, I wonder. Possible tentative provisional EIS in ???

      • Bill7:

        I don’t think so but for sure its just speculation on my part.

        I think the 787 will dominate that lower end wide body area, the A350 the upper end.

        I can’t imagine Calhoun acualy coming out with a new aircraft. I mean really, Boeing is a profit center not an Aircraft mfg for crying out loud.

        He is Anti: Keeping in mind he was on the board or the chairman for all of it.

        Moonshot (check)
        Fixed Price (Check)
        Current Aircraft (check x 3)
        New Non Moonshot Aircraft (check)

        Now, how you squeeze profit out of a Turnip? Good question.

        • TW: the A330neo is a *deliverable* plane, at a good price, with acceptable++ economics.

        • >I mean really, Boeing is a profit center not an Aircraft mfg for crying out loud.”

          That kind of dismantling can only be done once, of course.

          My take (very sketchy!) is that AB will be the single provider of commercial aircraft;
          and that this has been The Plan for some time. Crush Labor, further enrich the Few..

          Is there evidence to the contrary?

        • A breakthrough would be a Boeing Truss Wing, with active flutter control, RISE, boundary layer ingestion propulsion on a 3rd propulsive APU and possibly laminar flow. That’ll be possible by 2035. Remove the need for RISE it could be 2030. It’s a hard call to make. Anything earlier you end up with a scaled up A220-300 with 3/3 seating.

          Using the term “moonshot” is an anachronism and rather boomer. Space-X using starship will have not only put humans on mars by the time Boeing or Airbus make a new airliner it will have returned them.

          • Boeing simply doesn’t have the money to fund anything new…it’s too busy living from hand to mouth.

          • The term “Moonshot” may have been first used to refer to a NBA by McNerney, a leader that was consumed by making money over presiding over an aerospace engineering firm. He inherited a company known for successful Moonshots, but when he tried to do it on a “shoe-string,” well, then you got the great results that put Boeing in the dire situation it is in today.

            Boeing may have to re-issue all the shares they have bought back in the last decade. I don’t have that number in dollar value, but I presume they bought back a lot of shares when the price was over $300/share. Maybe it could be 20B…

          • @Sam

            They spent $43 billion on buybacks, from 2013-2018.

            It was recently reported by Scott that they quietly attempted to find an equity buyer for $30 billion, but the deal fell apart when BA wanted between $250-300 a share.

            You can get them for $153 today.

          • 43 Billion. Thank you. Well, there it is. Take half of that and build a “Moonshot.”

          • Yes, a robotic built 200-250pax Truss Brazed wing Boeing 797 mostly paid by NASA and optimized at US supercomputer centers could be a change of roles forcing Airbus to design a similar high wing RISE powered robotic built A320neo-neo+. Boeing could maybe get the Navy to pay for a P-8 Posiedon replacement working as a prototype for the 797. The USAF is more Lookheed Martin and harder to convinve of a new E-7 wedgetail

          • I don’t expect any manufacturer to “braze” trusses to wings ever.
            ( it is either rivets, threaded fasteners or glue
            to connect the two 🙂

            Is selling off the family silver “making profits” ?
            IMU “profits” having more than before.

        • Not that long ago, BA’s corp. staff also blindly assume the MAX can compete with A320/321 neo … until the shXt hits the fan, so to speak.

      • >AB yearly output: 11 mth 11 x 75 approx. 825″

        Way too credulous. You really pay attention
        to claims – whatever the source- of what’s going to happen three years from now? Given the shifting sands of geopolitics, and “the pandemic”, and such?

        I sure don’t, though Airbus have *way more* credibility than the other guys.

    • >there’s so little output of the MAX that the company might
      >as well use the spare capacity to serve the A320/A321

      I wonder if Boeing will find itself unable to ramp up the Max rate because Airbus has bought up all the engine supply. A bit like a decade ago when Apple bought up memory supply inhibiting other companies from producing competing products.

      • >I wonder if Boeing will find itself unable to ramp up the Max rate because Airbus has bought up all the engine supply.”

        That scenario initially seems unlikely to me, unless..

        • I don’t buy that. Boeing is in touch with CFM just like Airbus is and CFM is going to watch it all closely no matter what either one says publicly.

          Keep in mind CFM was ramping up to higher numbers overall when the MAX crashes occurred. They have the tooling to do so if it should happen to come true.

          But as was noted, there is a lot of stuff that is flying around since the Ukraine invasion by the Soviets and that is just beginning to play out.

          At best a stalemate in a month or two and sanctions will go on for many years. It will be interesting when Finland and Sweden join NATO. And Europe economic shrinking when the oil and gas is cut off. The US has what it needs and worst case we liquefy gas and run it down the AK Pipeline.

          • I think you are making my point for me. CFM has presumably agreed to AirBus’s numbers. Has Boeing locked in higher productions numbers with CFM given the uncertainties the Max demand faces especially in China. And if not will CFM be able to expand production when Boeing asks for it given supply chain issues. Just a month ago CFM was raising flags about Airbus’s projected rates.

          • @ jbeeko

            I think you make a good point: CFM can wait around forever waiting for more business from BA, or it can devote its resources to AB and generate some revenue for itself. If/when BA comes knocking for more engines, it may get a disappointing answer.

            If you read the (new) article above regarding Spirit AeroSystems, you’ll see a similar story — the company is surviving thanks to Airbus business. “The company beat street expectations on strong Airbus deliveries, for which it’s also a supplier.”

          • Sweden and Finland might join NATO, it would be easier if they could replace Turkey. Now with Erdogan as a loose cannon and Russia run with Putin like a sub sahara mad dictator, a new Crimean war can easily develop. A northen front like the Åland War “is the Finnish term for the operations of a British-French naval force against military and civilian facilities on the coast of the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1854–1856, during the Crimean War between the Russian Empire and the allied France and Britain.” could force Sweden and Finland into war with Russia in a new front as decided by NATO helping the Turks split up Russian armies. Sweden could stop its grand nation programs spreading money more of less uncontrolled around the world just to feel good and change its tax system. It has been refocused on military a couple of times before in its history to fight the Russians and Danes.

          • @Claes, Sweden and Finland will help safeguard the Baltic Sea and Artic Ocean. They will protect the little Baltic nations that need protection from a Russia that has oppressed them since Imperial Tsarist times and particularly under the Imperial Soviets (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) but these Nordic nations can not control the Bosporus or the Black Sea. Tukey is doing that. Turkey is an upcoming technical power. Drones, submarines and a 5th generation fighters. They may eclipse Europe and even Russia. They’ve got their act together.

      • I’d suspect that might not go down very well on that “exclusivity” deal and would likely result in a PW redesign to fit on the MAX. There’s likely some specs somewhere on that

  3. “However, Airbus CEO, Guillaume Faury warned that the geopolitical and economic conditions are volatile. The guidance for 2022 is unchanged, and longer-term Airbus now plans for 75 A320 series deliveries by 2025 (was 60).”

    Lets pause to consider. All of Airbuses hard work may come unstuck due to the war in Europe. A war that might have been avoided with more credible defense spending and a credible policy on energy security. Over spending on defense can be bad but under spending can be catastrophic.

    Cold war defense spending of NATO was around 5% of GDP for UK, USA, Germany and most nations managed 3%-4%. In recent years UK, France dropped to around 2.2% and much of the rest of Europe more like 1.2%. (Holland Germany 1.2-1.4, Belgium 1.2 etc) The exceptions were little Baltic countries who lived on the front line. Russia under Putin spent over 5%-6% for all of this time. One can sympathize with Germany and its reunification costs and funding integration of Eastern Europe (30 billion Euro to Poland Alone). Trump when he criticized Europe demanded 4% not 2%.

    The rule of law internationally and the rule of democracy is now threatened by might is right. We my loose. It will be decades of high energy costs and high defense costs that will effect our economies and it may never be righted. The outlook is poor, the action weak. It will certainly hurt airbus. It will be realized soon that Europe’s 2% spending is also impossibly week. There is no layered surface to air missiles system, nuclear missiles are out of date, many weapons (as much as 50%) are not serviceable and most weapons out of date ecept those of the US and a few such as the French MMP missile or British Martlet and Sky Sabre.

    • > The rule of law internationally and the rule of democracy is now threatened by might is right. <

      Please tell us more, especially about this "rules-based International Order." Whose rules, is one question..

      Russia and Iran have the oil, and the West's so-called "rules-based" types seem to be laying claim to it.


      • Adding:

        >Russia and Iran have the oil

        The smoke, chaff, fog, and media obscuration around this essential point has been unprecedented, and telling.

      • Let me “try” to follow your logic:
        The west is laying claim to Russia’s oil by the following means:
        1 drastically cutting defence expenditures to one quarter that of Russia (1,2% vs 5%.)
        2 making itself dependant on Russian pipeline gas with no alternative, not even an LNG terminal in Germany or reversible pipelines in the key locations as a plan B.
        3 Not arming Ukraine (ok President Trump gave a tiny 400 million in defensive systems but the second lot for which trump got impeached for linking to corruption investigations and the firing of a prosecutor was due to go through but was cancelled by the incoming Biden admin just before Putin invaded)
        4 letting Russia run wars and set up separatist colonies in several nations such as Georgia. Have a look at a map and marvel at how the separatist colonies are in the middle of the country on the coast line.
        5 Russia is defending its claim to oil by invading Ukraine, bombing its towns, shops and businesses so its army can March in with limited opposition and causing a 5.5 million refugee flow. May I note shells 2010 discovery of 13 trillion meters of natural gas in the western Donbas.

        The price aviation will pay is oil at 3-4 times the pre Ukraine war price for many years. Trillions need to be spent on defence now as well.

        The rule of law is not killing people when you don’t get your way because democracy and courts didn’t go your way.

        • William said: The price aviation will pay is oil at 3-4 times the pre Ukraine war price for many years. Trillions need to be spent on defence now as well.

          The rule of law is not killing people when you don’t get your way because democracy and courts didn’t go your way. <

          *Whose* rule of law, Willy? You and your dismal cohort's?
          don't just get to steal Iran and Russia's oil while they lay down for the screwing.. those were the Yeltsin years, Friend.

          I'm still hoping my friend William will tell me about the Western, "rule-based" invasions of Iraq, Libya, Syria (ongoing), and the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia ca. 1999. Until then..

        • Willy, have you any thoughts on the invasions by Western, “rules-based™” nations over the last thirty-or-so years of *oil-rich nations* like Iraq, Libya, and Syria (the latter ongoing); also, the NATO 99-day bombing and dismantling of Yugoslavia in 1999? I sure do..

        • @ William
          “…not even an LNG terminal in Germany or reversible pipelines in the key locations as a plan B.”

          There may not (yet) be an LNG terminal in Germany, but there are 22 LNG terminals in other EU countries, and there’s a web of pipelines connecting them.


          “…drastically cutting defense expenditures to one quarter that of Russia (1,2% vs 5%.)”

          In terms of the *amount* rather than the *percentage*, the EU spends 5 times as much on defense as Russia.


          The paranoia and stale anti-EU rhetoric are remarkable.

          • @Bryce ” In terms of the *amount* rather than the *percentage*, the EU spends 5 times as much on defence as Russia.”

            Which is a factoid that doesn’t consider the relative cost of labour and exchange rates. A Rough calculation using GDP/capita and average incomes suggests Russia get 4-5 times more out of the same amount of defence expenditure as the US or Europe.

            Russia , has been building the forces and the narrative and the precedent to invade all its neighbours and paralyse, disunite and cripple NATO ability to respond to any attack for many years now. NATO doesn’t even really have any air defence beyond the capability to defend military bases (barely). Russia has built deep layered air defence. NATO has a completely outdated fleet of strategic nuclear missiles and tiny tiny arsenal of cruise missiles. Russia has built a huge modern arsenal of both. NATO massively decommissioned its regular troops and land platforms, Russia was massively increasing the size and training and modernity of its regular and irregular forces with each passing year. Hypersonic Aeroballistics missiles, Mach 2.7 cruise missiles, nuclear torpedoes that create 500m tidal ways. Russia was building a information war against the west since 2008-2012. In 1992 Putin wasn’t in power but the Russian government justified the incursion into Transnistria by calling Moldovans “Romanian Neo-Nazis who are attempting to genocide the Russian speaking population east of the Dniester River”. Sounds reminiscent.. West was desperately ignoring Russia after the 2007 financial crisis. Russia has been continuously breaching NATO and neutral country airspace with nuclear armed strategic bombers, maritime exclusion zones with nuclear submarines, and NATO elections in order to create political chaos, and assassinating people inside NATO countries. Can you imagine what Russia and its FSB and GRU would do if western countries did the same in Russia? The NATO alliance is the only thing preventing the rule-based world order (no matter how imperfect ) from ending and a rule of the strongest and political chaos from beginning. One where an authoritarian Russia can dominate.

            The point here is that the new cold war will ruin Airbuses civilian business.

          • @ William
            Thanks for that impressive rant — which has nothing whatsoever to do with aviation.

            It’s a pity that you didn’t expend any energy explaining how, exactly, “the new cold war will ruin Airbuses civilian business.”

          • @Bryce

            Well well hard to follow poster’s logic here that the *new* cold war would hurt one major airframer but not the other.

            BTW, did that poster read that BA’s defense division is posting charges after charges in recent years?

            Hey hope springs eternal. Sooner or later, BA would hit its bottom (may be after being broken up). Cheers.

    • Who’s the [putative] enemy that all these resources
      are to be aimed against? You do realize, of course,
      that resources used for weapons- which just sit there!- are not available for people-benefiting uses,
      like- you know, food, shelter, boring stuff like that..

      As I said above: the central issue is energy- and secondarily, the US’s desire to keep the EU as a vassal state. I won’t talk about China and India for now.

    • William said: “The rule of law internationally and the rule of democracy is now threatened by might is right. We my loose. ” [sic]

      Whatever the above might mean. 😉
      I’m still hoping William can explain how The West spending
      “trillions” (his word) on defense™ can somehow magick for us
      oil that the West does not now have.. how does that
      work? Does he really mean that we’re gonna steal it from others [Iran and Russia, for example], and call that “defense” ?

      Be clear, my friend..

    • @ William
      “A war that might have been avoided with more credible defense spending and a credible policy on energy security.”

      Ah yes, the same old argument, again and again: all evil on earth is attributed to EU policy. Explain, please, how modified policy in the EU would have prevented a large nuclear power from invading Ukraine (not in the EU).

      Going back to the real world: even though there’s a war going on right beside us here in the EU, industry is still humming, and money is still flowing — including at Airbus. In fact, the Euro STOXX 600 index is down less YTD than the S&P 500. It seems that the world has an insatiable demand for EU products and services — including Airbus ones.

    • @William

      “All of Airbuses hard work may come unstuck due to the war in Europe.”

      Well then, since BA & AB share many of the same customers & even suppliers around the globe, even in Europe – if it becomes ‘unstuck’ for Airbus, stands to reason it would be catastrophic for Boeing, since they are in an even worse financial position.

      Mind you, if you’d be so kind – could you please highlight the reasons why defense planners in the West should be quaking in their boots, by the much vaunted Russian military, which seems to be bogged down in a quagmire in Ukraine, going nowhere fast and getting their borsht’s handed to them by an inferior adversary?

      All they seem to be doing is:

      1) Allowing defense contractors the opportunity to test weapon systems in a real world situation
      2) Showing Western planners all of their weak spots and inadequacies
      3) Getting a bunch of generals killed (By Ukraine and Putin)
      4) Allowing said producers of weapons the opportunity to gleefully replenish stockpiles of weapons, as the world sends stuff to Ukraine
      5) Letting Russia become China’s b!tch

      Hardly stuff to write home about.

      P.S. Oh, they also seem to be killing lots of civilians. Seems they’re good at that.

      • @ Frank
        It seems that some commenters here have forgotten that the world also didn’t end when Russia invaded Afghanistan — although it caused some upset at two Olympic games.
        Nor did the world end when “a certain other country” invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

        Time for some chill pills.

  4. I think ‘William’ (comment forthcoming, I think)
    has it precisely right, as usual for him:

    Why should the West spend money on silly old basics like_Food and_Energy, when it can be used to benefit the tiny Military-Industrial Complex, instead? No need to have a decently full
    belly, or to stay warm, is there?

    You might want to bookmark this comment, for
    another look in six or twelve months- when many or most of us could be hungry..

    “Which should it be: More Weapons for the Rich (to kill the little peeps), or food and warmth for my Family? It’s so, so confyoozing.. “

    • -Much of Airbus case in front of the WTO defending itself against charges of illegal subsidies was arguing that US defence spending constituted a US government subsidy of Boeing etc. Hence we now have an international tribunal with a meticulous judicial review putting a precise civil side benefit value on defence spending and it is truely massive otherwise US would have won right to nearly twice the tariffs.
      -Don’t think bureaucrats anywhere spend money on food for the starving wretched masses les miserables style as you suggest.
      -Either way Europe and Airbus will be paying a very high price in particular for quite a while.

      • You’ve got a real nice word-salad going there, Willy.
        You and DukeofUrl should get an [obfuscatory] room.

        China, and Russia, and Iran, and India, and the a-bit-annoyed Global South see things quite differently from the way you attempt to portray them.

        Two of those countries have a whole lot of a substance The West badly needs; and three of them have Nukes. The neoliberal West has very cleverly
        driven those countries all closer together.


      • Willy: don’t you reside in some backwater- Australia, or someplace like that ?

        • Careful Bill7. You’re going too far.


          • I agree! Some of my best friends are backwater Australians and they are offended by that comparison!

          • Hes been shocking for days now . Called a regular and thoughtful commenter a ‘moron’

  5. My good friend William said:

    > 5 Russia is defending its claim to oil by invading Ukraine”

    I’m not sure what is meant in that careful phrasing. Has William any thoughts on the Western *invasions and takings* in: Iraq; Libya; Syria (ongoing); and the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999 ? These are the recent Western “acquisitions” that first come to mind, though the list I’ve provided is far from complete.

  6. Erudite commenter ‘William’ said on or around 5 May 2022:

    “Space-X using starship will have not only put humans on mars by the time Boeing or Airbus make a new airliner it will have returned them.”

    Deludere, deludere.. no one’s going to Mars and surviving. It’s the same kind of thinking that says
    we’ll “defend” our way into Oil Cornucopia.

    [Edited as violation of Reader Comment rules.]

  7. I can’t help feeling like this is all going to feel out of date pretty quickly due to the obvious hydrocarbon monster and perhaps Covid yet again.

    A point that keeps being made is that the really big problem right now oil wise is not crude, it is mid-distillates. Refining capacity in North America / Europe was impacted negatively these past 2 years and coupled with the breakdown of Russian exports by type (it wasn’t just crude coming into the West), there is an almighty squeeze on diesel, kerosene etc.

    Yesterday’s alarming figure was diesel levels East Coast USA at lowest level in 32+ years ( and another stat ( shows just how much jet fuel and diesel prices have surged way ahead of gasoline or crude. Bunker fuel isn’t in there but a) I don’t think it is badly affected and b) I think current large commercial ship engines are somewhat fuel agnostic, able to blend in plain old crude as needed.

    For the US specificay interstate legalities can result in bizarre (at least to me) preclusions on supply and so physical supply needs to be considered in cncert with these legalities.

    So, fuel costs are back in a big way for aviation. Couple that with longer routes, diverging fuel costs with shipping and the diesel pinch that will impact everything, and that’s why I think this won’t age well.

    Top that with Covid BA4 and BA5 (rapidly becoming dominant in South Africa, and looking dangerous) or whatever other variant might emerge (eg maybe from China).

    • Regarding oil price: petrol at the pump has always been much more expensive in the EU than in the US, due to the much higher taxes and duties charged in the EU. Despite this price impediment — in addition to higher road tax, registration tax and parking fees — people still own and drive 280 million cars here in the EU.

      Similarly, despite the high kerosene prices at present, people are still flying en masse in Europe and the US, and airlines are apparently able to make a decent profit. Load factors are high, and prices are still attractive. There are still plenty of 1-3 hour LCC routes in Europe being flown for less than $150 round-trip.

      Inflation, recession and unemployment put a much bigger damper on consumer sentiment — but they’re usually relatively short-lived.

  8. My sources indicate that there is no real evidence that the A350 lightning protection copper mesh is corroding, but it definitely can and if it does its going to be very messy

  9. Good 1Q2022 financial results but a not easy technical issue for A321XLR in the near future : delay in RCT certification by EASA/FAA: few months only?
    Last Airbus aircraft with RCT was A340-500 twenty years ago: did it get FAA certification ?. Fire protection certification basis have likely changed since because new EASA AC ?

    • (paywall but headline says enough)
      The RCT was for the -500 model only and was located just behind the centre wing box

      Quite a lot of other technical differences from the earlier A340 models, which showed Airbus wasnt afraid to innovate and didnt get stuck in the ‘little changes as possible’ groove that Boeing did
      ‘The fuel system of the A340-500/600 aircraft differs significantly from the A340-200/300. The principal reason for the difference is the change of the wing design, resulting in an increase in the wing sweep. The effect of this is to change the trajectory of any debris from an uncontained engine rotor failure, preventing the use of similar tank boundaries similar to those on A340-200/300. The increase in Fuel Volume (approx. +30%) has led to additional changes to the system
      architecture, to fulfill the requirement for increased refueling flow rates (400,000 liters/hour). The new engines mean that there will be an increase in engine burn rates associated with the new aircraft.”

      Interesting in that the A340-500 & 600 series were the last planes with an additional centre landing gear
      Still think it was a shame the ‘4 engine model’ from both manufacturers was so quickly gazumped by the very large twin especially the GE90-110 series , which was virtually a new engine despite have the same designation as the smaller version ( GE does that a lot)

      • my mistake : it was not relative to an AC ( advisory circular ) but a SC
        my remark is relative to the Means of Compliance to Special Condition SC-D25.856-01 ( passenger protection from exteranl fire ) and not about mitigation for debris from an uncontained engine rotor failure. At my opinion AIB may need more than 3 months to solve this issue and impact on range might be significative

  10. Good lord…you don’t come across headlines like this every day:

    Reuters: “Major aircraft lessor Avolon says Boeing ‘has lost its way'”;


    Barrons: “Boeing Can’t Seem to Do What Airbus Can: Produce Drama-Free Earnings”


    “Jeremy Strong To Star In Downfall Of Boeing Drama Series From Screenwriter Chris Terrio”

  11. I read an article last night by Loren Thompson, Boeing’s paid mouthpiece. He is already calling for the Feds to throw Boeing a lifeline.
    So let me get this straight Mr Thompson, your people have record positive cash flows over the last 6-8 years and what do they do with it? Give it all $64 billion to the shareholders in dividends and stock buybacks. How much was saved? Zero. How much was invested in clean sheet programs? Zero. What was the top priority? Jacking up the stock price now to enrich the shareholders including top executives.
    And now Thompson figures that the tax payer owes Boeing something? This is just the banking collapse in miniature. Corp X, too big to fail, threw caution to the wind and doubled down on risk to juice short term results. When things go south they go begging to the gov.
    If Boeing is truly hurting all it has to do is issue more stock. Of course, this would dilute existing stock and hurt the execs themselves, so this is a non-starter.

Leave a Reply

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