HOTR: Embraer gets launch customer for E-Freighter, Boeing adds Lufthansa for 777-8F

By the Leeham News Team

May 10, 2022, © Leeham News: Embraer yesterday received its launch order for the E-Jet E1 P2F conversions from lessor Nordic Aviation Capital (NAC).

NAC reach “an agreement in principle” to convert 10 E190/195-E1s into freighters. The first deliveries are in 2024. The aircraft are in NAC’s current fleet.

Embraer E190F for lessor Nordic Aviation Capital. Source: Embraer.

The E-Freighters have 50% more volume capacity and three times the range of turboprop freighters (read: ATR) and up to 30% lower operating costs than narrowbodies (read: Boeing 737s), Embraer says. The aircraft will be converted by Embraer at its Brazilian operations. The conversion “includes the main deck front cargo door; cargo handling system; floor reinforcement; Rigid Cargo Barrier (RCB) – 9G Barrier with access door; cargo smoke detection system, including class “E” extinguishers in upper cargo compartment; Air Management System changes (cooling, pressurization, etc.); interior removal and provisions for hazardous material transportation,” Embraer says. “The E190F can handle a payload of 23,600lb (10,700kg) while the E195F a payload of 27,100 lb (12,300 kg).”

Hazy dumps on 777X; Lufthansa orders it

Lufthansa Cargo Boeing 777-8F. Source: Boeing.

Steve Udvar-Hazy, chairman of Air Lease Corp, said this week he doubts the future of the Boeing 777X, Reuters reports.

Asked “whether it was possible the whole program could be canceled, Udvar-Hazy, widely seen as the father of the modern leasing industry, said that would depend on what the Boeing board looks like in 18 to 24 months,” Reuters wrote. “’What I’m saying is that those decisions whether to continue with the program or not, it will probably not be made by this board of directors anyway,’ Udvar-Hazy told the Airline Economics conference in Dublin,” the news service reported.

But Lufthansa yesterday announced an order for seven 777-8Fs, becoming the first European carrier to do so.

Airbus doubles the size of Alabama A320 FAL

Airbus said on its earnings call last week that the Mobile (AL) A320 Final Assembly Line will be expanded. Yesterday, in a ceremony in Mobile, the company announced a new 350,000 sf building will be built. This is the same size as the current A320 building. The FAL has the capacity to assembly 6-8 A320/A321s per month. Logically, the new building has the same capacity—but Airbus wouldn’t confirm this.

Boeing’s Forward Losses/Abnormal Costs

In 2021 and through 1Q2022, Boeing announced nearly $9.2bn in forward losses and “abnormal costs,” which one Wall Street analysts call a euphemism for forward losses. This compares with $360m in the same period for Airbus.

All its commercial and commercial military programs, except the P-8A Poseidon, now have accumulated losses, charges, and abnormal costs of nearly $32bn. The 747-8, 787, KC-46A, 777X, and 737 MAX are the relevant programs. If the KC-46A is eliminated, the commercial programs have accumulated losses, charges, and abnormal costs of $26.2bn.

165 Comments on “HOTR: Embraer gets launch customer for E-Freighter, Boeing adds Lufthansa for 777-8F

  1. For the E190F I also think you need a mini cabin behind the cockpit for pentry, toilet, 1-2 seats, fire warning/protection, emergency oxygen, lights, air supply/vent …

    • ATR and Caravan does not have those features and they do just fine.

      • It depends on Block time for crew. In a prop it might be 1-2hrs but in a Jet it can be a bit more. We will see how popular it becomes and if they will do the E2’s as well.

        • FedEx at one time at least was flying ATR from Anchorage to Juneau. Realistic flight distance is 650 miles and realistic flying time is 2.5 to 3 hours. With headwinds and a missed approach, you could be into 3.5 hours.

          Add in using facilities just before you walk out onto ramp (unlikely) the walk around, start up, you could easily be 4 hours away from facilitates.

          From time immemorial pilots have had work arounds. Not to be crude but the female pilots have a harder issue in that regard.

          I have done a number of 5 hour flights with no pit stop.

          So no, you are not going to add a lot of weight and pilots to an F operation. It does not pay unless its a wide body. Then yes, FedEx etc has facilitates like that (no extra pilots but they carry riders as they did it up front not taking away from the can fill.

    • > Lufthansa is discussing with Airbus taking over Aeroflot & Qatar A350-1000 slots. They want to replace aging A340s and 747s and betting the house on just the 777-9 seems increasingly risky..”


  2. “All its commercial and commercial military programs, except the P-8A Poseidon, now have accumulated losses, charges, and abnormal costs of nearly $32bn. The 747-8, 787, KC-46A, 777X, and 737 MAX are the relevant programs.”

    What about the B737 Boeing 737 AEW&C “Wedgetail”?

    • Not sure about Wedgetail. I seem to remember there were issues early on but I haven’t found anything one way or the other.

      • Background wise the Wedgetail was never a single program and it was not until recently even considered for US (now its a certainty as the AWACs is aged and failing and mission rate is 50%)

        Australia was one program and the issues showed up there and Boeing took a loss on that. Turkey anther then South Korea so they may be breaking even.

        But behind that are the maint and support contracts and no one other than Boeing has the system knowledge for those.

        Also keep in mind, the hull made money for BCA even if the mod program to the E-7 did not. Gets pretty twisted. Same would be true of the KC-46A.

        Like the F-35, its won a string of wins and the closest is the Swedish offering and it seems to be not nearly as capable.

        • The Radar is a Northrop Grumman unit so much of the revenue would go to NG.

        • What is the revenue for the basic airframe vs the finished product? ( Looking at Wedgfetail orders they seem to go for $380 .. $420m a pop. airframe is a fraction of that.)

          • Yes, but Boeing gets an adder for the mods to the airframe (defense side) and the integration costs and adders for the install of all that equipment.

            Boeing took a $700 million plus loss on the Australian portion, but I suspect they took no more losses after that.

            Now like the P-8, its really taking off. Ironic its a flip of the P-8 program (US first vs Ally first) but a nice adjunct for the NG and using that as an offset for the line costs in Renton.

            They really should move it to Everett and sell Renton, the line guys for the 737 would think they had gone to heaven. Renton is jam packed.

          • Development program blew out and there were some very dark and testing times which strained the relationship b/n Boeing and the Commonwealth but they emerged with an AEW&C platform in a class of its own.

            Boeing Defence Australia has successfully won numerous follow on support contracts for the RAAF Wedgetail aircraft… eg $50+M in 2012, $400+M in 2017, $1.5B in 2018 across RAAF/Turkey/sth Korea,…

          • I belive this is on topic example of US Procurenemtn for those interesting in undersandting the US system.

            In this case it is non avaition, but its an excellent example of a contract extension. The Army has an existing contract at what is deemed a good deal and price and they just extended it for more. A mer 16 million but its a vital piece of kit for Infanry

            “According to a press release from Saab, the U.S. Army MAAWS Program Office has awarded a contract for Carl-Gustaf M4 recoilless rifles, also known as Multi-purpose Anti-Armor Anti-personnel Weapon System (MAAWS) and M3A1 in the U.S. Army.

            The order will include deliveries of weapons for both the Army and the US Marine Corps. The contract has a total value of USD 16 million and is awarded under a current ID/IQ agreement.”

            Its also a good example that the US has no issue with buying foreign equipment if its up to snuff and in the case of the Charlie G, its very good in its own right, the only system like it in the world and has been consistently developed and better and better capacities as well as much lighter as time has gone by (a good example of Spiral Development)

          • The Wedgetail/E-7 program uses old NG airframes NOT new builds

            the P-8 is the only 737 military program using new builds based on the old engines ( they use the old wing build equipment that was replaced when the Max program began)

            For the RAF unites even the conversion was done by STS in the UK, not Boeing at Renton or Boeing Field

  3. In the markets, Boeing really got hit hard yesterday, off 10.5% – down to $133. Airbus was off 2.5%, down to $110.
    The market cap of BA is under Airbus, now.

    While SUH dumped on Boeing, Kelly at AERCAP tried to spin it the other way, saying they’ll bounce back.

    Smaller lessor Avolon, the previous week, said BA has ‘lost their way’

    Yes – Boeing is going through a really rough patch, but I sometimes wonder about the motives of those involved in the industry and their opinions.

    On a side note:

    Last week Scott mentioned how an equity fund walked away from giving BA some $30 billion at $250-300 a share. It seems those guys were able to read the tea leaves and made the right decision. If Boeing hopes to recoup the lion’s share of the $43 billion it spent on buybacks, it looks like they’ll have to do it on their own, by getting through this downturn themselves, sticking it out and then selling when the price rises.

    • @Frank

      Reuters also reported:

      -> … Air Lease had received requests from two airlines that are current or potential 777X customers about availability of the Airbus A350 since Boeing announced the fresh delay …

      The deal with Lufthansa is going to saddle BA with orders at deep discount. Less cash for new jet program — whatever it is.

      Airlines are cutting scheduled flights in summer:

      1) lack of staff
      2) reduce supply to push up ticket prices
      3) preparing for dark clouds on the horizon.

      • Frank:

        My take is we are seeing the reality of Boeing’s losses and the lack of any ability to pay a dividend let alone share buys backs set in.

        Why it takes so long may be a factor that the investor analysis don’t understand tech and how and what position it puts a company in. Why is Tesla so over valued? Its just an electric car and anyone can do that.

        The good news is that the lower the stock goes the more stink eye Calhoun gets and hopefully the board realizes that if we are going to get the golden goose back we need to nurse it back to health. Put away those scalpels that are looking to get the last egg out, feed it up, get it on its feet and you get the supply of gold eggs back!

  4. I think Boeing offered to Lufthansa an irresistible deal, a combination of early slots and deep discounts.

    • Just like the one Airbus is offering Lufthansa to offload the Qatars’unwanted

      • I think LH knows what its doing, been at it for a few years

        • From AirInsight:

          -> “We are talking to Boeing right these days to see how they can help us with other aircraft. This could be used aircraft, which are also welcome to us”, said Spohr. He said that part of the discussions is *getting new aircraft at a discount price to compensate for the delays* of the 777-9s. “We will discuss how we should be compensated.”

          To satisfy an unhappy customer, what better than throwing money (lots and lots) at LH??

        • Really?
          I`m not sure about LH, they have ordered some planes that are just odd.
          A340-200/600 for example, B748i,
          they have been late on the B787, never went down with the B77W, which was and is very sucessful with major airlines.

          Actually LHs miss rate is impressive, a bunch of monkey would have had the same results.
          Not even talking about the A380.

  5. Nice win for the 777xf program .
    Sorta restores your confidence a bit when a legacy carrier like Lufthansa continues to show there support for both versions of the 777x.
    A bit surprised by topping off the 787 order as well !!

    • I think LH shows strong support for Boeing as long term dual source. Meanwhile they are looking for A350-1000 slots and will get A350F’s the moment Boeing doesn’t meet sharply defined conditions. There are not really in a hurry (777-200LRF fleet: average 5.4 yrs old).

    • Agreed a nice win and some wonder if the 777F is going to be the biggest success vs the PAX version.

      I keep telling people that the 787 is like the A321 of wide bodies. It fits and fits well no matter the mission (United runs it Trans Con US)

      LH has a lot of options on their fleet. They have the 747-8I that they can ramp up or park and they could bring out A380s if things really took off.

      Also a major advantage to see how things sort out in the world taking much latter deliveries.

      And Boeing gets to shift from the 777X to the current 777F to keep the line going and make some money.

      • The 777X production is paused and 777F production cannot ramp up until end of 2023. That’s why there’s an over $1 billion abnormal cost in 2022 and 2023.

        One of the 777F for LH is from a current operator. BA is throwing good money after bad to entice 777X customers not to cancel orders. Lol.

        • According to Jefferies analyst, the deal highlighted the cost to Boeing of concessions to offset recent delays.

  6. 4 Comments on “Pontifications: Next new mainline jet likely will be conventionally powered”

    Is that link correct- only four comments on that article? Thanks.

    • Bill7:

      I asked Scott and he said he cut off all comments due to going off topic. He listed me as one of the off topic people. I am good with that, he should just suspend the offenders rather than all (my opinion, its his blog and he can run it the way he wants of course)

      I have asked for clarification of the standard and got no response. It looks to be inconsistent as I have asked for clarification and seen other response spiral out with no action.

      Flip is probably he is running a business and trying to keep an eye on the blog to. So maybe some blog rage is not out of the expected.

      But that is the story for what its worth.

      • You were right about the China plane buys
        BOC Aviation is a Singapore based global lessor which is listed on HK stock exchange and the Bank itself only owns 70% now.
        Doesnt qualify as ‘planes for China’ order.

        • Sigh

          OUR HISTORY
          Our history dates back to 1993 when the Company was founded as Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise Pte. Ltd. by Singapore Airlines Limited and Boullioun Aviation Services, Inc., a U.S.-based aircraft operating leasing company. In 1997, the Company’s shareholder base was broadened when Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited and Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Private Limited joined the founders as investors.

          In December 2006, the Company was acquired by, and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of, Bank of China. Following the acquisition the Company’s name was changed to BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd. in 2007.

          On 12 May 2016, the Company was converted to a public company limited by shares and the Company’s name was changed to BOC Aviation Limited.

          On 1 June 2016, the Company was listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong.

          Only 70%, huh? Wow – that’s almost a controlling interest…

          • So what , you were wrong in that its not fully state owned. And as it has over 500 planes on lease to 60 airlines its in the business of global leasing.
            Including planes placed with China Airlines ! (the other China)

            so much for state control

          • @Duke

            You are correct – it is not wholly state owned, which is the word I used.

            70% is controlling interest (if that number is correct), by the Bank Of China – meaning it is a Chinese lessor. Who they lease aircraft to?

            Not just China Airlines (Taiwan)


            16 PRC airlines. The most of any country, because they are controlled by the Bank of China.

            Have a look at the Board


            Yes – state controlled.

      • Too many people were going off topic at the time, so I shut Comments down for everyone. It wasn’t just TW. Reader Comment rules are detailed. Go read those.

        • Scott:

          This is put with all dues respect and meant as constructive Criticism and not a personal slam. The wide take is I very much appreciate your Blog as well as the chance to discuss these issues that are near and dear to my heart. I eat, live and breathe Aviation and have since I was a tyke of 4 (first memories). My dad was in Aviation support (Nav aid power and Weather stations). It was our existence and in AK, no one that has not lived here understands how critical it is to the state functioning without any real road system (for its size).

          In my view its not the rules, its the inconsistent enforcement and the passive aggressive approach when they are violated.

          Other forums have an alert feature you can send to a moderator and they decide if its a violation.

          In this case things go off topic. When I see its being allowed, I have no issue with doing so as well.

          Or there are off topic posts that are not remotely related to the Blog Topic that are not corrected, stopped or the poster banned.

          Yes I understand you are in a tough position of running a company that is in the business to make money.

          In my opinion you would be well served to have a moderator that policed the blog leaving you and or the staff to write-up the topics.

          No I am not putting myself up for that job. Yes you do have to decide what your staffing needs are and if the Blog ops justifies said position (it does not make money).

          But, from the view of a poster its also impossible to know what is and is not allowed as its not consistent.

          In this case I assume at lest one person was suspended as no posts from said person. If you suspend me I have no issue with you stating so at the end of a blog post.

          When I was in first grade, we had a kid we all new was psychopath in the making break into our school (two room) and trash the place.

          We were interrogated as to who had done it. We all pointed to the Kid. Did we see it? No we did not, but he is the only kid on this FAA station that would do something like that.

          Result? We spent the next week or two marching around the flagpole in circles until someone confessed. Really? We all got punished for the actions of one psycho (modern research indicates that shows up early if you look for the signs but unknown in those days)

          Did they focus on the kid and try to determine who was where that day the school was trashed and build a case? Nope, we all got punished.

          Like he was going to confess and none of us had seen him do it.

          Great lesson in how not to handle things.

          In this case we know who the offenders are, and if its me (as a starter offender) then suspend me. If not, suspend the offender a couple of times and they will stop (or go away).

          I never had a problem taking my beating form something I did.

          • Of topic is the least of the problems, ad hominem: attacks on the persons, their nationality rather than the argument really lowers the tone because it gets away from facts and information.

          • @TW: Or I could close comments to everyone, permanently.


          • Scott:

            It was intended as polite and constructive.

            Yes you could, its your blog and I have stated that more than once.

            But I think you have an interesting in sharing Aviation as I do.

            I had a VP I reported to at one time that every time you raised a questioned he threatened your pay check.

            I don’t think that is the way to deal with any situation let alone that type (or my questions and comments)

            I think I have always shown willing to look at myself. Perfect no, open to honest criticism? Yes, I have stated that before.

          • I don’t have the time or inclination to be a full-time hall monitor. I do what I can and catch what I can. Either that’s accepted or I can shut down comments permanately.


  7. Frank: Unable to respond due to closed comments (if I am the worst offender or one of them then it should just be me or them not all).

    I stand corrected on the Chinese order. I was winging it and did not do my research.

    • @TW

      Very kind of you to say so, sir. You have my respect for that.

      • Frank:

        Kind of a mix. I do know the Chinese government approves all orders for the big airlines in China (3-4?).

        But per Duke, I assume BOC leases to anyone and maybe its the non government controlled airlines in China that they lease to.

        Also as noted that order is 6 years out.

        What it looks like to me is a placeholder order to ensure BOC has A320 in the Que so they have available aircraft to lease be it to non state or out of China airlines.

        No question Bank of China controls it and that in turn means there is a government finger on the operation.

        Keeping headquarters in Singapore may be an attempt to provide cover so its not deemed a direct Chinese operation.

        • Yes. I can see that BOC bought an existing successful leasing business in Singapore and are passive shareholders of a listed HK company who just ensure its gets its finance from BOC itself.
          It would be a disaster for this type of business where the management is over ruled by ‘state control’

        • Lease companies maintain large order bank with airframers.

          • They also do lease backs on planes the carriers have ordered and configured , with bids requested for the deal to close when delivery takes place.

    • Got it, I was wrong. sigh

      I had been reading Av Week and they did not mention it and I thought I was on sound ground.

    • I also do not see that the A320s were bought for China use and the delivery date is (6 years?) out.

      • China’s major three airlines are expecting Airbus NB delivery from *this year to 2025* IIRC. Lol.

        Hmm hate to repeat myself
        -> China Eastern this year plans to take delivery of almost two dozen A320/321

        When would an old dog learn new tricks??

        -> Air China also plans to take deliveries of over two dozen A320/321 [this year alone]

        • Previous orders and will they take them, take them and park them or defer?

          A lot in flux in China with Covid impact. NZ and Oz recognized you can’t hide forever but the Chinese are locked in (pun intended) to a no Covid and lock downs.

          China would also be taking MAX if they approved it to fly (condition have all been met). Politically they can defer and not pay the penalties.

          Contractually China probably wins on legal grounds but its a mixed bag of Boeing paying penalties, new aircrat now available vs the delayed parked ones and the AHJ not meeting its conditions.

          That said Boeing probably stays quiet as they can see it will be 3-5 years before China gets anywhere near back on track.

          • Japan is only opening its borders for tourists next month, so its not just China that was mostly closed off for air travel

          • WaPo:

            U.S. over 125,000 died from covid in Jan and Feb 2022.

            -> Jason Salemi, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida College of Public Health, said the deaths of vaccinated people are among the consequences of a pandemic response that emphasizes individuals protecting themselves.

            “When we are not taking this collective effort to curb community spread of the virus, the virus has proven time and time again it’s really good at finding that subset of vulnerable people,” Salemi said.

  8. Interesting comments from Udvar-Hazy regarding the future of the Boeing 777X. Myself, I don’t see
    LH ordering seven of them as other than wise hedging, given that aircraft’s multiple delays.

    • Shrug. Hazy also killed the first A330NEO, then when he got the A350 he went onto say that Airbus would be making 1000 A330NEO. They better get it in gear (pun intended)

      I continue to think the balanced view is Boeing has major problems but it also has a heck of a product line considering its gaps as well but flip is defense spending is going to ramp up big time (again my opinion).

      Boeing debt is not the issue, not what you want, its the failure to invest in product while gutting the company for stock holders.

      Change the management to someone forward looking and you can turn it on a dime.

      Chrysler has spiraled the drain 3 times now and still exists.

      One new aircraft in the right category would go a long way to fixing the product line and the right management that valued its employees would do the other part.

      I don’t see Boeing ever going back to number 1 in Single Aisle, they need two new aircraft to do that and I don’t see it happening.

      I would go for a 737MAX replacement that would cover the -8 and A321NEO and accept the fact that I was going to loose out in the A220-300/500 segment.

      • > Boeing has major problems but it also has a heck of a product line ”

        If you can share some specifics on that company’s ‘heck of a product line’, that would be good. Thoughts on their present workforce and supplier relations, as well.

        • It’s more about faith, you don’t need specifics as long as you believe it, like walking on water.

          • Bill7:

            I have done so and will not repeat it.

          • Boeing has had terrible leadership for decades. Inspite of that they do have some planes that many airlines know they can make money with, and some countries defense departments can use effectively. These airframes include the 737-8-9, 787s, 767F, most likely 777Xs, KC-46s, F-15Xs, F/A-18s, the drones, Red Hawks. We love to bash Boeing, myself included, but it is important to remember, aerospace is a duopoly…

          • Throw in AH-64 (serious debate on how viable Helicopters are on a battle field let alone attack), Chinook (useful behind the lines) and things like Harpoon and Slamer.

            The longer Ukraine goes on the more upper level armaments the US will pour in. Its NATOs best defense.

            The extremely popular P-8, E-7 adding both 737 build numbers as well as added value on the integration of the systems on board.

            Get good management and its a juggernaut overall. Poor in Single Aisle future but that could be partly corrected with a new Aircraft (A321 class)

        • -> … debt is not the issue

          Who said Boeing is “burning money at an unprecedented level. They’re probably going to get downgraded. “??

        • Pedro – creditors get settled with or take over the company. It’s the shareholders that get wiped out.

          But in spite of the generous loans, extensions, and second chances, the Obama administration finally concluded that the companies’ restructuring plans were insufficient. In the spring of 2009, it directed both automakers to proceed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy — Chrysler filed on April 30, and GM on June 1. In both cases, bankruptcy involved creating new companies — the so-called “new Chrysler” and “new GM” — in which the federal government would have a significant stake, and to which the bulk of the assets of the original companies (including all of their plants, equipment, brands, and trademarks) would be sold. The original companies, meanwhile, would settle their obligations to creditors and shed those assets that would not be transferred to the new companies. Their shareholders would be all but wiped out.

          • At some risk of getting censored, but I think its a help for others to understand how the US workers (some good, some bad). I have learned a lot by watching the guy who does Inside the Cockpit U tube from Germany. I also read a lot of BBC and Politico and Guardian on Europe.

            Boeing’s issue is not wages nor product directly. Its failure of management to balance the company and let the quality control go into the toilet. As we saw with Chrysler, GM (and Ford via a different change) you can turn that on a dime with good management.

            More to the story that GM bought itself back out and Fiat Bought out Chrysler.

            US made some nice money on the deals.

            Its always a tough decision to let something big collapse and reap the loss of jobs. In most cases, a large company is worth saving for the sake of the economy.

            Chrysler got out of the US government controlling the strings as fast as Iaccoca could say Min Van. Maybe it was the K car and then the Mini Van (too lazy to look it up)

            Bottom line is any country will do the same. Airbus was created out of what (4-5) failing non competaive aviation firms.

            The key of course is to change the management that got them into deep trouble (well and the ridiculous wages and union benefits that kept spiraling)

            So yes Boeing has the viability to succeed, plenty of product that sell and sell well (defense and BCA) they just need real management vs the pillage management Calhoun espouses.

            If Calhoun can’t pillage he does not know what to do so he dithers and the company quality control issues compounded and only getting solved one at a time.

          • Dec 2014

            Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B – USA Today

            Internet can be useful but you *have to look* for it

          • Pedro:

            And the Auto workers pay taxes (unlike the Corporation) not to mention the suppliers who sent the kit to them like power steering pumps, alternators, tires etc.

            I realized lo many years ago, a failed part was not the whole story. The whole story was a system. I could fix (or replace) a failed part, but if the system did not work, then that repair was useless.

            I spent many hours getting systems to work (very successful)

            In the case of Auto, it was also not just the industry and jobs saved. We saw what happened with Leeman Brothers when that failed.

            We saved the entire US economy. That in turn meant the world economy was saved.

            How man trillions let alone untold misery of people in soup lines if that was it worth?

            Yes, as a taxpayer (or former) we get the short end of the stick for the grossly bad allowances, but that is life. We have a house, decent streets reasonably low crime rates and I take that as a win.

      • “[Boeing] has a heck of a product line considering its gaps as well but flip is defense spending is going to ramp up big time (again my opinion).

        Boeing debt is not the issue, not what you want, its the failure to invest in product while gutting the company for stock holders.”

        To be honest, I agree with the latter paragraph more than with the first. Because Boeing doesn’t really have a heck of a product line. They have one truly great product right now, which is the 787. Problem being that they roally screwed up its execution and continue to do so. Beginning with the endless delays, the battery issue (and associated grounding) continuted quality issues in SC in particular, halted deliveres for a year… and it looks like they’re not even learning anything from it, either given how their war against the unions continues to influence decisions in a way that so far has been quite detrimental to product quality. Case in point: Consolidating 787 production in SC with its ongoing quality issues.

        The 737 MAX, even ignoring (hard enough to do) the MCAS disaster, was always expected to be at a 40:60 market share against the NEO (except by Boeing itself), and the 777X… well, see above for why that programme is not exactly in tip top shape.

        Sadly, with the current management, which to me still hasn’t given even the slightest indication that they’re serious about changing ship (no wonder, considering no heads have been replaced in management), I have little hope anything much is going to change any time soon.

        • anfrommme:

          I think the MAX is the oddity. I did not think they could do it, but its fully competaive against the A320. Its the A321 that Boeing can’t match. So despite the old architecture, the MAX is viable if not newest whiz bang (though the A320 is getting on a bit now as well)

          It highlights the real issue is no airframe advances in single aisle (maybe Sugar High as they are working hard on that right now)

          Boeing has the viable if not pretty MAX, it has the 767, it has the 787 (agreed the 777X is a ?) I do think the 777X has a 747 like future, not a huge success but a decent one over time (yes I could be wrong). The F looks to be a nice adder and maybe a mainstay.

          But Boeing also has the various military programs of F-15EX, F/A-18, KC-46A (330 to 400 possible now?) the T-7 (various versions and easily 1000, P-8, E-7 and that does not count the various munitions they make.

          I do agree that Calhoun is a lame duck. But with all the losses and excuses even though he was there for all of them, the stink eye begins.

          You know management if a total failure when it blames even else and tries to throw them under the airplane.

          While it takes forever, at some point the board realizes, damn, this is not going to change for years if ever the way its going. We need to not only break even, we acualy need to make money if we are going to even do dividends.

          You won’t hear much if anything but suddenly Calhoun will retire to spend time with his family (boy am I tempted to go off the reservation make comments there but will not)

          So yes they could get another place holder but as stupid as the Board is (more a cabal) they are not entirely stupid as to what no dividend and break even at best means.

          So maybe another zit and then a winner. We can hope its a winner next.

          I would love to see Boeing succeed again.

        • Simply put:

          Expecting the same “talent” that broke the company to fix it is pure folly.

          Even more so given the many years and opportunities they’ve had that they not just squandered, but actually made things even worse with failure after failure papered over by a parade of excuses and/or (desperately lame attempts at) blame shifting.

          Want to truly reverse the rot and “fix” (Mc)Boeing?

          Then undertake a very intensive housecleaning of the Boardroom and C-Suite, followed by installation of enlightened minds with a fresh vision.

          Until then, expect more of the same.

          • Howard:

            I fully agree. Sadly I control nothing. For the sake of the US and Boeing as a company and its employees, I hope for sooner than latter.

            Boeing is a crown jewel if run right.

    • Wait for a couple of weeks.
      I would not be surprised if those orders morph into
      just a change of product. 777-9X -> 777-8FX

      The initial 777X order was announced as a full order
      later corrected as a split of orders and options.
      Even later “adjusted” with LH hinting that they ordered too many.

    • Since Boeing has produced about 25 777-9, worth 10B, tough to see that not seen through to delivery. A shorter than expected program life like the A380 or 748I/F? I could see that.

      • You still have the F orders and I think they will see a mild success in that area as there always will be a need for a higher capacity aircraft.

  9. I think Airbus is quite well positioned in the (narrowing) widebody segment with
    the 330neo (a *deliverable* airplane, unlike the other, presently QC-challenged guys), and the A350 in its various forms.

    • @Bill7

      The A330neo doesn`t see any additional sales and suffers a lot from the loss of Air Asia X order.

      Overall, Airbus has an issue with its WB backlog. That`s also why they didn`t increase the A350 rate.

      If you ask me, Corona did hit the airlines hard, they simply don`t have the funds to buy new planes now.
      And big airlines on the gulf have been in dififcult situations before – Emirates had plenty of planes standing around before corona, and Qatar was hit hard by the political restrictions.
      Etihad was in retreat already and it`s B777x order is likley due, they will cancel them all.

  10. LH is all over the place . They also ordered more 787-9’s who meat also looking for A350’s from Qatar and Aeroflot? Them 778-8 F and the A350F which will arrive sooner?


    • An indication of a big Airline getting nervous about becoming overly dependent on one manufacturer.

    • Well, in fairness, Lufthansa aren’t the only ones having ordered both 787 and A350. Outside the US (where only UA has both in operation/on order), the list is quite long, actually… BA, SQ, AF, EK, ET, JL, QF, TG, TK, VS….

      If you look at the 747-8 being replaced by the 777X, it all isn’t too weird, really, and they already have 777F, so the 777XF can’t be much of a surprise.

    • Thanks for that link:

      “Now we know for sure that’s not going to happen in 2023. It may not even happen in 2024,” Chief Operating Officer Adel Al Redha told reporters when asked about Dreamliner deliveries.

      He said the airline was in talks with Boeing over the delays to the 787 Dreamliner and 777X deliveries, though declined to comment further when asked if Emirates was seeking compensation.

      Two sources told Reuters in April that Boeing was planning to resume 787 deliveries in the second half of this year.

      Boeing, which has pushed back delivery of the 777X by four years to 2025, had no immediate comment on Al Redha’s remarks..”

      • I have good reason to believe that Boeing will resume 787 deliveries soon. Probably at a low rate to start with.

        While I will not say why, its like a barometer suddenly rising during a storm. Its a valid indicator even if indirect that things are going to change.

        I have seen the Barometer and its rising. Maybe sooner than people think. It also could be a few months. But its on the way

        • -> I have good reason to believe that Boeing will resume 787 deliveries soon.

          For almost a second I think it’s possible. Then reality bites. Ouch!!!

          It’s almost like some insist to bet on the eternal losing team. Believe a turnaround is … around the …. corner. Hopefully it’s not a cliff.

          • I wonder why that commenter believes
            Boeing 787 deliveries will resume
            soon; and how he defines “soon”.

            The latest news- provided by others downthread- does not fit with that belief.

  11. From the BA/Aerojet article above, which I initially skimmed, comes this:

    “After testing and software issues caused Starliner’s 2019 failure to dock at the space station, NASA officials acknowledged they had trusted Boeing too much when they decided to devote more engineering oversight to the newer SpaceX than the aerospace giant.”


    “The various technical setbacks have pushed Starliner’s first flight with people aboard into an unknown future, placing it far behind Musk’s SpaceX, whose Crew Dragon capsule, developed under the same NASA program as Starliner, has already flown five astronaut crews for the U.S. space agency.”

    Back in the day, Boeing built the first stage of the Saturn V rocket, which put America on the moon. Through a series of mergers and sales, North American Aviation became part of North American Rockwell, which later became Rockwell International and is now part of Boeing. Those companies, along with Douglas – built the entire rocket. North American and Rockwell built the CSM. Rockwell also built the shuttle.

    Grumman built the LEM.

    How did all this historical talent, let this happen? What are we talking about – 20 to 30 guys messed up these great companies that badly? Is that all it takes?

    • Its the same problem Boeing had with the KC-46A. The claimed all that tanker experience . They built their last tanker 60 years ago (you can bring in the MD tanker and the 767 conversions that did not go so good)

      Upshot is, history means nothing if you don’t have the talent. Said talent is honed by factors that will never occur again. At best you can hope new talent figure it out but it may well never be what it was as they do not have the same experience.

      Its the reason having some program continuity is critial. And its the reason you don’t lay off your engineers during a lull. You may not get them back and you have a huge gap.

      Best is having a generation to generation hand off. Sadly that no longer occurs.

  12. My intelligence sources indicate that Airbus (just like Boeing) has an amazingly tight reign on information about all of their troubles. But they did confirm that, although they have seen no evidence of it yet, if moisture is getting into the copper mesh, it will corrode and cause an epic mess.
    Qatar seemingly unconcerned about what it can’t see, an unverifiable potential massive structural bonding problem.

    • That sounds valid from what I am seeing as an outsider.

      I do not wish Airbus any ill, but all mfgs make mistakes. They think they did their due diligence and sometimes its simply lack of knowledge does you in (and clearly that area is all new)

      GE/PW had that issue with the GP7000 that came apart over Greenland. No one knew that cold fracture could occur with that material.

      I think Airbus lucked into a viable fuselage structure and panels that may be better than the spun fuselage approach for Boeing. But they were forced into it as they had no alternative.

      Qatar should be able to get the info on the grid through discovery (wonderful legal tool)

      Is it a true Safety of Flight issue? I don’t have that kind of tech background to know its a yea, nay or maybe in between risky. Shrug.

      But I do know about de-lamination and the bad things that happen when water gets inside what is supposed to be a sealed entity.

      I worked on a lot of Plywood boats that were fiberglass covered and the lengths we went to to ensure that the fiberglass was sealed as painful (layers, sand, coat, another layer on, sand and coat etc.

      Form poured outer and inner shells solved that.

      Its going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

      • Airbus didnt luck into the panel approach for its carbon fuselages. ( they do produce one section as a barrel)
        It has advantages that the strength of the crown doesnt have to be the same as the belly which holds greater loads.
        The panels are longer than the smaller length Boeing barrels

        The autoclave requirements are less as multiple panels can be cured at once, rather than every site having a large diameter autoclave for a single barrel ( although production peak was 14 per month , now much less)

        • I’m not quite clear about that.
          My understanding is that Boeings method is more of a rotary placement machine than a filament winding machine. Why can’t it simply place more material at the bottom. Impact from tyre debris is also a big factor in the scantlings for the lower half

          • Think about how you would lay more fiber on one side while the process is “circumferential winding”.
            You can change the fiber angle vs the rotational axis ( 90° to ~45° ) But without cutting you can’t lay more fiber on one side than on the other.
            Look on YouTube for stuff on wound composite pressure vessel. educational.

          • Yes, composite pressure vessels are wound like that by filament winding. In fact I have considerable professional involvement with the process and I don’t think that Boeings process is the same thing at all. They describe it themselves and “rotary placement”

          • Grubie:

            You are correct and Duke is totally wrong. Boeing spins barrel sections, Airbus assembles them the same way you do an aluminum fuselage (the panel sections are done laying down on a form and are larger than the aluminum sections).

            All you have to do is read the ludicrous comments by Leahy on Boeing plastic aircraft to understand that Airbus had NO answer to a composite aircraft.

            They had done no research on it, their proposal was an A330NEO Mk1/2/3/4 (that got rejected by all interested parties)

            What had been done before on some smaller aircraft was the frame and panel build and that was the only option Airbus had as they had some experience with laying down composites on the tails and some other structure for the ribs (frame).

            Boeing had the patent on spun fuselage even if Airbus had wanted to go that way.

            What you have is a dichotomy of approach. Airbus is labor intensive as its not able to be automated. Boeing is equipment intensive as the spun costs a lot but far less hand touch labor costs (there is a lot of hand touch connecting things just not as much as Airbus)

            Much like diesel fuel injection. There were 3 main approaches to it historically, they all worked. Each mfg swore by theirs and swore that the competition was a mistake. Ultimately the Unit injector proved to be better (took 60 years) then a whole different approach for modern emissions (rail injection systems)

            The Boeing system and the Airbus system are pretty much neutral as far as outcomes go. Airbus might have lucked into a bit better system but its not huge difference.

            Airbus also has an aluminum front section Boeing uses composites for.

            Airbus got a good system right for the wrong reasons but a win is a win.

            What system the next gen uses will tell a story. The industry advances and out of auto clave curing aka the Soviets is working now as well.

            Airbus was phenomenally lucky that Boeing was so inept at managing the 787 program to start with (and still are) and that the frame and panel system worked so well.

            While I will take lucky, I have always found out the with skill you wind up a lot luckier than those who fall into it, the next time you better have skill (or done your research and have tech tested and ready to go)

            Boeing had a lot of research into its system and it did indeed work (management screwed up things not the tech).

            And yes, the spin ply laying allows layering in ares that need more strength. The fact that the 787-9 lost so much weight proved that the -8 was overdone (better safe than sorry).

            That said, Airbus can lay its ply on its panels such that they are stronger where needed as well.

          • TW you seem to venture into misinformation on the carbon fuselage every time, and every time I produce reliable sources that refute your claims
            Theres is nothing wrong about my description of Airbus using panels for its skins except for the tail cone section which is made as a complete unit on a mandrel ( its a cone shape not a barrel shape)
            It could be interesting if you had real information about why Boeing went the barrel way, which requires the barrel to be rotated on a spindle.
            The Airbus skin panels are fixed in place

            As usual my observations are based on expert reports and this review of Spirits forward fuselage barrel process is still relevant today ( I found it interesting the wire mesh is one of the first layers on the mandrel as it would be interesting to see that stage in Airbus panels)

            ‘The first interior structures installed are the circular frames (metallic and composite), which are attached to the stringers and the fuselage skin. Throughout these processes, Section 41 is worked on at each station keel up or keel down, depending on the activity involved.’

          • TW:”All you have to do is read the ludicrous comments by Leahy on Boeing plastic aircraft to understand that Airbus had NO answer to a composite aircraft. ”

            Do a bit of research before you lecture others.
            Wide range of CFRP fuselage production research in Europe well before 2000. Just going over the DLR site is a rich fount.

            apropos: What core patent does Boeing hold to be able to deny Airbus? A380 tail section is a wound item.
            IMU Leahy’s assessment seem to continue to be valid.
            Barrel manufacture comes along as a rich succession of hurt items for Boeing. Still active.

      • “… its simply lack of knowledge does you in (and clearly that area is all new)..”

        “I think Airbus lucked into a viable fuselage structure and panels that may be better than the spun fuselage approach for Boeing. ”

        You still have not grasped what a good foundational engineering education should provide for.
        Weighing design solutions for a manufacturable optimum. Researching where you need to expand your knowledge ( theoretical, expand with controlled tests. ) you do not introduced untested/limited understanding features in today’s final production model. prototypes no longer provide for fumbling your way to a final product. That should happen long before in the process.

        • yes. The consensus view is the panels allowed Airbus to tailor the thickness to suit the 4 separate panels fuselage location
          Crown, belly and the two sides.
          It may have also required less capital investment in the full size mandrels , the spindles they rotate on and the full section autoclaves.
          And I would think it was a conservative manufacturing approach in that flaws mean a whole barrel isnt junked – which it seems has happened to Boeing ( and dropped!).
          Dont forget that windows and doors have to be cut out of a panel or barrel skin and I know what is more risky

          • Inner mold for a circular section including pockets for stringers. outer mold line cosmetically set via an elastic (outer) shroud.
            Outer mold line, stress dependent fiber laying and adding the stringers to an already cured skin.

            With the same effort the finished panel has much better dimensional adherence than the barrel section.
            cue: Boeing production still has not managed tolerances and surface unevenness after 15+ years.
            The panels allow

          • Boeing and Airbus manufacture both has stringers co cured with the skin.
            Indeed, the slots for the stringers are part of the barrel mandrel ( Boeing) and the panel mould ( Airbus) and they are put in first before the fibre is applied by the layer process
            “All of section 15’s panels incorporate integrated CFRP stringers, which are produced using a cantilever-type AFP machine built for high-speed 2-D lamination by MTorres (Torres de Elorz, Spain). The stringers then are placed onto the composite panel layups and cocured under vacuum …”
            The centre fuselage section panels are made by Spirit at its plant in North Carolina and then shipped to another Spirit plant near St Nazaire where they become a fuselage proper and pre stuffed for the FAL at Toulouse

            So they both use an ‘inner surface’ that is supported by mandrel/mould as thats the only way to include the
            composite stringers

          • The co-curing of stringers seems to only occur for Spirits A350 centre fuselage panels. The rest of the sections use co-bonding with the composite skin where the stiffeners are cured before hand.
            Boeing and Airbus use slightly different methods to mechanically attach the inner circular frames (most are carbon fibre some are metal in high load areas) both use.

    • It’s the old ‘float the concept, see what happens’

      BA dipped down to $129 today.

      Over the past month, Boeing is down 27%. Airbus is down 4%. The market seems to know what’s coming. If Boeing tried to get $30 billion at between $250-300 a share, I wonder what the money guys are telling them now?


      • 10 to 15% disc. at min.

        Need better timing. Why not when the shares were at higher price? Missed the boat.

        I heard debt is not the issue. Lol. Then why stock sale at this price????

        • Boeing’s market cap is $88 billion today. They would be giving them the equivalent of 1/3 the value of the company.

          “Why not when the shares were at higher price?”

          Probably ego…

          • Frank:

            Sooner or latter there is no free lunch and the pillage chickens are coming home to roost for Booing.

            I hope it gets new and effective management. Its biting Calhoun in the butt and excuses are increasingly desperate.

            fingers crossed something effective is done. May take another CEO turn over though.

            As a whole Boeing has a huge amount going for it, management sucks.

      • The Dow is down around 10% in the last month. Boeing is on that of course as its an ‘ industrials’ stock index so they are mirroring their fellows on NYSE
        Airbus share price over last 6 months tends to move in a 10-15% band ( 100-120 euros)


          Dow is down 8%.

          Mirroring would be around that. 3 and a half times is smashing the mirror…

          Over the past year, Dow is down 7%, Airbus is down 4%, BA is down 43%. Two horse race, is the usual refrain.

        • I love these “bulls”.
          The stock has reached another new low in two years, lost 33% in past 5 years.
          Nope. Everything is fine. Nothing to see here.

          • Down another 6-7% today. Relentless. Brutal.

          • Perhaps you havent read the comment rules, these are the first 2
            Not permissible:
            2)Personal attacks, no matter how innocuous;

          • Sigh


            A bull is an investor who thinks the market, a specific security, or an industry is poised to rise. Investors who adopt a bull approach purchase securities under the assumption that they can sell them later at a higher price.

            Bulls are optimistic investors who are attempting to profit from the upward movement of stocks, with certain strategies suited to that theory.

    • Airbus stock looks better then Boeing stock, whatever time scale you select.

      Still Boeing CEO makes 5x as much as Airbus CEO.

      Something went wrong somehow.

      • Yea, that is the unrestrained part of Capitalism.

        Like rules of the road, regulated properly its a benefit to all. No rules, chaos and a race to the bottom.

        • Boeing share value was “managed” for a long time.
          It never reflected any real value in recent times.

          A hollowed out, scraped paper thin facade collapsing now?

          market theories are mostly veneer. The inner workings are “different”.

          • > market theories are mostly veneer. The inner workings are “different”.”

            Now there’s an understatement.

  13. It looks like a fuel shortage is coming and there’s a lineup of trucks at the pump.

    • Those are the orders that fall within 2023-25 deliveries. The contracts must be revised to reflect new delivery dates and until agreements are reached, under ASC 606, the contracts now are classified as not solid.

    • Boeing spend money the wrong way when they had it. Driven by short term greed. rosy long term outlooks and docile stakeholders. Cheered on by WS, shareholders and politics. Now the free cash flow dream is over.

      Leadership change is in the air for months, moving HQ might be a decoy.

      • That is a kind way to put it. Gutted the company on stock buy backs and excessive dividends.

        If I had run my life that way I would have been bankrupt instead of being able to quit work.

        The board is complicit in it, as they do the same with their own companies (and how can you sit on a board for another company and still run your own right?)

  14. Yes, composite pressure vessels are wound like that by filament winding. In fact I have considerable professional involvement with the process and I don’t think that Boeings process is the same thing at all. They describe it themselves and “rotary placement”

  15. Chicken coming home to roost.
    ( In scope of solution to all Boeing crash causes 🙂

    What an absolutely fitting quip.

  16. Simple Flying:
    Air Transat Launches Québec City To London Flights With The Airbus A321LR

    • Have to figure this is part of the move to 75.

      No mention of expanding in China!

      • It does. The construction of a new FAL in Mobile is intended to help Airbus achieve this goal. The monthly production of the A320 family should double in Mobile with this new FAL. Perhaps (just my opinion), Mobile can even be used to build aircraft for companies other than the US, especially if production reaches about 14 aircraft per month (I doubt that only US companies will absorb all this production ).

    • Reuters:

      -> The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identified a number of omissions in Boeing’s documentation, submitted in late April, and has sent portions of it back to the planemaker, one of the people said

      -> Boeing Chief Executive Dave Calhoun highlighted the submission in the company’s April 27 earnings call, calling it a “very important step” and saying it was preparing the first 787s for delivery, but stopped short of providing a date.

      People briefed on the matter say the submission was made *shortly before the call.*

      • Considering how it was mentioned on the conference call and how it was hailed as a milestone by Calhoun, and that it was submitted shortly before the call – I’m guessing that they submitted it for the exact reason that they could mention it on the call.

        I’d also submit that it probably wasn’t fully complete, but they needed some good news to offset the poor results of the quarter, so they sent in their homework to the teacher ‘as-is’ with the intention of having to do follow up work, when told it was incomplete and graded an F.

        • Look out for “Friday submissions” into the wild:-)
          ( usually a hint that this information is either heavily pimped or fully fake.)
          (designed for) Attention getting announcements get released on Fridays: they can work their magic over the weekend undisturbed ( counters will only be available late on Monday after they have trickled through some hierarchy or other).

          • Imagine you are one of those in FAA responsible for the 787 recertification:

            – read from newswire about BA confidently telling customers the 787 can be delivered soon *one week before BA submitted certification documents;
            – heard that BA CEO talked about the 787 certification documents during earning call before you have time to go thru’ the documents.

            Confidence inspiring?!?

            Everything BA did in this case is like a circus show, they should have submitted the documents long ago before they opened their mouths.

  17. FAA tells Boeing 787 certification documents are incomplete – Reuters

    “The FAA reportedly identified a number of omissions in Boeing’s (BA) documentation, submitted in late April, and has sent portions of it back to the company.

    According to the report, it is too early to say whether FAA concerns would lead to further delays in resuming deliveries, which have been suspended for the past year because of production flaws.”

  18. In addition to the FAA/787 news, just some additional info, directly from the article:

    “Deliveries of the 787 have been halted for a year as Boeing worked through inspections and repairs in an industrial headache expected to cost about $5.5 billion. Boeing has more than 100 of the advanced composite twin-aisle jets parked in inventory, worth about $12.5 billion.”

  19. A commenter said: ”All you have to do is read the ludicrous comments by Leahy on Boeing plastic aircraft to understand that Airbus had NO answer to a composite aircraft. ”

    Mmm. Which of those two makers is presently producing a *deliverable* composite-hull aircraft, and which one is

  20. Adding: my impression after reading a number of sources
    (including ‘Air Wars’) is that Airbus was not thrilled with
    the idea of a composite hull when it became time to make
    a decision on the final-form A350; that might be why they
    went for a more incremental, conservative approach on
    that aircraft. In light of ongoing events with the Boeing 787, maybe AB made the right choice.

    On the other hand, maybe the Boeing 787’s QC issues are unrelated to their type of hull construction, possibly having more to do with workforce and supplier relations at Boeing.

  21. Nasa funded research on large transport composite thin shell fuselage development – done by Boeing of course- which looked into whole system from laying fibre to the production of stiffeners and frames, loads etc

    That research used as their starting point a 4 panel design and production approach.
    Interesting that Boeing went further again into full barrel sections while it was Airbus ( maybe using the open source Nasa research) who stuck with the 4 panels.

    • NASA is leader in PR presentation.
      But definitely not sole leader in global research.
      Airbus and the European research institutions
      have been ahead of Boeing in composite use
      most of the time. there is a lot of competence assembled along the river Elbe: Airbus FXW, HAW Harburg, Stade Compsite Campus, …
      787 started with a composite rear pressure bulkhead from an Airbus subsidiary. ( after A340NG, A380, .. )

    • 15 years ago NASA had all their composites research programs proudly presented on their webside, specially Langley. Including prototypes, testing settings, photo’s etc.

      When the WTO subsidies dispute erupted, within weeks the site was cleaned up/ refreshed 🙂 I have some telling screenshots though.

  22. LH is operating it`s cargo out of FRA. LH has stated to concentrate the Boeing WBs there – B789, B779s and the B748. The existing B777F fleet is young and also based there.
    Boeing owns LH some compensation for the delays of the B789 and the B777x. Especially the delay of the B777x is a big deal for LH, they have tons of A340 and B744s that they would like to retire.
    They want to bring their new business class, which is now a 5 year old design without ever been in service.

    To order the B778F is logical for LH, goes well operationally in FRA with their other Boeings, fits the existing Cargo fleet of B777F.
    Also not to forget, LH still has 14 options for the B777x, they ordered 20 and had a LOI for 34.

    And with the compensation for the delays and an early order discount, with some options.
    LH propably hasn`t paid a lot.

    • “Boeing ows LH some compensation ..”

      Begin with discontinuing the “Connexion” sat service project.
      compensated with good pricing on 748PAX
      748PAX was problematic so compensation was kicked further along the road : 777X. 777X limps along and things move to the 777XF. …. .
      ( sad thing customers can’t move their compensation over to Airbus and leave the loop of hurt with Boeing 🙂

      • Indeed.

        But for LH cargo an A350F doesn`t seem to make a lot of sense.
        LH Cargo is in FRA, the B777F is a young fleet and will see service for more than a decade, and they had B777x orders and options.
        Also we don`t know if LH didn`t change the order.
        SIA did this with the A350F, switched over some Pax version orders to F orders.
        Could have been the case for LH too – instead of taking 20 B779, maybe they switched down to 18 and ordered 7 B778F.
        Who knows.

        LH is pretty flexible, and they could take more A350s, also A35k and simply addept their feeders to MUC.

        It`s a crude logic, but the more delays Boeing has, the more customers are logged in with them for the compensations.
        LH group did get a great price on all its last Boeing orders, the B77W for swiss, the B777F for Cargo and Aerologic, the B748 for LH and the B777x and B787 orders.

Leave a Reply

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