June 13, 2022, © Leeham News: Airbus scheduled the first flight of its Xtra Long Range A321XLR Wednesday.
Some customers think certification of the airplane will be delayed up to a year as Europe’s EASA and the USA’s Federal Aviation Administration demand changes to the integrated aft fuel tank that gives the XLR an advertised range of 4,700nm.
That was the consensus of those I talked to who gathered last week at an industry event in Chicago. Airbus already said the XLR certification will be delayed by a few months as regulators review how the fuel tank is integrated into the airplane.
In the new regulatory environment brought about by the Boeing 737 MAX crisis, certification of the MAX 7, Max 10, and Boeing 777X already are delayed by increased scrutiny. Most expected the A321XLR would also be caught up in the new regulatory environment. Now, it is.
The issue is the safety of the new tankage, which replaces removable Auxiliary Center Fuel Tanks. Up to three are used in A321s, dating to the original design. These separate tanks add weight and take up room. When Airbus created the A321LR (for Long Range), taking the advertised range to 4,100nm, the added distance still wasn’t enough for reliable trans-Atlantic, non-stop service. Flights going westbound, into strong winter winds, sometimes had to stop for fuel or have payload restrictions. More range was needed.
So, Airbus came up with the integrated tank. One big tank replaces the three smaller tanks. It is lighter, there aren’t the structures that come with three tanks and advertised range was boosted to 4,700nm. Airbus sold more than 500 and the airplane is a true trans-Atlantic Boeing 757 replacement that the A321LR isn’t. Boeing’s response—the MAX 10—falls way short. It has an advertised range of only 3,300nm.
But the integrated tank poses problems the ACTs don’t. It goes right up to the inner surfaces of the fuselage and cabin floor. Regulators are concerned about structural integrity in a crash or belly landing. Fire resistant insulation is needed between the tank and the cabin floor.
Customer concerns about these issues first came to our attention more than a year ago, even as the MAX crisis wound down. A supplier also expressed concern about potential delays.
It’s perplexing how Airbus didn’t see these issues coming when designing the integrated tank. Maybe they’ll explain on Wednesday.
The US Air Line Pilots Assn. (ALPA) challenges the narrative that there is a pilot shortage, expressed by several US carriers who rely on regional airlines for much of its lift. ALPA claims it’s just a pay issue.
Bumping pay to a livable wage is certainly needed. But the federal requirement that FAA Part 121 requirements, which regulate regional airlines, mandate a minimum of 1,500 hours before being certified for the cockpit, also make it difficult to staff the airplanes.
American, Delta and United airlines have around 200 regional jets that are parked due to staffing shortages. Republic Airways holding, which contracts with the US majors to provide RJ service, wants to reduce the required hours from 1,500, something ALPA opposes.
This minimum was adopted after a fatal crash of a Colgan Airways Bombardier Q400. The investigation revealed that the pilots mishandled a stall on final. The co-pilot was young, had relatively few hours and was living on food stamps because the starting salary was so low. She had flown from Seattle to the East Coast on a red-eye and slept in operations because she couldn’t afford a hotel. Wages and minimum hours started coming up after this accident.
ALPA opposes lowering the minimum hours required on safety grounds. Republic wants to lower the requirement to 750 hours. Experience matters, but is 750 hours too low? I’m not qualified to answer this question.
But the pilot shortage is real. Mesa Airlines, another US regional, Republic and other carriers now have their own flight academies, one way to address the pilot shortage. One problem: these also offer a path to move up from regionals to major airlines, creating a constant need to new hires and churn at the regional level.
Major airlines are up-gauging airplanes. Many of the parked RJs are the 50-seat CRJ-200s and ERJ-145s, the 50-seat aircraft whose economics were challenging anyway, before the sharp rise in fuel costs this year.
Reduced frequency and dropping Essential Air Service cities are other responses. (EAS cities are those for which the federal government subsidizes air service, weighing the perceived needs against the economics of small markets.) Skywest Airlines, which serves several major carriers, proposed dropping EAS flights to 29 cities.
Up-gauging from 50-seat RJs to 70- or 90-seat aircraft and reducing frequency in markets that can’t sustain the larger airplanes is another option.
The pilot shortage is real. ALPA may be right that wages and benefits are important—few would probably argue with this. But the 1,500 hour requirement is undeniably an issue, too. Is reducing it to 750 hours the answer? Or 1,000 hours? I don’t have an answer.
As I recall it, the increase to 1,500 hours was an arbitrary increase in time only, unaccompanied by what learning goals should be accomplished during that time. At the same time, while it can’t regulate pay & conditions, the FAA can define & regulate the amount of “proper” rest the pilots must have. Any change to the existing 1,500 hours (which does seem high to this humble glider pilot with only 500 hours) should be determined by a structured review – to which Republic’s 750 hours does seem like an arbitrary halving. Interested to hear others’ views.
There’s more than just a number
To gain a position as a first officer with an Airline Transport Pilot License, a candidate must: –
Be 23 years old or greater
Hold a Commercial Pilots License and instrument rating
Have flown 50 hours in a multi-engine airplane
Complete an approved ATP training program
Have flown 1500 qualifying hours
Have passed all ATP knowledge and practical tests
Ex military can be OK with 750 hrs and the above. Previously it was a simple commercial license which required 250 hrs
There’s 1000 hrs for batcelors graduates from aviation course and a few other exemptions
As Gerard noted, its what you do with the hours vs the hours themselves.
As I recall we had a 900 mile cross country to get the commercial (that may have changed). So at 100 mph average (fuel and food stops) 9+ hours sitting there doing nothing. I took my brother with me to be the auto pilot while I did all the stupid calcs (a check point every 20 miles and all the Ground Speed, heading, winds ane ETA to the next updated. It was impossible. So I fudged a lot of them. (all that data had to be pre calculated the day before not knowing what the winds were that day)
Ergo, to much of it was boring holes in the sky to get the hours to the next check ride.
We would have been better served with a dumb simulator (Lynx) doing instrument training.
I was lucky in that I was good at unusual attitudes and my instructor was happy to push the limits so we really went full out nuts on that part of the training.
As the AF447 proved, rote training does nothing. You need to be challenged in unexpected emergencies.
Take off and landings were over done, you find out each flight how good or bad you are at that. The only time you need repeats is early on and if you bust a couple of landings and then it should be back to the sim to find out what your issue is .
US and EU have gotten a lot better at it. FedEx was an early leader in realizing the need. The rest of the world needs to adapt that.
Advantage militäry transfers.
Perpetuate the slave life situation for regional pilots
that want to step up ..
Thats 1500 hrs before you get into an airline cockpit- regional or main jet.
Main carriers usually want much more than 1500 in total and they want many hrs in an regional airliner.
-> Main carriers usually want much more than 1500 in total and they want many hrs in an regional airliner.
When both the regional and mainlines are said to short “thousands” of pilots???
It was possibly important for Airbus to have the A321XLR — in some (quasi-final) form — up and flying before next month’s Farnborough Airshow.
My assumption is that Airbus had liaison contact with EASA for this project from the get go.
So do we see some Hasbara style leaning behind the scenes from the FAA side? If B has issues Airbus needs to be gifted with some too.
“..So do we see some Hasbara style leaning behind the scenes from the FAA side? If B has issues Airbus needs to be gifted with some too.”
Good question, I think; this new apparent delay
of the 321XLR sure came at a convenient time
for the other guys..
So the contention is that Airbus can do anything it wants despite the listed major technical change in the tank that has never been proven and we should beat up on Boeing only?
It really shows up the Hypocrisy.
“…has never been proven…”
The concept functioned just fine on Concode…which was built by Aerospatiale…which was absorbed into Airbus.
Hey TW, can you tell us a little more
about the “synthetic third system”
on the Boeing 737MAX that you mentioned the other day?
Thanks very much.
Concordes fuel tanks.
‘Concorde’s fuel is stored in thirteen sealed tanks which are integral with the wing and fuselage structures. The fuel tanks are formed as sealed cells integral with the wing, centre fuselage and rear fuselage structure.’
Because of the delta wing it didnt have a horizontal tail plane and the fuel was shifted to maintain trim and balance .
Concord was done in a bygone era. A Model T may have 4 tires, a chassis, cab and engine, trany, drive train, its only an appearance to a modern car.
So both the EU and FAA are wrong in this case but right when it has to do with Boeing. That smells worse than Limburger cheese on a hot engine blocks.
Synthetic refers to a non Pitot Static measurement system. GPS or ground speed from a DME or on board radar can provide that.
A pitot static system has a number of individual failure modes as well as a common one in ice up (both the Pitot Tube and the AOA)
That is why 2 out of 3 is not understood. If two of the three fail or are failed, then you have no ref as to what is real.
And yes all 3 AOA have frozen up as has the Pitot Tubes.
In reality the 737 (MAX etc) have 3 Separate Pitot static systems, but only has two AOA.
If you doubt one system you use the other two to compare (the backup is displayed on a common backup head between the pilots)
Your Primary Flight Display shows the aircraft attitude (AOA) so no, you don’t need AOA of any kind to tell you what is going on (AOA was only introduced in the 80s I believe, other than military fighter jets, it was non existent)
My view is the only reason it was put on LCA is due to the massive former military pilots who wanted it.
That said the 737 backup instrument also has an Attitude Indicator built into it (aka Artificial Horizon that you can see your angle from level to however many degrees nose up or nose down)
Synthetic Air Speed (and AOA) can replace a pitot static system and an AOA vane. You can bring as many inputs into it as you want (GPS and Ring Laser Gyro etc).
I learned on a gauge type aircraft and I learned to recover from really severe attitudes with all but the Turn and Bank and VSI instruments taken away.
You can fly on a turn and bank gauge and a Vertical Speed Indicator blind (hood or clouds). Not fun but you can do it. They did that blind flying before WWII (artificial horizon was added sometime in the late 30s as I recall though the Brits made it standard first in their military aircraft)
While I think synthetic is a worthy addition, its what a pilot does with the information that counts.
That is where non pilots don’t get it. Its all about scanning your instruments and ignoring the ones (if any) that are failed or lying.
While MCAS should not have occurred and its a crime it did, the MAX was flyable with the instruments they had, they did not use them.
I do not know how far Airbus has gone in the Synthetic Speed direction. Its really programing, the hardware is there.
All those bells and whistles did AF447 no good and the Qantas A380 was best put on the ground ASAP, they were more lucky than good. Worth reading the book and I saw some very good actions and some grossly stupid ones.
“…Functioned just fine on Concorde…”
If you if ignore how debris from a burst tire striking the bottom of the wing caused a fuel leak that ignited and downed an aircraft killing everyone on board…
Probably something the FAA and EASA want to minimize as much as possible. Now such an event is unlikely to effect the XLR but imagine if it has a gear failure and that rear fuselage is striking the ground. Typical center fuel tanks are getting protection from the hefty and strong wing box structure.
again you show bad faith in discussion or lack of reading competence.
So let me repeat:
I assume that Airbus has been in contact and closely coordinated with EASA from the get go of the XLR subtype design process.
Thus sudden unexpected delays have a good chance of stemming from “other” influencers.
Then: MAX does not have synthetic AoA. ( “something” was planned for inclusion the MAX-10 certification .. which is “hung”. Why? )
Accepting synthetic AoA on the 787 may be just another case where Boeing had the FAA over a barrel. 🙂
Synthetic measurements invariably expand the scope of devices included in MTBF determination.
integral tanks: the vast majority of airliner fuel space is integral to structure: (center) wing box.
Not even a rubber liner.
In response to that crash, there was a Concorde II in which Kevlar was used to reinforce the fuel tank walls.
Incidentally, the Concorde tank ruptured from the inside, due to a pressure wave generated in the fuel by the — elastic — impact of the tyre on the tank wall. The EASA/FAA probably want tests and/or modelling to show that the same can’t happen in the XLR.
Sometimes concerns pop up after design as been finalized (EASA is not an engineering firm after all) and the OEM hopes they can reach an easy solution without massive changes. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can’t and more engineering re-effort is required than hoped/anticipated.
Keep in mind close coordination with EASA didn’t previously prevent Airbus from building a commercially unusable plane because they were hoping for a waiver that never came (I’m talking about the 1st A340-600 and it’s lack of overwing exits, which did not meet exit spacing regulations).
All your talk about synthetic AoA just sounds like throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. You have not actually shown there is anything inherently unsafe about it. Synthetic AoA is used in more than just the 787- it is common in drones for example.
As I mentioned before the structure of a wingbox is much stronger than the fuselage wall, help protecting the fuel inside it. There is a reason why when fuselages break it’s usually forward and behind the wing, not through the wing box itself.
A340-600 exit configuration.
apparently not EASA but the FAA intervened.
Today it is well known that FAA actions were oftentimes motivated by wanting to aid Boeing.
i.e. lenience towards Boeing and leaning on Airbus. ( The book on A380 evolution mentions similar circumstances re A380 noise footprint, wake power … )
And in that very link it also talks about how the JAA required changes to 737NG exits that the FAA were ok with (that resulted in the overhead swinging hatches seen on 737s today). Was that to protect the A320? After all even today only the A321NX has the superior upward swinging hatches, while the A320neo still has the old style hatches that you have to manually toss aside.
Or is it if the FAA posits a safety concern it is politics and not actually legitimate, but if the EASA does it is a serious issue?
via their charta (one job: further US aerospace industry ) the FAA works from a much more contentious position.
misuse is a proven fact, isn’t it?
Obviously its is not a black and white thing.
But looking back can we show cases where EASA misused their position for competitive purposes?
European / Asian style cadet programmes are the answer – so that’s what, 200, 250 hours?
Well, that does seem to be the answer. EasyJet and Ryanair have excellent safety records over an enormous volume of flights.
More than that.
This is Ryanair requirements for direct entry F/O
6Minimum 1,200 hours total flying time
7Minimum of 1,000 hours on a CS25* Type Aircraft
8Minimum 800 hours on the B737-300 to 900 series.
9Applicant must have the B737 300-900 type rating listed on the Licence.
Seems like 1200 hrs is the magic number
This article reinforces the idea of a (severe) pilot shortage in the US, but also indicates that “U.S. immigration lawyers are dealing with a surge in inquiries and visa applications from pilots based in countries where traffic is still recovering from COVID-19 pandemic lows”
“According to estimates, North America, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East will likely see the largest shortages while Europe, Africa, and Latin America remain closer to equilibrium.”
“The co-pilot was young, had relatively few hours and was living on food stamps because the starting salary was so low. She had flown from Seattle to the East Coast on a red-eye and slept in operations because she couldn’t afford a hotel.”
Hardly the glamourous lifestyle that the public is led to believe that pilots live.
Are there any statistical studies to back up the 1,500 hours rule? What are the requirements in: Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia?
The cynical side of me might suggest that the 1,500 hour rule was an attempt to create and support a cottage flight school industry, give ex-military guys a helping hand and a knee-jerk response to show the public that ‘something was being done’. Even if the real problem was an exhausted pilot who had no money…
You’ve got to have half a brain to get a commercial rating. There are Youtube videos out there, with people commenting that earning $30k a year starting salary is ridiculous given what other jobs you can get with the same brain power. I think there was a comparison that starting bus drivers were paid more.
Of course when I’m flying, I want 10,000+ hours up front, in both of my pilots. 🙂
I’m happy that I live and fly out of a major airport that mostly has big mainline jets.
I knew a lot of military pilots and they all had well over 1500 hours.
I disagreed (back in the day) that a Phantom qualified as multi engine time
The issue is that they no longer are getting the huge stream of ex military pilots and the low experience.
But even a non motion simulator with the right training would be better than boring holes in the sky to build hours.
You forget , compared to your PPL type flights an actual airline pilot is strictly flying commercial routes and regular contact with both ATC and likely the airlines own Ops. And well before the landing is in much denser traffic and subject to the towers requirements.
Regional hours seem good practice as they would mostly be shorter duration and much more final approaches and landings in those times.
More interesting is how many years does the 1500 take ( which includes the 350 for CPL). It seems that 1000 hrs per years the maximum, so is it more like 6-700 pa ?
-> “… so is it more like 6-700 pa ?”
In the hypothetical case that demand for air travel *stays flat all year round*, ie: unreal!
Has there been similar fuselage integrated tanks on passenger aircrafts before besides the Concorde? I know it is common on fighter aircrafts.
I am not aware of any.
Fighter aircraft are not a good comparison, different ball game and self sealing at least back in WWII.
A340 with the tank at the forward end of rhe aft cargo hold used the lower skin as part of the tank. The FAA made them add kevlar liners, as i recall.
Integral tanks are common in business jets.
-Surely there is something wrong with aircraft that require more than 300 hours commercial experience from a first officer. Well trained allied WW2 combat pilots went to war with 250-300 hours training. (The Luftwaffe Pilots towards the end often had less than 25-50 hours, essentially murder to send them out)
-Protections in FBW should eliminate this need.
-My understanding is that the 1500 hour required by a first officer in the USA came out of Colgan Air Flight 3407 (A Bombardier Q400 in which 49 souls were lost) where the pilots made inappropriate responses to a stall warning, stick shaker and stick pusher in a stall created by icing and inappropriate flap settings.
-In the aftermath of the 3407 crash Congress imposed a 1500 hour rule, which had the effect to scape goat pilot experienced and to deflect from the true cause which was pilot fatigue.
-The crew members each substantially exceeded 1500 hours. Captain Renslow was hired in September 2005 and had accumulated 3,379 total flight hours, with 111 hours as captain on the Q400. First Officer Shaw was hired in January 2008, and had 2,244 hours, 774 of them in turbine aircraft, including the Q400
-Europe seems to runs a very safe system with 300 hours why does the US need more is the question.
Even with 250 hours pilots got killed really fast.
the issue was not the hours but it was not combat.
Same story. If they were boring holes in the air they were not learning anything.
While you read a lot of one on one or follow the leader, in those days you did not have a fighter squadron training to defend a bomber squadron against even another fighter squadron.
Listen to the tapes of modern combat and the wild fear and excitement initially and then latter, ho hum, missile coming up, start the jamming and I will do the evasive, whats for lunch?
Either way the problem in commercial aviation seems to be not ‘rookies’ but pilot fatigue. Both AF447 and Colgan involved significant pilot fatigue. To me the way forward would be to tighten up the rules on fatigue more but relax the rules on flight hours to obtain a position. Long term aircraft need to be improved so that pilots skill requirements are reduced. Robust FBW with protections backed by more redundancy and synthetic air data for instance.
Which airlines in Europe have 300 hrs? Thats seems far too low as to even get a CPL is 350 hrs ( its all cumulative)
Ryanair requires 1100 hrs
Apparently there is work around the 1,500 hours rule:
Pilots at 135 operators only need 500 hours!
Took a flight from Paris to Corsica last month. Normally we would have flown on an A320. This time 3 flights were fused together in an A330-200 for the 1-hour-half flight.
Boeing is taking it on the chin, today:
I know it’s early, but it’s down to $116, over 8%. Dow is down 2%
Wow, down more than $10 or 8-9%. Market cap at $68.7b. Why? This??
(It’s pretty much old news. No?)
Dow Jones is down more than 700 at this point. Officially entering into a bear market. Everyone is off sharply today.
They’re talking about a 75 basis point raise in the interest rates on Wed, so it’s getting priced in as the markets react. The market was awash with cash, so you knew this was coming.
Mind you, BA is currently outperforming the market 🙂 down 8%, while the DOW is is under water 2%.
Scott is right, there is a broad and global stock market selloff since last Friday. The selloff today is largely in response to the US CPI (Consumer Price Index) publication on Friday. Year-over-year inflation seems to be getting worse than what was anticipated. Financial markets are adjusting to the fact that the US Federal Reserve might increase interest rates higher and faster than envisioned to help contain inflation.
On the other hand:
– Boeing stock is down 53 % in the past 12 months (247.8 –> 118.8);
– Airbus stock is down 13 % in the past 12 months (112.36 –> 97.52);
– The DJ30 stock index is down 10.5 % in the past 12 months (34479.6 –> 30840.97).
The western economies have been pumping out more money into the system (M2, M3) for over 10 years, eventually money will be worth less and inflation take hold making those with money poorer and those with fixed and limited assets like land, forest, art, gold that are fixed richer. Most big property and stock owners are heavy in debt and as interest rates go up their loans get more expensive and property values drop and force sell offs or the most leveraged ones causing a market correction. It happened before. The politicians and their cental banks letting it happen are to blame.
Perhaps this also has something to do with it:
Recession fears sweep over travel and leisure stocks
Cruise line stocks Carnival (CCL -7.9%), Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NCLH -8.6%), and Royal Caribbean (RCL -6.3%) were all notably lower.
Resort and casino stocks Playa Hotels & Resorts (PLYA -7.0%), Golden Entertainment (GDEN -5.8%), Red Rock Resorts (RRR -7.0%), Boyd Gaming (BYD -5.7%), Bally’s (BALY -6.7%), and MGM Resorts (MGM -6.4%) also caught sell orders early on Monday.
Travel service stocks also fell hard, including Trip.com (NASDAQ:TCOM -7.0%), TripAdvisor (TRIP -5.1%), Booking Holdings (BKNG -6.6%), and Airbnb (ABNB -6.5%).
Lodging stocks InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG -6.9%), Marriott International (MAR -4.8%), and Hyatt Hotels (H -5.2%) also were in negative territory.
Airline stocks were led lower by sharp drops for Gol Linhas (GOL -11.1%), Azul S.A. (AZUL -10.4%), and Volaris (VLRS -7.0%).
Dow down 2.8%, BA down more than $11 or 8.8% today.
@Pedro (and @Bryce)
I see that too.
(I’m trying to be nice here, guys!!!!)
We know that!!
(1) You’re so astute.
(2) You’re so nice.
Vortex of debility
Going to re-read
Those who bet we are on an upward trajectory saw what’s coming and exit risk asset.
The thing I have never understood about the 1500 hour requirement after Colgan was that the pilot flying was the captain and he had plenty of hours. That change would not have removed him from that flight. The FO was a contributory factor but not the principal cause.
750 quality training hours beats 1500 boring through the sky.
Like cockpit alarms, no basis for it, knee jerk.
Flip is a well trained PM can see the issue when the Pilot is too involved and if you have good CRM, the PM can bring the pilot out of it.
Both pilots had more than 1500 hrs.
But I dont know what was their hrs ‘entry point’ to fly with Colgan. Maybe there was a series of major incidents, not all led to crashes
Cant compare the types of flights – “boring” that PPL and initial CPL flights do from little airports and away from the altitudes and traffic density of commercial routes
Hey Bryce, I’m going to copy over my comment here, about breaking up Boeing, so we can stay on the current page:
OK – lemme put it this way.
Let’s say that you are I are the creditors for BA. We hold all the notes. BA goes Ch 11, shareholders are wiped and it’s ours. What do we do?
Do we chop it up into a few pieces and try to salvage what we can? How much of our $60 billion would we recoup? How much of a haircut would we have to take?
Do we take a long, hard look at the thing and come to the conclusion (that many seem to have reached) that:
1) It’s still a duopoly with Airbus.
2) A few years ago, sales were $101 billion.
3) Greedy mgmt fcuked it up.
Maybe, just maybe – if we get the right people in there, move HQ back to Wash, get a few concessions from gov’t and unions, this thing is better off turned around with a 5 – 10 year horizon…
…instead of trying to get what we can, now.
It is, after all, still Boeing.
On the other hand:
If a debt-ridden company is consistently earning insufficient revenue to cover its costs (without even talking about meaningful debt repayment), and if that company is not in a position to raise new capital, and if that company has a dwindling market share and an inferior product line-up, and if that company is being progressively crippled by a worsening brain drain…doesn’t such a company ultimately self-terminate?
There is such a thing as throwing good money after bad…
If you had to put a % on this, how much of the responsibility for all of what you just said, goes to poor mgmt decisions?
“There is such a thing as throwing good money after bad…”
There is also something known as a turnaround.
I don’t think Boeing is fundamentally flawed, but I think it’s time to put the adults back in charge of things…
I’d put the blame squarely with management.
In my opinion, the damage is so severe that it’s unsurvivable.
Its 100% management. When I was working, I could nudge boundaries some, but 10 at most before I got hammered.
The FAA has commented that the 777X team did not get it and they were having to beat them over the head to get compliance.
Enough bad management and the culture gets corrupted and that is what has happened.
It has the basics to turn it around but that will not happen until management does and that means a change not Calhoun lip service.
“In my opinion, the damage is so severe that it’s unsurvivable.”
Yes, I can see your point of view. It could very well be.
I feel that there is a possibility that with the right team in place, making the right decisions, the situation is salvageable.
Mind you: Getting the right team in place, while the leeches are still milking the gravy train, is another matter altogether. I think that this is a huge hurdle. These kind of guys will ride it all the way down…
Even if the present MT were to leave and if it were replaced by the best MT on the planet, how do you address the debt burden?
We’re heading into a recession — potentially stagflation — so one can expect thinner new orders from the airline industry, which is already on its knees after CoViD. A huge portion of the MAX backlog, and an increasing portion of the 787 backlog, can be canceled without penalty. And margins on recent MAX sales have been very thin.
As you previously pointed out, income from Defense has never been big enough to offer much salvation.
As old debt matures, rollovers to new debt will incur even more hardship due to higher interest rates.
Will Uncle Sam come with a bailout? He might, but — based on Mr. Biden’s recent rhetoric toward Exxon — he doesn’t seem to be a fan of big industry right now.
Even with the best team of surgeons, some patients just can’t be saved.
In Ch 11 shareholders are wiped out and debtors get the company, in lieu of repayment.
Yes, I know.
But those debtors (bond holders) still have to find a way to recover their money. They could appoint a new MT, but what could such an MT realistically do to recover such a sum of money in an acceptable timeframe?
How long did it take to run BA into the ground? Fixing it (which means launching 2 maybe 3 new aircraft to meet the inadequacies in the lineup) is a 5-10 year horizon.
But that’s the two schools of thought, isn’t it?
If you’re concerned with getting paid (which is what got them here in the first place) then maybe you chop it up.
If you want to make great, reliable, efficient and safe aircraft that the market needs and wants, you keep it together and let engineers make the aircraft, like they used to – not the MBA whiz kids.
(BTW – those people who end up getting the company are no longer ‘debtors’, they are the owners. It requires a shift in the way of thinking, if you want to turn it around. If you still have a debtor mindset, better to just come out and be the break up specialist and let everyone else pick over the bones.)
These big corporate bond offerings are OTC affairs, so I think we can conclude that the bondholders are all large financial institutions — commercial banks, private equity firms, pension funds, etc. Such firms are not interested in running an aerospace company — they’re in the business of moving capital around so as to generate ROI; in fact, running an aerospace company would probably violate their corporate charters. They therefore have two “realistic” options:
(1) Try to sell the company on to another buyer or buyers.
(2) Liquidate the company’s assets.
Option (1) is obviously more attractive for them, but there aren’t many potential buyers, are there?
I personally have no problem with nationalizations in this sort of situation, but that’s not really “the American way”, is it? And, of course, it would make a laughing stock of the USA in light of the recent WTO proceedings against AB.
As soon as the bonds were downgraded (to junk), there’ll be a fire sale, and sold to vulture hedge funds which are specialized in these “special” occasions. Many funds can *only* hold “investment grade” bonds.
Regarding Boeing stock:
Everybody is fully aware that interest rates are going North, and fast.
Everybody is aware that BOEING’s debt is massive.
Sooner or later, it will be junk (just one step)
with another impact on the rate.
and possible exit from the Dow (as GE some time ago)
High inflation erodes the real value of future margins (upon delivery) on past sales: the sale price remains the same, but the manufacturing costs inflate.
Price of sales made previously isn’t fixed. You haven’t read LNA previous stories on escalation clauses in the contracts.
It’s an obvious thing for sales made maybe 5 yrs or more out
Got a link for us?
Particularly discussing the CAPS in any escalation clauses?
Find it yourself. Surely you know LNA has a search box
Boeing’s Bonds outstanding are at fixed interest rates. Over very long terms in some cases
So rising interest rates have no effect on Boeing’s payments on outstanding debt
Check your facts bud.
Only a portion of the bonds are long maturity; there are also short-maturity bonds in the mix…bud.
“Yet less than one week after posting its largest quarterly loss on record, Boeing is coming to market with a sale of bonds maturing in two to five years”.
I checked on MARKETWATCH
what is written is:
“The biggest $5.5 billion slug of 30-year bonds due May 2050, priced at a spread of 450 basis points over Treasurys.”
this is definetely not fixed interest rates!
when Treasurys go North, as they are doing quickly now, the payments on the 60bn debts go up
and impact is huge
we had 0,50 last month plus 0,75 yesterday
impact: 750 millions
and more is coming!
2 years old story
And it seems you dont understand at issue they are priced over treasurys for a reason, ( higher risk)and are generally known as fixed interest.
The longer time period fixed interest ones caused some twittering because of what seemed higher rates at the time ( but were quickly snapped up)
> and are generally known as fixed interest. <
Heh, rimshot! And he'll certainly be here all week.. while being demonstrably wrong
70% of the time.
Boeing stock is quite volatile. With a beta of 1.48 (Yahoo finance) the stock will change by 1.48% when the overall market changes by 1%.
Airbus stock has an even higher beta (1.88)…and yet Airbus (-4.39%) was down less today than Boeing (-8.78%).
> Airbus stock has an even higher beta (1.88)…and yet Airbus (-4.39%) was down less today than Boeing (-8.78%). <
Pesky ol' facts.. 😉
Fundamentals will prove to be important, and quite soon I think.
There are 2 Airbus stocks:
EADSY & EADSF
F is down 2.78%
BA down 8.77%
Don’t you get tired of commenting the same kind of content everyday. My word.
-> After a series of crashes affecting both US Navy and Marine aircraft, all non-deployed naval aviation units were grounded for one day on June 13, 2022 to conduct a safety review.
On June 3, 2022, a US Navy McDonnell Douglas F/A-18E Super Hornet crashed near Trona, California, killing its pilot.
On June 8, 2022, a US Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft crashed in the Southern California desert, killing its crew of five Marines.
The next day, a US Navy MH-60S Seahawk helicopter crashed near El Centro, California. All four on board survived the crash.
Do these military pilots have more than 750 hours’ experience??
It matters what the aircraft were doing at the time and how well trained they were in that task vs the hours.
I would have 20,000 hours but if I had no instrument time/training if I got in a cloud I would come out of it upside down and sideways.
And at times military pilots do stupid things. A Major crashed a C-17 a couple miles North of my house (saw the smoke as I turned onto my street) and it was a matter of exceeding the bank angle of the aircraft at low speeds doing a so called display maneuver (he had been working up to it for some time and each time he pushed it a bit more).
Equally I saw a Blackhawk pitch itself 90 deg to the ground more than once and that was forbidden but they did it anyway. Young and stupid in that case (both the pilots and the troops riding it thinking it was a roller coaster ride, more than one crash due tot hat stupidity).
“Two American Airlines-owned regional carriers will hike pilot pay by 50% through the end of August 2024, the latest sign airlines are willing to pay up in hopes of ending a pilot shortage that has left some travelers with fewer flight options.
“The increases would make the pilots the highest paid of the U.S. regional airlines, ramping up pressure on other carriers to follow suit.”
So- as I suspected- it’s a *wage* shortage, not a “pilot shortage”. Plenty of good pilots around here in USA, if decent money is being paid, and other terms [ahem]
are not onerous.
RJ pilots are recruited by mainlines.
> RJ pilots are recruited by mainlines.
Yes- except far more of the former than the latter are needed (as you likely know).
Lots of good pilots unwilling to accept poor working conditions, low pay, [and the “vaccines”], as a combo.
Thousands of high-paying pilots were sent off during covid. Mainlines want to refill them with cheaper younger recruits from RJ.
Pilots have a seniority system. Last hired first fired (younger pilots)
So no, that is not it as well as pay scales are fixed
As each year goes by another group of Senior pilots ages out and can no longer fly LCA (they can other commercial classes)
There simply are not the young pilot with the hours to hire. They depended on the military and when that pool dried up they were slow to look ahead.
AK Airlines is having issues because the pilots won’t take hour that they can fly as they are stymied in their negotiations.
There are vastly more LCA aircraft than there are regional.
Belatedly they are opening up academies with a career path. Probably $150,000 for all the training and hours needed just to fly a right seat.
Pilots are in the drivers seat and not letting go unless you pay them more or offer benefits.
On a day with plummeting stocks in the travel industry, and at a time with record inflation and jetfuel prices, not to mention the start of a new CoViD uptick, Cal treats us to this hot air:
“”Demand for airplanes is as robust as I’ve ever seen it. I think it will get more robust,” Calhoun told Reuters and another news outlet on the sidelines of an event at Boeing’s office. The demand for airplanes “is more than a bubble,” he added.”
Phil Le Beau on CNBC this evening smirked/giggled at the remark.
“He would say that, now wouldn’t he?”
-Christine Keeler on [heh] John Profumo
“Prosperity is just around the corner.” – Herbert Hoover
“The situation remains stable, yadda-yadda..”
Maybe they [finally] pulled the plug
> Phil Le Beau on CNBC this evening smirked/giggled at the remark. <
Unfortunately, the Joke is on *us* (the many). Rudimentary class analysis; that's partly why he's laughing.
Hot Stocks: Crypto stocks plunge; BA sets 52-week low; ASTR drops; DAWN more than doubles
“Meanwhile, Boeing (NYSE:BA) was among the big-name stocks dragged down in Monday’s general market decline. Shares of the airplane maker declined 9% to reach a new 52-week low.”
Calhoun has to go out there and say something, anything. His company lost almost 10% of it’s value today and nary a Max crash in sight.
“Boeing (BA) shares have shed nearly 18% during the past four days and are the Dow’s biggest decliner so far this year, -44%, and in the past 12 months, -53%.”
It looks like people are finally starting to look at financials, instead of just randomly throwing money around…
-> Richard Aboulafia and Kevin Michaels, and aerospace analyst Ron Epstein see 2023 or 2024 as the likely period in which Boeing “must” launch an airplane to avoid further market share erosion to Airbus.
Calhoun: what market share erosion? [I don’t care.] Where’s my golden parachute??
commenter Transworld said in a previous thread, on 7 June 2022:
“..Unlike the MAX, Airbus still does not have synthetic third system that is fully independent of the freeze up prone pitot or the AOA (the 787 was the first to have it)..”
Does that commenter stand by his quoted statement, that the 737MAX presently has a “third synthetic system..” ? I *did* try to parse the long, obfuscatory thing he wrote above, but alas..
So- yes, or no?
Commenter @Uwe has very succinctly provided an answer to your query in a retort above 😉
Yes, Uwe got to the heart of the matter in that one, didn’t he? nice.
Yes the MAX 10 will have it. Currently the MAX 8 and 9 do not.
So the old dog has or will have it and the A320 does not, very ironic.
Of course its complicated. This is not Legoes
Your claim, TW- as quoted above!- was that the MAX “has it”; not will, or might, in another incarnation, or.. that means there’s no way to
answer “yes” without, um, dissembling.
Be honest, friend.
As for the Boeing 737MAX-10: let’s see how it goes.
My guess is that the requirement to put a synthetic third system on that dog’s-breakfast of an airplane is a *big part* of why
it’s in perma-limbo (rather like the Boeing 777-X, no?).
> So the old dog has or will have it and the A320 does not, very ironic. <
Let's see now- which plane is regularly falling out of the sky, with three recent all-fatalities crashes: the Boeing 737, or the Airbus A320?
Please stop saying the Boeing 737MAX "has it", because it's a falsehood. Thanks.
-> CREA warned large quantities of Russian crude oil were now being shipped to India, which increased its share of Russia’s total crude exports from around 1% before the invasion of Ukraine to 18% in May.
The report said a “significant share” of this was being refined and sold on – often to customers in the *US and Europe*.
Kids played gun and shot themselves in the foot without knowing!
NEW: Some Biden officials privately express concern that rather than dissuade the Kremlin as intended, US sanctions have instead exacerbated inflation, worsened food insecurity and punished ordinary Russians more than Putin or his allies
…and they’re only coming to that conclusion now?
Can’t say I’m not “impressed” by these kids’ ability ….
-> Gazprom said it had to halt ANOTHER turbine at a compressor station connected to the Nord Stream pipeline, curbing natural gas supply to Europe even more
Siemens is performing maintenance on them, but *sanctions interrupted delivery*
European natural gas benchmark price up >40% over the last 48 hours.
At some point, one starts to wonder if it’s intentional. 😉
“Oops- we never considered that cutting off Russian gas might affect our own citizenry/economy!” Thinking of Germany, in particular..
#controlleddemolition (the Rich are doing fine..)
Anglo Americans have no use of cheap Russian gas.
Here’s a interesting article on this subject:
“Russia Overtakes Saudi Arabia As India’s Second-Largest Oil Supplier”
“According to a report by a Finnish environmental agency, Indian buyers now account for 18 percent of Russian crude oil exports. What is more interesting, however, is that some of the fuel Indian refiners produce using Russian crude is then exported, with some of it eventually ending up in the United States.”
Sanctions force the black gold to flow through the back door. Haha.
Shhhh let a few middle men get rich (they are *the* big donors, aren’t they??). Sanction works … don’t tell anyone!
Analysts may have financial acumen, but they certainly do not read Leehamnews…
To day, apart from Merrill Lynch (which is advising “hold ” with a 150$ target), all others have targets between 190 and 250$
The consensus has been very wrong for many quarters.
They are very highly paid, but their analysis is mostly repeating the management hot air…
Most of them are convinced that when inventories of finished planes will be delivered, BOEING will be flooded with cash, they are not even aware that the final settlement at delivery is a fraction of the selling price!
Let us imagine MAX final settlement is 10mn$, and 787 is 40mn$
If all frames are delivered to morrow, only 8bn$ cash will enter BOEING coffers
85% of the 60bn debt will still be there!
Obviously, not one of them is aware of the 14bn$ deferred accounts issue for the 787
Very little real research by these guys, they do not deserve their pay!
Marty Armstrong’s “socrates” has oil at $220-240 bbl 2Q 2023. I’m long!
I am with you. Until the company tanks (maybe that is their new future?) they will spew endless reasons why Boeing is worth vastly more than it is.
All the Boeing upside is only there is its managed right and currently its not.
> All the Boeing upside is only there is its managed right and currently its not. <
Can somebody else try to parse this sentence?
“The only hope for Boeing is an effective management team, which it doesn’t have at the moment?” That’s my best shot; I speak English, not American and I’m not sure that the author speaks either.
June 13, 2022
Thousands of high-paying pilots were sent off during covid. Mainlines want to refill them with cheaper younger recruits from RJ.<
Yes.. but my "wage shortage" comment is pithier (droller, too). There is no "pilot shortage"; not here in the US, anyway; it's a useful ruling-class meme, only.
-> “Higher pay could … could accelerate the phasing out of smaller, typically 50-seat regional jets, at airlines in favor of larger models … Small cities that lack the travel demand needed to support larger aircraft would lose in this scenario.”
-> “Toledo has the unfortunate distinction of being the first U.S. city to lose air service on a network carrier due to the pilot shortage.”
“Who coulda knowed: pilots won’t work for free!” (I won’t mention the “vaccines” again)
Here in the UK different rules apply but when faced with a career choice a young person must also now take politics into consideration; a UK GMT sponsored “policy document” has just called for a complete ban on all commercial flights by 2050.
At first glance this seems far fetched but they also banned the sales of new ICE vehicles in eight years, declared Marshall law for the last two and have successfully made oil all but unaffordable all of which, ten years ago would have been far fetched too.
If you were a young person today would you choose to commit your time and money to a socially unacceptable career which might be outlawed in twenty years?
“…complete ban on all commercial flights by 2050.”
A fascinating proposal from an island nation.
The proposal — one presumes — didn’t bother mentioning all the other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, besides aviation?
I bet that any ban would exclude private jets.
>I bet that any ban would exclude private jets.
Be serious, man: Davos Man must get back to Davos!
Very informative article on the various ground tests being performed on the A321 XLR:
Incidentally, the RTO was performed yesterday, in preparation for tomorrow’s first flight.
Yes, that’s a good, informative link on the 321XLR. Thanks.
If safety with the MAX went so far as the risk of cosmic rays hitting the circuitry, then I think the safety of the XLR gas tank in a crash is common sense. Take a lesson from the Ford Pinto.
Conflating the Ford Pinto and Airbus’s craft doesn’t seem quite right to me; after all, it’s the other guys’ planes that
keep having all-fatalaties crashes- three in a row, actually.
Good comparison. Badly designed fuel tanks are badly designed fuel tanks.
MAX is far from the only LCA that crashes.
Of course with Airbus whiz bang system its the pilots fault not the automation!
TW: has it been determined that the A321XLR’s fuel tanks are “badly designed”? If so, by whom, and to what result?
Knows his stuff, though. 😉
> Of course with Airbus whiz bang system its the pilots fault not the automation! <
Whatever *that* might mean..
BA only delivered 35 aircraft in May:
Mind you, Airbus wasn’t much better: 47 deliveries.
Supply chain issue? How about *over 300 MAX* BA has in storage? Why BA can’t deliver more from storage?? Management issue?
Makes one wonder how much of that backlog actually comprises cancelled planes. After all, who wants to take a plane that’s been parked outdoors in the elements for 2+ years…particularly when you can cancel for free and re-order at a better price?
Also probably comprises lots of Chinese orders that are sitting in Limbo…amd will remain in Limbo for quite some time.
IAG “quietly” ordered eight A320neo and A321neo.
Reuters: “European, U.S. regulators to hold meeting with Boeing on 777X”
“Ky added the meeting is to talk about “what are the issues, what are the solutions, what are the mitigating factors.””
In other news:
Europe aviation regulator says no safety concern seen in A350 paint dispute
More info on tbe A321 XLR certification:
“”There is a lot of back and forth discussion to prove various ideas but EASA has not yet accepted (Airbus) proposals,” a person familiar with the matter said. Detailed work on design changes cannot begin until the basis for certification is clear.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has published a “special condition” applicable among other things to the A321XLR and is inviting public comment.
“It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with the special condition,” an EASA spokesperson said, adding that a further such condition would be published at a later stage “addressing the crashworthiness of this design”.”
Just like the 787 Battery should have been done. Bring in the RTC and come up with a real process not someones bright idea of a nail.
Not that the 787 Battery Debacle is not complex but many just want a pat answer so there it is, its all the nail theory fault.
June 14, 2022
“The only hope for Boeing is an effective management team, which it doesn’t have at the moment?” That’s my best shot; I speak English, not American and I’m not sure that the author speaks either. <
Thank you, Gerard. I've asked that author (Transworld) before about his unfamiliar dialect, but haven't gotten a response.
This is a reply to Bill7. A320 aircraft fatally crash on may 22 2020. Your selective manipulation of facts is not been challenge by Airbus fans.
Yours is another dialect with which I’m not really familiar, but if you’re talking
about Pakistan Int’l Flight 8303, you’re mistaken: it was not an all-fatalities
crash, as the three Boeing 737 crashes I mentioned, were.
Last time i check American English is more widespread and you are free to call it a dialect. What is the difference between German wing A320 and China eastern B737-800. AF447 fell out of the sky and you seem to forget that. Boeing and Airbus make great planes and when Boeing make a move A320 future variants will not be able to compete. Airbus will have to make a move of their own. Time will tell and some of us are actually in bedded in this industry .
-> “Boeing make a move A320 future variants will not be able to compete.”
When??? Airbus might sew up the market faster than BA *finally* [when all the stars align] makes the right move!
Not to forget the talent drained suffered, and the years it takes for new recruits to mature.
“Boeing moves and Airbus unable to compete with current product”
That was the general assertion when the 787 was offered.
“A330 well burned unpalatable toast”.
Looking back that was a major overestimation of Boeing capabilities/competence and does not seem to have changed much. cue: Boeing busy in FUD via “super product just around the corner”. That tactic did not age well, overused, historic substance consumed.
American dialects are archaic snapshots taken from then spoken english in the core community ( info surprised me at the time ). emigrated communities seem to freeze the cultural and language state of their expatriation.
“at home” people move on.
There’s a case to be made that having BA make both the 787 & the 777X was a win for Airbus.
In short – both of those aircraft have cost Boeing $10 billion in losses, up until now. More is expected to come.
This has hampered their ability to launch a new aircraft to compete in other segments, which we are seeing today.
It’s two of many strings to a bow that has brought Boeing to it’s knees.
And to add salt into the wound, Airbus seems to be learning from the mistakes of Boeing by targeting a 10 billion euro rainy day fund to be set aside for ‘unforeseen circumstances’ and new aircraft launches.
Making the A330Neo on the cheap (while it isn’t selling like hotcakes) seems to have turned into a winner for them.
Airbus didn’t “make” Boeing “make” the 787. Airbus was caught flat-footed by Boeing. Airbus tried to respond first with a warmed over A330 in the original A350, then another 4 versions before settling on the XWB. This is well-documented history including in my book, Air Wars.
The A330neo (essentially the original A350) is hardly a runaway success, but it accomplishes what was intended–and that is to keep price pressure on the 787. This also is recounted in Air Wars,
I re-read my post. I’m sorry, I don’t think I said that Airbus ‘made’ Boeing make anything.
Are you referring to this:
“There’s a case to be made that having BA make both the 787 & the 777X was a win for Airbus.”
I’m trying to say that because BA produced the 787 & 777X, which so far has lost them $10 billion (a resource which could be put to other uses, like new aircraft); because the two of them are locked in a duopoly, could be considered a win for Airbus.
It’s also the same deal with the Air Force tanker. Airbus lost the contract, but won in the end, because Boeing lost their shirt on the program.
Airbus, on the other hand, took it on the chin with the A380 program.
It’s not just the successes you have, but the failures/mistakes that the other guy makes, without you lifting a finger.
That’s the point I was trying to make.
With the 787 launched, Airbus still sold 800 A330CEO’s, mostly after 787 launch.
How much A330 would have been sold, if Boeing hadn’t launched the 787? Boeing knew something.
I think the unexpected success of the long range A330-200 version in the late nineties pulled the trigger for to move ahead.
it took Airbus ages ( i.e. that handful of iterations ) to realize that no real, hard product could counter the meme driven “Dreamliner”.
A350XWB took aim at the 777(-300ER)
less of a direct counter to the 787.
( my very personal opinion: the XWB intro was accompanied by knowing that the 787 would definitely not have an easy timely start.)
I wonder if (I know it’s a big “if” for BA) BA has earned back what it invested in 787 development?
No. The deferred production balance is at some $14 billion. Still.
But since BA uses program accounting and has written off $3.5 billion (Q4/21), the program is a loss.
How that works is that dev costs are rolled into one big pile. Then a portion of that is allocated to each aircraft produced and sold, over the estimated accounting block.
At one time, IIRC, BA had estimated a total accounting block of 1600 aircraft sold. Since then it has dropped to 1500.
How it basically works, is that Boeing has costs that each plane incurs, as it gets made, like the labour and materials they pay to suppliers. So you get a number. This is called gross margin or gross profit; the revenue less the costs of goods sold (cogs). Then you have indirect costs, like overhead (the plant, electricity etc) and sales & marketing.
In program accounting, Boeing spent a bunch of money to develop the thing. They paid for all of it. Then they spread out the costs of that over the whole program, adding a % to each 787 made and sold.
When they wrote off $3.5 billion, they essentially are saying that there is no way we can estimate (because this all requires an honest, best guess from the company) that this money that we spent to develop the aircraft, will ever be recovered. We think we can cover $14 billion over the remaining aircraft we will deliver, but $17.5 is too much.
So by definition, the program is a loss.
Now, I think that program accounting estimates get updated and there were rumblings that another loss on the program was possible, which was related to the 787 delivery stoppage. We’ll see.
“IMU” nitpick: Deferred _production_ cost.
Devel outlay is a different basket.
( Reason why the prototypes were planned to be merchandisable: $1++B away from “devel” into the deferred_production_ basket. didn’t work out as intended )
“…and China eastern B737-800”
I wasn’t aware of any official findings on the cause of that crash. There were some rumors a few weeks ago, but nothing substantive. The CVR is still unreadable.
Hey, but there’s a leak from “insider(s)” and reporters ran away with what they were spoon fed.
> and when Boeing make a move A320 future variants will not be able to compete. <
Somehow, for some reason, I just don't think that's the way it will go. We'll see.
For one thing: there’s no money to do it.
Next up: who’ll be left to do it after the present brain drain?
What’s worse, these predictions assume that Airbus will sit back and do nothing to respond to any new Boeing aircraft. These are forecasts that can only see Boeing’s side, but that are not concerned with competitors (perhaps because they still think that Boeing is the sovereign company that always dictates the market rules).
Hopefully the C suite is not filled with this groupthink, otherwise …
Truth. One of the mistakes Boeing made over the years was to belittle the competition.
” … was to belittle the competition.”
projection is an established technique.
If you can saturate the information space with your projection factualness turns more or less irrelevant.
past and current politics:
XYZ is the devil incarnate proven by “reported” atrocities. We will again save the world by war..”
The integral fuel tank in the fuselage SHOUD give regulators pause. There are 2 non flight load conditions this tank is exposed to that are not in the regs as well as a couple operating concerns.
First, high sink rate landings. Fuselage skins absorb tremendous loads in high sink rate landings. The normal failure is to fail the fasteners at the barrel joints opening the fuselage. This is aggravated by nose gear contacting the runway when you get the airplane skippimg off the runway after the mains compress and bounce. An integral fuel tank must be designed to handle these added non-flight loads. The second load the aircraft is exposed is penetrating skin damage from ground support equipment. This would require the aircraft to defuel, break seals for access doors, cleaning, fabrication of repair skin splices, installation and sealing of repair parts, reassembly and resealing, leak checks and RTS. You get to do that every time a ham fisted GSE Employee runs into the airplane. This isn’t a theoretical exposure, 2 or 3 airplanes a week are holed just in the North American ops area, but since fuel isn’t involved, the repairs are quite simple.
Lastly, how do you get people off the airplane if it gos in gear up and the tank catches on fire before the airplane stops sliding????
Valid points . But there are existing integral tanks in centre wing box and the wings of course.
So what happens then when existing model does a landing with gear up and catches fire before the plane stops sliding…
As a practical matter isnt there an under wing fairing below the centre wing box to provide useable space for air condition packs , under carriage etc and smooth the airflow, this likely extends back where the integral fuel cell would be placed behind the wing box . The twin engines of a jet of course are what the plane slides on when a wheels up landing occurs
Duke…. On the 767, the center wing box is embedded within the 45 section structure and the integral tank walls are very well protected. A very similar build process exists on the 777. The tanks within the wing supposedly are prevented from striking the ground by the flaps. The aircraft does not slide on the engines by design as the engine pylon is designed to fail the aft attach point vertically as the aircraft settles. This allows the engines to pivot around the forward mount and prevents the engine from penetrating the tank structure. Its also what American Airlines broke on the DC-10 engine pylon that allowed the engine to leave the aircraft by rotating up and over the wing. It went there because it was designed to do that in a belly landing….. Additionally, a look at the 777 BA lost to engine ice will show the same failure mode that prevented tank penetration. There is a big difference between crashworthy designed CWB structures and an aft fuselage, single skinned integral fuselage tank…..
BA 777 crash at Heathrow pictures show both engines attached fairly normally , undercarriage broken off.
If you take a good look at this picture, you will see the result of the aft pylon mount failing as designed. The bore axis of the airplane is no longer coincident with the fuselage centerline. The engine has rotated on the forward pylon mount after the rear mount has failed and is pointing “up”. A small matter, but part of the design to keep the wing tanks intact.
“The normal failure is to fail the fasteners at the barrel joints opening the fuselage.”
Usually it is the discontinuity ahead and behind the wingbox. picklefork land. A design shortcoming.
Typical failure mode of the 737 fuselage.
( and it is a killer, see AMS crash and allows early fire entry into the fuselage)
Does anybody have a crash pic of an A320 with split fuselage? ( IMU either all in small pieces or just heavily bent )
A320 crash at Halifax .Air Canada. Just
landed short of runway so did slide
A picture is worth a thousand words.
From the report:
” … plane’s landing gear and engine ripped off in crash”
That’s it. Fuselage split apart like what happened so many times with the 60s’ design 737?? Only in alt-reality guy’s head.
So what . I don’t say it split. Managed quite well like most planes that stay on fairly level surface.
Run down a bank or similar and it opens up
Q: Does anybody have a crash pic of an A320 with split fuselage? ( IMU either all in small pieces or just heavily bent )
A: A320 crash at Halifax .Air Canada. Just
landed short of runway so did slide
Apparent obfuscation but being caught w/ pants down.
Split, as expected of any airliner and a runway departure that goes down a bank or crosses a road or such
Sometimes like this 737-800 it can be very fortunate and still be superficially intact
Halifax A320 photo:
Interesting links all around.
( fuselage in that one example is still intact, ramp rash does not count.)
But what I asked for was a broken at the seams crash
of an A320 family craft like the outcome of the TK 738 Polderbaan Crash.
Just one information UWE:
bringing the 737 to existing safety standards would increase its weight by around 2 tons.
This justifies keeping grandfather alive.
Sorry i can not find the source but it is pretty old.
737 was designed in the sixties and safety standards were not as demanding as to day…
Do you remember the Chevrolet Corvair?
Lots of substance, links, and good comments to be found heree:
It’s not just the 737’s “grandfathering”, though that’s a part of it.
Thanks for those links- esp the photo of the fuselage from above.
Do these help.
She’s up in the air:
“Airbus A321XLR jetliner stages maiden flight”
Possibly the most preposterous thing I have read on Boeing’s finances;
In the article, the author is pretty realistic about the issues facing Boeing. He does note in his disclosures, however – that he is Long BA.
In the comment section, some asks about the possibility of a equity raise. The author’s response:
Q: To what extent do you think Boeing shares could be permanently impaired by dilution for those who hope to hold long term?
A: Hard to say. If they do it would be around half of their debt figure but currently I don’t see why they wouldn’t be able to get there without dilution.
This ties in with Scott talking about feelers BA put out a few weeks ago when they solicited a $30 billion raise, but the money walked when they asked for a valuation of between $250-300 a share.
The real kicker is this:
BA spent $43 billion on buybacks from 2013-18 to drive up the share price, removing shares from the market, making them more scarce, hence more valuable.
NOW, releasing those shares, the point is being made – would not effect the share price, instantly raising the market cap by $30 billion from what it is today.
What a brilliant idea! Companies should do this all the time. You get all the upside of driving share price up, when things are good – and no negative effects when things turn for the worse.
Head I win. Tails I win. No down side!
The sad part is that people will actually believe this…
To make this even more laughable: the travel industry is just about to head into a protracted period of misery, as the effects of high inflation and high interest rates bite. Who’d want to buy a distressed travel-related stock under such circumstances?
Tik tok tik tok …
Demand is softening. Hey, airlines are going to cut capacity.
Are they willing to order/take more jets than they have now??
But wait, what did Calhoun say?
You forget the other reason for new planes. Its the increased efficiency of the engines and in most cases the extra seats especially for narrow body versions. Fuel becoming the major cost again concentrates the mind of the airlines.
Airbus seems still Keen to raise it’s production rate, but what do they know compared to amatuers
Increased engine effiiciency only plays a role when planes are actually flying.
It doesn’t help at all when planes are sitting on the ground in a demand downturn.
Even central banks have been caught off guard by the rapidly worsening economic situation…hadn’t you read?
Well as there were no buyers, the people with the money do not believe it.
But Calhouns idea to buy high and sell high even when the stock is low, well that is downright brilliant.
He should be in the bridge business of course.
Maybe another crack in the current management foundation.
Another interesting article on the XLR certification:
“Even when pushed by media, O’Donnell only said: “Basically, we have been in discussions with EASA for three years, as we do with every project, so this is nothing special. And we will continue to work with them until the day we get the type certificate. Each of the features that make the XLR different from the other models as the RCT, cabin systems, the landing gear, and also the fire suppression of the tank, needs to be reviewed. That is something that EASA asks us to do.” Which isn’t strange, O’Donnell says, as the XLR is the first single-aisle Airbus aircraft to have a Rear Center Tank.
“He continued: “We are not at the end of the flight test program. If we find things, we will address them, which is the normal development process. We are sixty percent through the process, forty percent still needs to be done.” O’Donnell added that Airbus can tap into a raft of options to meet additional RCT safety requirements if there will be any, including adding Kevlar or fire protection.”
Back in early 2022:
-> A MAX 8 belonging to China Southern, the largest 737 MAX operator in the country, took off from its headquarters city in Guangzhou and touched down three hours and 33 minutes later in the same city, according to aviation data provider Variflight. The plane did not carry any passengers.
That followed a Hainan Airlines flight (600221.SS) on Jan. 9 from Taiyuan, where it had parked some of its grounded 737 MAX, to its base city in Haikou. That flight lasted for two hours and 52 minutes, according to tracking websites.
Has BA delivered a single 737 MAX in China after that??
So Lufthansa, according to the article, think
heavy long-haul flights are set to go up in a big way? Mmm- I’m not seeing it, but
we live in a hall-of-mirrors world now.
So you are comparing your ‘insights’ with a major airline
Im not seeing ‘that’ either
Why shouldn’t he?
You keep comparing your hydrogen propulsion “insights” with a major OEM like Airbus 😏
Perhaps @Bill7 listens to the latest economic news…
-> BA is offering four to six 777W white tails??
Because both the 777X and plan B 787 are delayed?? Haha.
British Airways to Bring back All Its A380s
“Preposterous” is very polite!
The author DHIERIN BECHAI is described as an “expert in the aerospace business”
But if you read carefully his article, you understand that delivering the stored MAXes and 787s will make a large part of the 60bn debt disappear.
Which is a huge mistake of the author.
He should know that these frames are not white tails, financed by BOEING…
The airlines financed their manufacturing, with stepped settlements .
And delivery will only bring the final settlement, which I estimate to be around 10Mn for a MAX and 40Mn for a 787
If all stored frames were delivered to morrow, only 8bn$ cash will enter BOEING coffers
85% of the 60bn debt will still be there!
So the supposed expert is awfully wrong.
And he doesn’t even mention the 13571Mn$ deferred accounts issue for the 787….
Very poor expertise indeed
like most analysts
Expressed in another way: he multiplied the number of planes by the sale *price* instead of the sale *margin*.
He also probably insn’t factoring in the effect of high inflation, which erodes future margins on past sales.
> he multiplied the number of planes by the sale *price* instead of the sale *margin*. <
Clearly a mere oversight. 😉
Just doin' his job.. not for us, though.
Well, we’re going to know soon enough, won’t we?
Mid-Julyish comes the Q2 results, which unless BA can deliver a boatload of 787’s in the final 15 days of the month, should probably look like Q1/2022.
This is the cash/short term investments amount (aggregate) over the past 6 or so quarters:
If I were a betting man, I would say that it’ll dip under $10 billion for Q2.
Correct me if I’m wrong, BA stock has been in a downward spiral for the last year or so, and broke lower support in recent weeks.
Not doing his job professionnally!
It is well known in many businesses that for highly personnalised complex products, the customer pays progressive settlements all along the manufacturing.
and the final settlement is sometimes relatively small, could even be far below the margin…
Mr Bechai is not a good professionnal.
Unfortunately most analysts are not better, and the consensus is usually very far from the truth
aren’t some inflation metrics usually scoped into contracts?
( Hmm, delaying delivery increases cash inflow?
that would be amusing to no end .. 🙂
They’re conventionally capped.
Did the people who drew up those contracts envisage 10% inflation in 2022? The norm is 2%.
But, if BA still tries to demand an inflation correction, most MAX buyers — and also some 787 buyers — can just cancel, free of charge. That’s not a nice sword to have hanging over your head, is it?
“That’s not a nice sword to have hanging over your head, is it?”
The preferred US corporate and political sport is … Brinkmanship.
Like any heavy addiction it is long term destructive 🙂
A number of years back this guy started to write about the airline industry.
Initially rather obvious ( pro B ) promotion pieces.
He has expanded writing scope and his work is less in your face partisan today. improved writing skills or improved insights. uncertain.
I also think the A330neo was a smart move on AB’s part; the equivalent to sacrificing a pawn or
two for much better board position. Cheap, good economics, reliable, and *available* for delivery.
Anyone hear anything new on resumption of Boeing 787 deliveries? At least one commenter here seemed quite sure recently that they were imminent, if I’m not mistaken.
According to this Dominic Gates article, it’s possible that approval will be given within one month:
“On the production side, Boeing is still shackled by its inability to deliver 787s until the Federal Aviation Administration approves its plan to inspect and fix the fuselage defects on those jets.
“That burden, however, is likely to be lifted in the coming weeks.
“According to an FAA official close to the process, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is not public, the safety agency recently accepted Boeing’s recertification plan for the 787s.
“The FAA has asked Boeing to deliver a few extra items of test and analysis before the plan is final, but they won’t require it to be resubmitted, the person said.
“This suggests Boeing is close to the approval it needs.
“It seems likely Boeing will have the green light to rework and start delivering 787s again ahead of Farnborough, which is held outside London in mid-July.”
Interesting phrasing in that Seattle times article, and
then there’s the now-ubiquitous unnamed “sources say”..
Funny ol’ world, these days.
Airbus is close to bagging a BIG order from Air India:
“Tata Sons-owned Air India is close to signing an agreement with French aerospace major Airbus for an order of up to 50 Airbus A350-900 aircraft. Additionally, the airline is also in talks to order more than 100 A321 neo aircraft- a popular version of Airbus’ single aisle version.”
They already are an Airbus short haul customer.
And their long haul is Boeing with 787 and 777W and a few LR that are relatively new. The oldest 777-300ER is only 14 years and capacity cant be replaced by a smaller A350 and 50 planes is just a mirage – thats their entire long haul number
Air India is being restructured by its new owners…
I suspect that Tim Clark may also announce an A350 order at Farnborough…
Emirates is always ‘announcing an announcement’ for an order of some sort .
and then theres the other side of the good cop /bad cop comedy routine
That was in March.
In the meantime, we’ve had a High Court judge in London indicate that he thinks that the Qatari regulator got it wrong vis-à-vis the A350 paint issue:
Also, Tim can just pop over to Abu Dhabi to see how happy Etihad is with the A350.
Next up: what hope can we offer Tim as regards his 777X and 787 orders?
A potential 787 freighter is back in the news.
Mind you, such development projects cost money…and you have to have money before you can spend it.
“The Dreamliner is the company’s first jet whose airframe is made of barrels spun from carbon-fiber. That creates a technical hurdle for engineers, who would need to figure out how to reinforce the structure to cut out larger doors needed to load and unload cargo.”
Easy peasy. All carbon fibre fuselage passenger planes have a multitude of internal ring frames from nose to tail which provide internal strengthening as all semi monocoque fuselages are.
Just as its no real problem for an A350F to put in a cargo door
Well, the BA engineers seem to regard it as a “technical hurdle”, so perhaps they know something that you don’t?
The MAX 7 is “easy peasy” or so BA once thinks!
Reuters: “Boeing not forecasting timetable for 737 MAX 10 approval”
“EVERETT, Wash./WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) – Boeing Co (BA.N) on Wednesday said it was making progress with regulators on its 737 MAX 10 aircraft but declined to offer a clear timeline on when it expects to win approval, in a tougher regulatory climate.
“…”We really need to complete a good proportion of the development assurance work,” Mike Fleming, a senior vice president at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, told reporters on a second day of briefings ahead of Britain’s Farnborough Airshow next month.
“…Fleming said Boeing has brought on hundreds of engineers to work on certification. Missing the deadline for the 737 MAX 10 could require Boeing to revamp the jet’s crew alerting system and institute separate pilot training, which would raise costs to airlines and put orders at risk.
“In March, the FAA warned Boeing it may not win certification of the MAX 10 by the end of the year and asked the company to provide a “mature certification schedule.”
“Sources briefed on the matter told Reuters it is not certain Boeing has enough time to win approval by December.
“”Safety dictates the timeline of certification projects,” an FAA spokesperson said. “We cannot discuss ongoing certification projects.””
A waiver for the Max 10 to the future certification standard set by Congress is certain. Im sure congress will note your concerns and welcome the new business HQ in Arlington across the river.
Oh, is such a waiver “certain”?
Got any links to back that up? 😉
“Opinion presented as fact”.
Politicians know damn well what side of their bread is buttered. Sure, it will probably cost Boeing quite a bit in ‘campaign contributions’, but politicians are generally much cheaper than reworking a plane.
On the other hand, it’s not good for (some of) them if they are perceived to be flushing safety so as to pander to (the ineptitude of) a big corporation.
Why the congress cares if the HQ is moved from one city to another?? Baffling!
Arlington is across the river from Washington DC
It was clearly a move to put the top executives to be closer to the pentagon and congress. A simple map will assist those who are geographically challenged
Lobbyists are paid millions, don’t_you_know??
> A waiver for the Max 10 to the future certification standard set by Congress is certain. <
Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say DoU is claiming the incorruptible US Congress's vote
on that topi (737MAX-10 certification waiver) is already bought-and-paid-for..
Best legislative body™ money can buy..
He'll surely correct me if I got that wrong, though.
Airbus was the organisation that paid massive penalties for its long period of bribery in selling its planes. Those airlines got a good planes but thats not really fair competition
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email firstname.lastname@example.org to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
” Fianancial Times “-Airbus for years conducted a “massive scheme to offer and pay bribes”, involving very senior executives, according to disclosures in courts in Washington DC, Paris and London, as Europe’s aerospace champion agreed to pay €3.6bn in penalties to regulators in France, the UK and the US”.
US Congress will always act in favour of a massive employer and exporter like Boeing. Theres no corruption involved here , its US self interest.
Unlike one country where corruption is so endemic ,top corrupt officials get the death penalty
” … bribery in selling its planes.”
This is thin ice where you tread
The US is definitely not on High Ground here.
US industry is strongly aided by national intelligence entities.
The primary bearer of US bribes ( as in stick and carrot ) is political, usually the POTUS.
Boeing business is probably and quite often backed with political coercion : Buy B or else … sanctions.. on occasion military co gifts.
Being the global Uber-snoop must be good for something. 🙂
Looks like someone is being very selective:
“Boeing Procurement Officer And Three Contractors Indicted On Federal Bribery And Fraud Charges”
“US Congress will always act in favour of a massive employer and exporter like Boeing”
Not when such favor would conflict with the safety of US citizens, and with the reputation and standing of the US.
BA still have not received TIA for MAX 10 flight tests!
The first of Akasa’s 737-8s — which were ordered in November last year — has just been delivered.
If it was delivered that quickly, one can conclude that it was a whitetail — which, in turn, implies a bargain for Akasa, and little-to-no margin for BA.
71 more to go…
The facts show Alaska first ordered 737 maxs back in Feb 2015
What was ‘announced’ last year was for more planes and included the Max 10. Modifications to previous orders to change the mix of types is common, especially for deliveries in upcoming year. But the production slot was reserved long ago
More reading difficulties.
I said “Akasa”…not “Alaska”.
These recent claims of A380s and such being brought back into service by LH and BA have the feel
of a headfake, to me. Inflation and *energy costs* soaring, events in Ukr, other things; and suddenly there’s unmet demand for heavy longhaul?
Mmm, maybe- but show me, don’t tell me. (new motto)
It’s there…but it will be short-lived.
Just as the industry tries to climb out of one crisis, it sinks into another one.
Ah, the passenger traffic expert again. Do you know what load factors British and Lufthansa have on their A380 flights ?
I just checked a flight tracking site , theres 38 A380s airborne as I type
3 of those are in Australian airspace alone ( another 2 heading to or from as well).
Another is over Russian airspace heading to Moscow !
Other than Emirates, Singapore, Qatar, China Southern ( to LAX)and British have currently active flights too.
Airlines are funny like that , if they can fill a plane they will fly it
> Airlines are funny like that , if they can fill a plane they will fly it <
Even- or should I say "especially!"- if they have an opportunity to lose money doing so.
Funny ol' world.. 😉
Thats the most ignorant statement I have ever seen here. All those airlines have 777W or equivalent they could have flown on those routes
Looks like you’re having trouble with your tenses (again).
There’s a difference between “now” and “soon”.
May I remind you of comment rule 3
‘No attacks or criticisms about grammar, spelling or sentence structure. Not all people have the same levels of education and furthermore, bi-lingual Readers may not be fluent in their second language; neither negates their right to their opinion. Criticisms of these areas are meant to attack their credibility rather than debating the issues. This line of attack is absolutely verboten’
An interesting lecture from someone who posted (to Bill7):
“Thats the most ignorant statement I have ever seen here.”
Using 2 different measures here, aren’t you?
(in addition to not accurately reading other peoples’ comments)
What’s interesting to me is it’s *not* those for whom
English is a second language who have apparent trouble forming comprehensible posts.
Adding: the internet is already turning into twitter-mush “language”; and without the in-person benefits of intonation, ability to get real-time clarification from the speaker, and so many other cues that are readily available in real life.
That’s why it’s important to have *shared, common rules* about language.. how the h*ll else can a reader know what some anonymous writer on the internet really means? This is not exactly a new and radical idea, by the way..
There is this “debate club technique” to intentionally misunderstand ( often in a rather contrived way.) posted comments. .. then lambast the poster for wrongness, immorality or some other fault.
Bit of a specific culture thing with samples present here.
> intentionally misunderstand ( often in a rather contrived way.) <
Yes. I try to notice, and give appropriate
weight to those commenters.
It’s a pattern.
Bryce said: “There’s a difference between “now” and “soon”. ”
And he’s right. That is not an attack on a commenter or that commenter’s language skills,
but on a commenter’s fuzzy-at-best/wrong idea.
Bravo!: that’s what *honest* debate is about.
Of note in this particular exchange is that the LNA Twitter feed now also contains a comment on the effect of inflation on the airline business, with a link to a past article.
Also: Phil Le Beau said on CNBC last night that airlines would have a great summer (flights booked back in March), but that a very different situation would start in the Fall.
It’s a straightforward reality. However, some seem to have in-built denial tendencies.
Here’s a good laugh to start off the weekend:
FG: “(Boeing) Executives say Airbus’s A321XLR occupies only a “niche”, and that the 737 Max has broader appeal.”
Sure: the MAX’s “broader appeal” is evidenced by the fact that it’s being vastly outsold by the competition.
There must be a lot of sand in Chicago into which people can stick their heads…
So the Boeing spokesman compares one aircraft (321XLR) to the entire MAX lineup, and concludes that Boeing’s in the sweet spot ?
I know which company’s single-aisle lineup I’d prefer- by a large margin.
Adding: from that Boeing shill’s (sorry: spokesman) language e.g. “value proposition”, I’m guessing that Boeing plans to give 737MAXes away at cost, to get airlines to take them..
“we [Boeing] lose money on every plane, but we make it up in Valium..”
I guess he doesn’t want to talk about this:
A New Six BILLION Dollar Suit Has Be Filed Against Boeing By Family Members Of A Lion Air Passenger
Airbus CEO: “I like that niche. Airbus has sold over 500 of the planes and counting.”
In just a few weeks, Russia has found new Asian customers for 1/3 of the oil that it was previously sending to Europe.
Once China opens up again, oil demand is expected to surge further, causing a further rise in fuel prices.
Strong headwinds for aviation!
With the A321XLR certification, I presume there’s a possibility that whatever modifications are required to pass certification could reduce the fuel capacity. Is there any reason to suppose that the reduction in capacity would be significant (where “significant” means that the 737-10 is competitive)?
Regarding your question, the answer is a firm no.
The MAX-10 (range 6110 km) is already heavily outgunned by the A321 LR (7400 km), and even by the regular A321 neo (6850 km).
Also, the 321LR is a certificated, in-service plane, and the Boeing 737MAX-10 is not. I’m following the latter and its certification process with real interest, especially with EASA.
I’m especially interested in the implementation of the Boeing 737MAX-10’s
“synthetic third system”, which seems to be hypothetical, so far. Maybe commenter TransWorld can give us the latest on that.
False claim. A321 and Max 10 are similar range. ( see Leeham comparison)
A321 even needs 2 ACT to match the range of the Max 10 with one ( which has more fuel in its wings)
A321LR is just a marketing name for the old model with 3 extra tanks, a MTOW bump and Etops certification
Maybe Duke will define “similar” in the given context, so we can all be the wiser.
What I’ve noticed myself is that airlines
are ordering lots of A321s, despite the additional expense over the other guys’ [near giveaway] aircraft.
As for the uncertificated and undeliverable Boeing 737MAX-10, I have no comment at this time. I’m still hoping
to hear more about that aircraft’s “synthetic third system”, without which
its viability is uncertain, I think.
> A321LR is just a marketing name for the old model with 3 extra tanks, a MTOW bump and Etops certification <
So.. kind of like a different model, then.
I like Duke, and I'm glad he's here. Keepin' it real- along with TW!- for all us simpletons..
Check the LNA analysis – now out of paywall, which is what I based the comparisons.
Which expert view do you consider in your claims …oh thats right you are too smart for that .
Go back and read the article that you cited: it was written just a week after the MAX-10 was announced, and the author had to make assumptions as regards what the plane’s MTOW would be.
We now have more complete specs don’t we? I posted some up-to-date links for you below.
Yeah a poster kept posting half-truth and outdated information, intentionally misunderstood …
It’s a pattern. Sigh.
-> where “significant” means that the 737-10 is competitive
What’s the range of the MAX 10? 🙂
> What’s the range of the MAX 10?
From Wall Street to Boeing C-suite? 😉
“Everything you know is Wrong.”
-Firesign Theater (I think)
A321 versions with longer range just have aux fuselage tanks
‘ Both aircraft have about the same range when sensibly equipped. The A320 series wing holds about an ACT’s (Auxiliary Center Tank)-worth of less fuel. So Boeing justly equipped the A321neo with two ACTs and the MAX 10 with one. This means both aircraft are just passing 3,200nm without becoming limited by the fuel amount.
Also note the Max series is generally lighter weight than A series when you match exactly the same fuselage – which does happen for A321 and Max 10 ( Max 8 is bigger fuselage than A320)
note now out from paywall.
With that commenter’s clear and conclusive evidence in hand, I’m 100% certain that no one will ever order an Airbus narrowbody aircraft again: it would make no sense!
“.. ‘ Both aircraft have about the same range when sensibly equipped. The A320 series wing holds about an ACT’s (Auxiliary Center Tank)-worth of less fuel. So Boeing justly equipped the A321neo with two ACTs and the MAX 10 with one. This means both aircraft are just passing 3,200nm without becoming limited by the fuel amount..”
The about sounds like something written by a literate but now-desperate methedrine addict.
I’ll ask, yet again: why are airlines presently willing to pay more for- and wait in a long line for- Airbus NB aircraft?
Leeham analysis done by ‘ desperate methadrine addict’
Personal attack on the blog authors now is it?. That will end well
But, but, but …
Who posted above:
-> A321LR is just a marketing name for the old model with *3 extra tanks*, a MTOW bump and Etops certification
Wait, the A321LR has *3 extra tanks*, not two??
Another apparent obfuscation.
For Pedro and the ACT number … from an Airbus site
‘The A321LR has the longest range of any single-aisle jetliner, with an increased maximum take-off weight of 97 tonnes (compared to 93.5 tonnes for the A321), plus the addition of a third auxiliary centre fuel tank.
This just confirms all what what I correctly said , your comment is complete misinformation as you could have checked but didnt and its was also obvious from the ordinary A321 capabilities. ( to have maximum fuel load the other payload of passengers and baggage is reduced for a max distance flight)
When buying a new fleet airlines have many requirements and as most of the flights are under 3 hrs , the range capabilities often arent the the primary factor. However new destinations much further away will mean for those flights range does matter
1) Apparently mentoirpilot.com says:
“the MAX-10 will fly up to *6100 km* but the 321 has some distance in reserve; *7400 km*.”
2) The LNA article you quoted extensively compared the MAX 10 against the *A321* [“LNC closely tracked the development of the MAX 10 and its competivitive position vis-a-vis the Airbus *A321neo*. Here is our first detailed, public analysis of the MAX 10.–Editor.”]. Airbus hasn’t launched the A321LR or A321XLR yet, it also stated the following:
“NOTE: It has been pointed out that we could have chosen a more efficient configuration for the A321neo. We could have used two over-wing exits and blocked the third door pair. It would have filled the cabin attendants seats at the third door in the floor plan. The A321neo then takes 16+180 seats = *196 seats*. One can also use the same configuration for the MAX 10. Due to the service doors (fore and aft, on the right side) being of lower exit rating than Airbus doors, the cabin then can only be equipped with *189 seats*.”
Accordingly, the A321neo can carry seven more passengers, and the A321LR *can carry more and fly further*.
And your previous claim the A321LR doesnt have capability of 3 extra fuselage tanks to to have theoretical extended range.
Do you even understand range payload diagrams.
There was a 737 NG for SAS doing in 2014 a regular daily non stop airline service from Stavanger Norway to Houston – only 44 seats for that 737-700, and no doubt extra fuselage fuel tanks.
Repeating what was said above:
The LNA article that you keep citing was written just a week after the MAX-10 was announced (March, 2017), and the author had to make assumptions as regards what the plane’s MTOW would be.
We now have more complete specs: the MAX-10 has a smaller MTOW than the original A321neo (92 vs 93.5 tons), and a MUCH smaller MTOW than the LR (97 tons).
Stop trying to spread fake news.
I was trying to refute the falsehood of comparing BA’s MAX 10 with one ACT and A321neo with two. Sigh.
I’m wondering if Boeing- and the rest of the West, for that matter!- awaits the same fate that Sears, Roebuck, and Company received several years ago, courtesy of very fine people like Eddie Lampert and cohorts.
Reiterating, for my good and percipient friend Duke: “I’ll ask, yet again: why are airlines presently willing to pay more for- and wait in a long line for- Airbus NB aircraft?”
And: why has the A321 neo outsold the B737 MAX-10 by a factor of 5-to-1?
Bjorn gives his reasons which are based on essentially the Max 9 was the original answer to the A321 neo and it wasnt very competitive. The Max 10 came too late and was the plane the Max 9 should have been.
Theres a few other advantages of A320 types that come to mind as well.
As well most airlines dont buy based on max fuel capacity when their routes are adequately covered .
It was different for US and Australia trans continental
non stop routes when the 737-800 NG had the advantage over the A320.
However it remains that the A321 neo is a match for the Max 10 for range and pax capacity with a similar fuel load.
All the other claims are just hot air
Strangely UA and AC, both major Boeing NB buyers, had no choice but to order A321neo.
What did they buy ? XLR because its a much higher gross weight and with extra fuel tankage in a novel way it can carry a full load of passengers and their bags trans Atlantic to all of Europe – both ways. Something previous A321 couldnt do
Its a very good move by Airbus to fill the gap left by the 757.
Nothing strange there. Offer far more capability than your previous offering and the very similar competition and it will sell , especially as theres a niche for very long range single aisle. Most airlines have given up waiting for Boeings ‘perfect’ niche filler the NMA.
Airbus was also very smart in improving the range and GW of the A330 neo to nip at the heels of the 787 using the same approach
On the subject of the A321 neo/LR versus the 737-10:
“The maximum take-off weight of the A321 Neo is 97 tonnes, while the Boeing 737 Max 10 is 89.7 tonnes.”
“The A321 Neo has a fuel capacity of 32,940 litters, while the Boeing 737 Max has a capacity of 25,816 litters”
“Due to extra fuel capacity, the A321 has a range of roughly 7,410 km, while the Boeing 737 Max 10 has a range of 6,110 km.”
Thats not what the LNA analysis says
The 737 NG and Max have higher fuel capacity in their integral tanks ( its about 1 ACT worth.
So the range for Max 10 and A321 with similar seating numbers and mix of classes is the very similar
“Both aircraft have about the same range when sensibly equipped. The A320 series wing holds about an ACT’s (Auxiliary Center Tank)-worth of less fuel. So Boeing justly equipped the A321neo with two ACTs and the MAX 10 with one. This means both aircraft are just passing 3,200nm without becoming limited by the fuel amount.”
This is an independent analysis which is designed to dispel the fug spread by both companies.
Like for instance the ‘max A321 fuel volume’ clearly covers the ACT possible to be optioned.
No need to post half-truth repeatedly.
LNA is a professional advisory service, people pay a large subscription, often airlines for this sort of information.
You dont even have the capability to even understand airbus own information , ( the 3 ACT saga!) let a lone a chance to learn from professional advice thats outside a paywall.
Whats the half-truth do you consider Bjorn is making ? Can you even make a cogent case.
From the same article:
“Which of the two who then flies on the longest depends on where Boeing put the final Max Take-Off Weight. ”
Missed that bit, did you?
That just means with extra fuselage tanks – like Airbus uses- it can fly longer with maximum passenger numbers. Its a moveable option as we already know the A321LR with its 3 tanks and the increase in MTOW will far exceed what Max 10 reasonably offer. And the XLR with even more gross weight and its special tank will beat that – and still have room for all the pax baggage
The expert view 9 not just travel writers) is that at standard configuration with the same fuel load ( ie Airbus has 1 ACT while Max 10 doesnt) they can fly about the same distance [theres a whole lot of maybes about distance as well as its affected by weather and reserves]
However we shall see when the plane is certified
Its part of the poor decision making at Boeing during the malaise era that the Max 9 wasnt upsized with the extra length ( 2 seat rows only) to passengers with the A321. They upsized the Max 7 by 2 seat rows for the right reasons
“China Poised To Certify COMAC C919”
“China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has disclosed that the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) C919 is about to receive type certification and be delivered to launch customer China Eastern Airlines.”
A Canadian firm (FLYHT) is fitting satellite communication apparatus into 20 ARJ-21s due for delivery to China Express Airlines:
“FLYHT announced that successful installation and testing has been completed for the first of 20 AFIRS 228S units on ARJ21 aircraft ordered by China Express Airlines Co. Ltd., China’s first private regional airline. All tests have been completed and the aircraft is planned to enter commercial service today. As communicated in September 2020, China Express will take delivery of 20 ARJ21 aircraft, with an expected commitment up to 100 aircraft to be delivered over the next several years”
DoU said: “..Airbus was also very smart in improving the range and GW of the A330 neo to nip at the heels of the 787 using the same approach.”
You betcha. The 330neo was a good move by Airbus.