Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 5. Turbofan design problems April 26, 2024
- Airbus 1Q2024 results: Airbus CEO: “A350 in-service experience drives positive reputation and orders” April 25, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 3 April 25, 2024
- Boeing CEO promises company is turning around…again April 24, 2024
- Solid start for stand-alone GE Aerospace despite cuts to LEAP output April 23, 2024
FAA adopts ICAO 2027 emissions, noise rules; death knell for new production 767F, 777F
- 787F, NMA-F are natural conclusions to consider for a successor to 767F
By Scott Hamilton
June 16, 2022, © Leeham News: The US Federal Aviation Administration yesterday announced it will adopt the emissions and noise rules proposed in 2017 to reduce emissions and noise in commercial jets and turboprops by 2027. Failure to comply means the offending airplanes can’t be produced from 2028. The rules won’t affect airplanes already produced.
New emissions and noise rules mean production of the Boeing 767-300ERF must end in 2027. Credit: Leeham News.
The FAA’s move means that Boeing’s popular 767-300ERF and 777-200LRF can’t be produced from 2028.
The rules were adopted by the global organization ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization. But countries individually must adopt them. The FAA proposes a new rule to bring the US into compliance. By federal law, the FAA proposed rule must be published in the Federal Register. A comment period follows, after which the FAA either moves forward with the rule as proposed, revises it, or rejects its proposed rule based on the comments.
Boeing already announced a successor to the 777F: the 777-8F, a member of the 777X family. Entry-into-service is slated for mid-2027 before the rules take effect. Boeing doesn’t have a solution for the termination of the 767F production.
Boeing’s easiest option
Boeing has some options to pursue for the 767F problem.
Seek an Exemption: Boeing’s first and low- or no-cost solution is to seek an exemption for the 767F. The willingness of the FAA—and the administration of President Biden, which has made greening federal policies a top priority to combat climate change—seems unlikely unless it’s a finite “bridge” exemption to a new solution. However, Biden’s term runs to January 20, 2025. If he’s not reelected in November 2024 (or if a Democrat isn’t elected should Biden not run), a new Republican Administration could almost certainly be willing to make an exception.
Re-engine the 767: Boeing has examined this prospect several times and rejected it each time. While technically it’s possible, Boeing concluded each time that commercially doing so is infeasible. LNA studied this idea.
Related articles
After the re-engining of the 737 proved problematic, the changes required for a re-engined 767, and the new regulatory environment add to the technical changes that Boeing would face with a 767RE.
Develop a 787 freighter
The Boeing 787-8 (middle) and Boeing 787-9 (bottom) are possible successors to the Boeing 767-300ERF (top). For now, a 787F is only an idea. Credit: Leeham News.
Develop a 787F: This option was built into the 787 at conception. Boeing initially began discussing the idea with the market a few years ago, but as with so many other things, the MAX crisis and the pandemic sidelined discussions.
However, as the ICAO clock is ticking, the COVID pandemic winds down, and Boeing emerges from the MAX crisis, discussions and studies resumed. Boeing met with cargo operators last month to test the waters about a 787F. It was a fact-finding mission, and no conclusions were reached.
Related articles
- 767F faces extinction
- Is there a 787 Freighter in the future?
- Potential Airbus response to a 787F
- Which model of the 787 would make a good freighter
- Which good would a 787 freighter be?
Boeing designed the prospect of a freighter into the 787 (called “protecting” the option) at inception. The forward fuselage systems were routed around the area for a forward cargo door. Converting a 787 into a freighter would be a daunting challenge for after-market companies. But Boeing could launch a new-build factory design. A lot more study and market input are required before a decision is made.
A new airplane
A new airplane design: Boeing could incorporate a freighter option into a new airplane design, such as the New Midmarket Airplane (NMA) that Boeing considered for years. Newly appointed CEO David Calhoun killed the NMA upon taking office in January 2020. But market intelligence indicates that Boeing resumed studies for the NMA, as well as a single-aisle aircraft, for its next new airplane. Either design would have at least two family members with 5,000nm and 4,500nm ranges depending on whether the aircraft is 225 or 250 passengers in two classes. The twin-aisle NMA is sized roughly similar to the 767-200 and 767-300. A freighter version of the 250-passenger model would roughly match the 767-300ER. It may be important to a successful business case for the NMA.
Is there an NMA-F prospect?
At a briefing yesterday in advance of the Farnborough Air Show next month, Brian Hermesmeyer, the Senior Director, Freighter Customer Leader, said Boeing is considering its alternatives for the 767F.
“We continue to work with regulators and customers to work within the sustainability framework first to make sure the 767F may have a possibility of continuing,” he said.
“We look at a lot of different things in development and how to make sure we have a good medium widebody solution. Are we looking at different freighter platforms in that space? Absolutely. Is the 787 one of them? That’s a natural place for us to look. But for now, 767s will be delivered through the end of 2027 and we will make sure we have the right airplanes in the right space when the market demands it.”
Hermesmeyer referred to “platforms” as options. But he was coy about what alternatives to the 787 might be a platform.
“We look at a lot of things. That’s about all I can say,” he said. Pressed specifically about the prospect of an NMA-F, Hermesmeyer said, “One of the things we always do is consider cargo in studying a new airplane family. You can be assured there are studies on any and all platforms when it comes to cargo. Whether or not it comes to fruition has everything to do with market dynamics.
“You have to look at it through a market lens,” he added. “You have to look at what the market wants. If the market asks for a freighter derivative in that market class, we’re certainly going to study it and do our best to bring that to market.”
Hermesmeyer said it was a “natural conclusion” to draw that the 787F and an NMA-F are the best new options to succeed the 767F.
I am baffled. Previous discussion said that converting the 787 to a 787F was extremely difficult due to how its built.
Now its built in?
And yes I stated that Boeing would have built in the F option as they are not entirely stupid at the BCA level.
I won’t take this off topic too far, interesting development.
https://ajot.com/news/boeing-aalmost-therea-on-787-dreamliner-delivery-restart
Possibly a two prong approach, a complete go over the built units and the method to ensure production aircraft meet the specifications.
“The planemaker is “almost there” on returning the Dreamliner to service, said Stan Deal, head of Boeing’s commercial airplane division…He didn’t offer specific details on timing.”
“Almost there”…and yet no details on timing…?
Yawn.. “Almost there” is pretty boring, given
that entity’s content-free PR record.
Wake me up later for headlines like “Boeing 787 deliveries have resumed, and here’s the Proof.”
Its the FAA that sets the timeline after reviewing and hopefully checking all Boeing reports they require so Stan is correct this time.
One would think how hard can it be to re-engine the 767F with the GEnX-2B of 747-8 and use the 767-2C/KC-46A cockpit? Still the engine/nacelle and pylon is different and the engine has a dry mass of 5,623 kg vs. a CF6-80C2 of 4,300–4,470 kg (wiki#’s) and today you would attach a new carbon wing to it and update many systems, so unless the USAF orders them on the KC-46B it gets too expensive. The 777-8F is better, bigger & heavier but more expensive. One solutions would be to update the CF6-80C2 to the -C9X with a new burner, fuel nozzles and CRF (Compressor Rear Frame) and maybe put in CMC in the HPT from the GE9X. The USAF can help by buying the same kits and USAF cerify it for the C-5M’s.
@ claes
Yes, the FAA sets the timeline.
But surely the FAA is able to give indications based on a given status quo?
Airbus and EASA seem to be able to communicate with each other in this type of situation, so what’s the problem between BA and the FAA?
Bryce:
That is funny, I guess you missed the lack of communication between Airbus and EASA on the A321XLR?
From a non biased view, looks to me like the same process where an mfg proposes, the AHJ has questions, the mfg answers, the AHJ does not like them and wants support for what is being proposed and they continue the process until the AHJ is satisfied.
The great news is the FAA is now doing its job and Boeing is held accountable to meet the AHJ requirements of satisfaction.
Claes:
The USAF is not going to change engines on the KC-46A. No gain for them and a lot of loss (and not sure they can with the contract)
The freighters are class driven. You have the 737F, the 767F and then Airbus should have done an A330-300F (not 200F).
Next up is the 777F, A350F and 777-8F and the 747-8F (about the same payload though you don’t get the tilt up nose though side door works for most ops (never saw the nose up on a UPS 747 and about 33% of their movements through Anchorage are 747) – Equally rarely saw anyone flying a 747F of any variant with the nose open in Anchorage and we are the 747 crossroads for the world.
The 767 does not justify a new wing, nice bennie to Boeing for the F model but its not going to sell in the numbers the Pax did.
If Boeing has to, they can put a new engine on the 767 with minimal mods.
What we are hearing now is that the 787 was setup from the git go to be converted. That would be the way to go.
The reg is still stupid because it achieves nothing, there are a lot of 767PAX to convert and FedEx is a case in point. When they no longer could get an MD-11F the converted them from passenger.
They only moved to the 777 when the A380F fell flat.
And a 777 conversions carries about the same load as an MD-11F, its more efficient with newer engines but FedEx plans to fly the MD-11 for another 10-15 years (have to see how fuel prices affect that!)
So anyone that wants the 767 size and can setup, they will just go to conversions.
@ TW
Actually, if you look at the link that I posted in the Pontifications article below, you’ll see that there’s very extensive communication between Airbus and EASA regarding the A321 XLR.
Both EASA and AB seem to be very proactive and “hands on”.
@TW
When did FedEx order 767 P2F?? Srsly?
@TW. The KC-46B if it get launched might get CF6 engines as a competition to KC-46A PW4000.
The 787 F option isnt ‘extremely difficult’ due to the way its built
As the A350F showed , a semi monocoque fuselage carbon fibre shell with closely spaced ring frame construction, which is shared by both types, is a new approach but likely solved using traditional techniques of local reinforcement.
Remember , quite large lower deck cargo door openings are already used in those two widebodys without issue . However some novel techniques may emerge , who knows?
Duke:
While Boeing built in the factor, its is different as you continue to espouse a position that they are the same and they are not.
You need to go to Page 92 in Scots book and read the truth. Saying they are the same is nothing more than Alternative Facts
Presumably Boeing was posturing and crying poor s part of its lobbying effort to obtain exemption for the B767F from ICAO by saying the a B787F was almost impossible.
The 787 program gets a cost increase when everybody are forced to produce parts according to blueprints and I assume send measurement protocols on everything shipped (like turbine disks..), hence it would be cheaper to make a freighter out of an aluminum hull aircraft. Airbus might have to work hard to make the A350F sturdy and cheap. Boeing might force GE to develop emission and noise complaint CF6-80 engines, that might require a new fan and containment case of GEnX type besides a modified hot section and it gets expensive in the end if not the USAF pays for it. Boeing should have a fairly easy job certify it under the same TC with a modified engine with better fuel consumption, noise and emissions. GE could in theory issue a “mega SB” to modify a CF6-80C2 B4F to a CF6-80C9X. Replace fan disk assy; replace fan containment with outlet guide vanes; replace Burner module; Replace HPT module and change dataplate..
I does not seem rational that a NMA could match a 767F.
Vacating the 777F looks to leave a void as well.
It seems a 787F is the option for the 767F (dumbed down as the range is not needed, bring back the 787-8 or -3?
With continued production of the KC-46A, then you have a basis for a 767NEO. The 787 is just too much range for an F model (buying costing too much for what you don’t use)
Nor is there any reason not to have an NMA F model as an option between 737-800/-8 and a 767 class.
Ass the 777F sells well is abandoning that area a good idea? 787-10F fill that gap?
Trouble with the KC-46 is it is a -200, so when they neo it, they will have to engineer it to a -300 to replace the freighter version. The 787-3 might make a lot of sense. Especially if they can reduce the wing cheaply.
I believe the range of the 787 is actually an advantage. Most freighters have quite short ranges when fully loaded, so having a longer range might make things interesting for cargo operators.
Either get heavier stuff on the aircraft, or fly longer direct with more voluminous cargo.
Yes, if they choose the 787-10F with its limited range today would fit many cargo operators. Still it is an expensive carbon plane and redoing it as a cargo plane is not cheap either but does Boeing have a choice after Airbus launched the A350-900F?
With the closure of Russian airspace there is a new need for longer range freighters
Won’t it be cheaper to fly in two legs or more?? Is there a premium for a few hours quicker (unlike passenger flights)? That’s why those that fly from East Asia to U.S. have stopovers.
Mathh:
I worked for 30 some years at the Anchorage Airport with a Sub Contractor for FedEx (full time mechanical systems repair and maint)
You get a really good education in Air Cargo (and Anchorage has been the Air Cargo Crossroads for the world unlike those out of the way places like New York, London, Paris.)
The vast majority of Air Cargo ops will take payload over range. When offered a choice of range vs payload on the 747-8F they went with payload (yes you can juggle that but you have space not used)
That is why Anchorage is a major cargo hub. You can gas and go as well as sort cargo out if that is your need. There is a mix, not all gas and go and some cargo sorting.
FedEx uses Anchorage to clear customs and sort cargo out to West Coast, Indianapolis, Memphis as well as a flight to Europe.
I am not sure UPS full rational, but they sort cargo here as well.
FedEx offered one flight on a 777F from Asia to San Francisco I believe it was (could be LA). Even with their bulk they gave up some fuselage space to carry fuel to do so. It was a higher previous cost and saved all of 4 hours in transit.
Despite the 777F range, Anchorage was a stop for gas and go as well as the freight sorting.
Only in rare cases is range a benefit for a cargo operation.
There is an advantage to Anchorage as a base and they exchange crews here as well. Carrying extra pilots for cargo long range does not pay.
How many freighters flew thru Russian Air space from Asia to Europe in 2021??
How many flew thru M.E.?
No clue, but we have to note, that Chinese freighters are still flying through Russian air space.
A LOT. I just flew AMS-ICN and we had about a 2 hour extensions, due to avoiding Russian airspace. There are lots of flights from Almaty t0 Europe, that used to fly through Russian airspace. I also did an ORD-ICN, with about 5 hours in Russian airspace….now we can’t fly that routing.
Freighters are worked via full use of an expanded MZFW (vs the pax version ). That cuts into range.
Where’s the money for this new freighter coming from?
BA’s cash is now down to about $10B…a steep decline from the $20B early last year. And, yet, the company is (supposed to be) working on a 777XF, an NMA…and now also this new freighter? Not to mention the costs still to come on the 777X passenger version, 737-10, KC-46A and AF1s.
When I bought a Car I borrowed the money. 3% interest, pretty close to free. Same with a house (interest rate was higher). If I lost my job? Then they had to spend big bucks to salvage anything (house, I could keep the car).
Worst case if cash flow does not cover it then they borrow it. If you understand finance at all, any lender is eager to loan to Boeing at good rates and you get them in competition and you get really good rates.
Bigger you are, the more leverage you have, just the way the world works. If Boeing could manage it, declaring bankruptcy would really be the way to go. Then its even better as all debts are cancelled and you can’t do it again for a while.
They can’t afford to borrow more: apart from triggering a credit downgrade to junk, they’ll pay even more burdensome interest compared to their present loans.
Interest rates are increasing daily: if they intend to borrow, then today is better than tomorrow, isn’t it? But it hasn’t happened — guess why.
Coming back to your car loan analogy: no bank will give you a loan if you’re already up to your teeth in debt.
Boeing has a large amount of credit , prearranged in 2020 with their other big bond sales, that they havent even drawn from ( as if earlier 2022)
And drawing it will precipitate a rating downgrade
Tell a company that’s drowning in debt to borrow. Best…Advice…Ever??? I kid you not.
Are you a bond issue expert are you? Do tell what company you work for
The Boeing 2022 1st Qtr result shows debt balances the same as a year previously, even in spite of a large cash loss
As well the interest and debt expense for that qtr were almost 8% lower than the same qtr last year.
You demonstrated recently thst you weren’t familiar with the term “bull” in economics…hardly the hallmark of an expert 😏
BA’s available cash has halved in a little more than a year, and will be around (or below) $10B at the end of this quarter.
@Duke
Sigh….
You ever hear of something called “Net Debt”?
In 2018, Boeing carried just $2.0 billion in net debt.
In 2020, it rose to $34 billion.
Last quarter it was over $45.4 billion.
From Q4 2021 to Q1 2022 net debt rose from $41.9 billion to $45.4 billion.
So no, things are not getting better.
There’s a really nice article on it, if you can be bothered to read it:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4504158-boeing-bulls-capitulate-look-to-buy-this-below-100
“Boeing Bulls Capitulate, Look To Buy This Below $100”
@Frank
What? “Bulls”?? Lol.
Sadly price inflation is back, 8% in the US. Interest rates tend to be higher. It will bring misery. I think Imperial over reach was the cause. Whatever the cause it is devaluing money and creates difficulties in financing.
Inflation is presently much, much higher than 8% p.a. here in California, FWTW.
Bill7:
My investment guy ran some numbers for me, gas should be $7.50 a gallon based in 3% inflation average (forget what he used as his base)
And how about the low gas prices the last few years? $2.50 a gallon.
You need to apply the low negative inflation prices such as the 2008 meltdown when bargains abounded to the current situation.
And Triple A says people are diving as much now as before the jump and guess what? They are still buying pickups and fuel sucking SUV like there is no tomorrow.
Inflation, what inflation?
The Bidden administration also has to keep its eye on the Union vote so it is not a slam dunk that they would kill a Boeing program over a relatively few freighters vs MAX and A320 production levels.
There are also pre orders and you have to think operators will pre order if they do not want to shift.
And none of the ICAO stuff addresses conversions. I have not tried to count it but there looks to be far more conversions than production. So what does the ICAO stuff get you?
The Mandate is intended for higher production pax builds not F builds.
You can easily make a case that it really does not apply and all it does is shift the market to PAX to F conversions achieving nothing.
> The Bidden administration <
Nice, if inadvertent.
Perhaps he meant “Bitten”…? 😏
Bryce said: “You demonstrated recently thst you weren’t familiar with the term >>“bull”,<< in economics.."
That's the *essence* of neoclassical economics.. which are what we live under
(I chose that final word with care).
Michael Hudson has done some good
(and clear, unlike the obscurations of the neoclassicists) writing on that topic.
> Perhaps he meant “Bitten”…?
Who could know? King of malapropisms there..
Beaten??
Seems to me that Boeing re-engining the 767F is their least-bad option, at present. As for a Boeing ‘NMA-F’: no comment, except maybe “more PR”.
A 787F would make more sense in terms of compatibility/versatility and fleet uniformity for airlines.
However, that project seems to be suffering from some impediment (apart from lack of funds), because it’s all talk and no action.
> A 787F would make more sense in terms of compatibility/versatility and fleet uniformity for airlines. <
Fully agreed, if it could in fact be done; however, I'm concerned about that
company's ability to execute, execute, execute. Hence my thoughts about the 767F
above.
Can they not get the engine combustors updated to get into the emissions window?
marko:
As I understand it it has to be an all new engine to (or current new engine) to meet the specs.
There is a lot more that has been changed inside the engines besides the combustor.
If it was that easy they would have done it long ago.
It is noise and emissions, emissions are easier but noise might require a new fan module, if you take the GEnX-2B as a model, you also need new containment as the blades are fewer and heavier (even though mainly carbon), you risk also needing new mounting system and pylon, the characteristics change so you need new FADEC software and maybe new FADEC from the GEnX-2B. Boeing also need to design a new pylon (like the 747-8), so it is doable but cost money and if you certify a new model (vs. update thru SB’s only) you need to comply with all new regulations since the 1980’s.
Another paper aircraft exercise to push back investment? Even the heavily modief 777-8F based on the uncertified, slow selling 777-9 seems highly risky. Who wants to put their own money on a 787F development planning?
Just have Washington pony up $5B to finance a 767NEO. Name it KC-Y, Bridge tanker or something similar, pushed through congress as a bold strategic initiative. Supporting family incomes, our boys at the front line and the environment (for our grand children).
Have GE invest some, let Aero Design Labs do a n aero clean up, Boeing needs this.
Seeing as the whole 777X project has a huge question mark hanging over it, it would be a safer (and quicker) bet to go for a 787F — after all, the passenger 787 is (in principle) already certified and available, whereas the passenger 777X is in a protracted Limbo, regardless of what optimists like to tell themselves. Patrick Ky is in the USA this week to discuss the 777X with the FAA and BA: you can be sure he’s not talking about paint schemes — it’s a discussion as to whether the plane can be certified as a derivative or not. If the MAX-7 is taking this long to certify, what can we further expect for the 777X?
787??
If and only if BA can reform its production (SC nonetheless!!!) from workers on the line all the way up (a big ?) and actually produce in accordance with its specs *consistently* (not by costly rework)!
keesje:
There is no history of any administration doing something like you suggest and the USAF is not going to switch engines for an aircraft that does under 1000 hours a year flight ops.
Direct government bailouts in the US are rare (2008 an exception). Unlike Europe that forms non competitive groups such as the engine build for the A400 or the new and improved European Helicopter program to compete with the US. )
I note Germany is buying Chinooks (with Airbus support!) instead of the not so wondrous NH-90
The Chinook is way bigger than the NH90 and thus the latter was not in consideration for Germany’s heavy lift helicopter buy.
The only alterations from “Western” manufacturers to the CH47 Chinook is the CH53K King Stallion offering from Sikorsky. No Western European manufacturer builds a helicopter of the size of the CH47 or CH53K.
In fact the only other heavy weight helicopter available globally is the Russian Mil26.
Is this another Boeing screw up that will lead to Boeing essentially handing over the freighter market to Airbus? Starting to look like it.
Dave:
What do you base that on?
Airbus currently has one viable Freighter. Boeing has 3 going and the 787 would make 4 and the NMA (granted its a question) would be 5.
With high fuel prices Boeing could do a MAX freighter as well.
Airbus would be advised to do a A330-900F as the A330-200F fell flat on its face.
The A350F is the first time an Airbus freighter has really had any steam behind it. The A380F was beyond a failure.
He’s talking about the future — not the present.
BA doesn’t have the money for a new freighter, and AB does.
Bryce:
Unless my sight has gone your name is not Dave.
That’s right, TW.
On the other hand, you’re behaving very like Dave, because you’re not prepared to accept cold, hard reality.
@TW
-> “Boeing has 3 going …”
Sure Jane. Two are going to sunset by 2027 and the third one is done: no new orders and the last one will be delivered in a few months’ time.
> @TW
-> “Boeing has 3 going …”
Sure Jane. Two are going to sunset by 2027 and the third one is done <
All good points. At one time I thought the commenter to whom you're responding was simply ill-informed; now it seems like, um, something deeper than that.
A bigger and deeper question, though,
is why USian regulatory bodies would
go ahead with rules that will most certainly put domestic makers like mcBoeing at further
disadvantage- especially now ?
#controlled, elite-benefittingDemolition is my present hypothesis. We'll see..
Bill7:
Behind all those statements are people with jobs that extend across the US and while not my prime concern, the world.
I think there is a balance in lip service vs effective. If effective then no more PAX conversions, otherwise its mostly lip service.
We would be better off to mandate the USAF get a NEO KC-46A.
Or, for all the environmental hype, as I mentioned before, if we had converted coal plants to Natural gas (not Soviet gas) we would be so far ahead.
The ICAO reg gets us nothing. So why not save those jobs and employment and put the effort to somewhere it makes a difference?
We are not going to be able to hold Calhoun accountable (see note), we can keep people employed.
note: The reality is the laws are written to protect people like Calhoun from accountability. There is a chasm of difference between legal and justice.
Well, if some anonymous commenter here’s “investment guy” says there’s very little inflation, that matter is *clearly* settled. 😉
I tend to believe what I see with my own eyes-
especially these days. Let’s compare notes, say,
around the end of this year..
Bill7:
This goes off track so will see if Scott puts his foot down, but you and I are both old enough to remember the DOW breaking 1000 points and it was magic to have done so. Now its around 30,000 (and not I am not enough of a financial type to know if the DOW is the better index or the S&P)
That said, we also remember oil at $8 a barrel after it shot up to $30 a barrel as I recall.
What really matters is the average over time. So yea, fuel should be around $7.50. In Europe (or many places) I think its that a Litre (they got to tax something)
I have not lost any weight to food prices have not affected me (sigh)
I can adjust my auto usage and shift to more Passat use. When we needed two rigs gas was cheap last winter. I no longer have the schedule I had to maintain last winter (health issue). Good timing.
Our house is paid for. I don’t have to worry about interest rates. If buying collapses we have the money to buy a new auto.
Its not all doom and gloom and people are still driving as much, so who is really being hurt or is it just complaining?
Its always, we don’t like where its going but they don’t offer a path to where it should go, they just complain. Then they don’t like where the next administration is going.
And it will change back, it always has. Ups and downs. Whats the average?
I have *no idea* what you’re on about, TW.
What I has to say was fully contained in my comment above.
next..
To an Aviation buff this is really exciting
https://defence-blog.com/saab-delivers-t-7a-fuselages-to-boeings-plant-in-st-louis/
Its Boeing and the aircraft industry future so waiting to see how it comes out. Having SAAB build sections in the US is wonderful and in the US Rust Belt.
I see 1000 of the T-7 variant built over the lifetime of the program.
And while Calhoun is plane adverse, the next management will have a basis to build on.
And an aside. Sometimes the edit function and the 10 minutes window shows up and sometimes it does not. I am seeing it show up a lot more often but the first part of the comments no, then it started again.
And stopped
And started! Kind of like a Roulette wheel, you don’t know what you get until you put your money (comment) down and then spin the wheel!
-> Boeing’s Air Force One replacement program and its T-7A Red Hawk training jet racked up more than $1 billion in charges for the company so far in 2022, the company reported this morning. […]
Meanwhile, the T-7A Red Hawk program recorded a $367 million charge that was “primarily driven by ongoing supplier negotiations impacted by supply chain constraints, COVID-19 and inflationary pressures,” Boeing said in a press release for its first quarter 2022 earnings.
Forgot the link
https://www.google.com/amp/s/breakingdefense.com/2022/04/boeing-adds-1b-in-new-charges-for-air-force-one-replacement-t-7-red-hawk-programs/amp/
Seattle Times feels like the 787 will resume deliveries.
“It’s expected that the FAA may finally give Boeing approval to resume deliveries in the coming weeks.”
Interesting to note that the 787 line in Everett will be busy with the fixes on the built 787s.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/its-jet-programs-stalled-boeing-accentuates-the-positive-ahead-of-the-years-big-air-show/
As production resumes in Charleston all the built 787 to be fixed (all of them at Charleston) can be sent to Everett letting Charleston focus on producing fully fixed 787’s
It’s time Boeing has some good news. Many must think so, the stock has started to rebound.
The stock has rebounded because of bottom feeders who are willing to take a chance.
If they have any sense, they’ll have hegded their BA stock purchase with parallel put options.
At its current burn rate, BA’s cash will run out in about a year.
@Bryce,
Aren’t aircraft (over 300 MAX and over 100 787) parked “good” as cash?? Oh no …
what I always wondered:
does the transfer to reduce the deferred cost basket happen when the product is delivered to the customer or when it is booked into inventory ( stored finished products)?
“The stock has rebounded because of bottom feeders who are willing to take a chance.”
The very definition of a stock hitting its low point.
Me? I leave the investment stuff up to a professional. Boeing may go lower or it may jump when the 787 deliveries resume.
The funny part to me is all that share buy back and its worth a whole lot less now. Hmmm, maybe there is a message there!~
BA stock will certainly jump when 787 deliveries re-commence — just like when the MAX was re-certified.
And then the stock will go down again when the markets see the disappointing rate and cost of delivery — just as with the MAX.
@Uwe
It’s been awhile since I’ve done any serious accounting work. It’s what I was educated in, a long time ago – but I avoid it like the plague.
Here’s my understanding of program accounting.
All dev costs associated with a program are rolled into inventory.
“A Case Study on the Effects of Program Accounting
Boeing vs. Airbus”
2016
https://www.cpajournal.com/2016/11/23/case-study-effects-program-accounting/#:~:text=Program%20accounting%20allows%20a%20business,volume%20efficiencies%20and%20learning%20effects.
‘Program accounting allows a business to record inventory at costs that could exceed the recoverable value of the planes in inventory.’
So in a nutshell, let’s say the money comes out of the bank account to pay for something, that a business will sell. Normally, it would get expensed and show up on the income statement.
Revenues – Expenses = Earnings
Program accounting keeps the expenses off the income statement (and in Inventory) so it doesn’t hit the bottom line, until an aircraft is sold.
Here is what Boeing says about the 787 Inventory and balances:
https://s2.q4cdn.com/661678649/files/doc_financials/2022/q1/07d53103-45d1-4066-8c2b-32682cbc35a0.pdf
“During the fourth quarter of 2021, we determined that estimated costs to complete the 787 program plus costs already included in 787 inventory
exceeded estimated revenues from the program. The resulting reach-forward loss of $3,460 was recorded as a reduction to deferred production
costs. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787
program: deferred production costs of $11,753 and $11,693, $1,861 and $1,907 of supplier advances, and $1,818 and $1,815 of unamortized
tooling and other non-recurring costs. At March 31, 2022, $8,901 of 787 deferred production costs, unamortized tooling and other non-recurring
costs are expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that have firm orders and $4,670 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders. We
expensed abnormal production costs of $312 during the three months ended March 31, 2022.”
That is from page 11 of the Q1/2022 report. They have similar statements about the 737Max and 777X programs there, as well.
Those amount are reduced only when sale a is completed. This is when all the accounts are affected; deposits get backed out of the liability account, cash balances are increased as final payments are received, inventory is reduced and the transaction is recorded as a sale.
@Trans
Ever heard of a ‘dead cat bounce’?
Agree 100% with your buyback philosophy.
We’re in a bleak situation indeed when reporting is about a newspaper’s “feelings” on a topic.
Give me facts, not “feels” from anonymous sources; thank you. Headlines like “Boeing 787 deliveries to airlines have resumed, and here’s Proof” are what
might wake me up.
Reality:
-> Northrop Grumman is up 73%. Lockheed Martin is up 60%. General Dynamics is up 10%. Raytheon is up 5%. It’s a great time to be an aerospace investor. Unless you own Boeing stock. To be fair, the commercial market is a drag on Boeing due to the pandemic, but -36% is an F minus on this year’s report card.
GE, after taking account of reverse split, fell from over $450 to about $50 or so.
JM Greer’s take on the present (with which I do not fully agree, btw, but I think he’s got much right):
“..The age of American global hegemony is over, and the only people in the world who don’t seem to have noticed it are the self-proclaimed masters of the world in Washington DC.
The consequences will, I think, be far more drastic than most people seem to have realized. The US economy these days is an empty shell propped up by gargantuan flows of unearned wealth funneled in from overseas. We still produce considerable amounts of food and fossil fuels, but the colossal industrial economy that provided the winning edge in two world wars got offshored decades ago and most Americans, responding sensibly enough to the realities of an imperial economy, have pursued careers as bureaucrats, hucksters, and corporate flacks, not as farmers, builders, and factory hands. As the American empire implodes and takes the imperial tribute economy with it, Americans will have to produce most of their own goods and services again. To say that we’re very poorly prepared to do this is to understate things considerably..”
https://www.ecosophia.net/the-twilight-of-empire/
Apposite quote found elsewhere for the commenter
who seems to say pilots shouldn’t be well-paid:
“Jobs in a high-skill industry at minimum wages can rightly be called slavery.”
That’s it! We’ll just *force* those pilots to fly, so upper-middle class folk can continue to have the services to which they’re accustomed!”
yeesh.
Seattle Times:
-> Its jet programs stalled, Boeing accentuates the positive ahead of the year’s big air show
As the year’s biggest aviation event approaches, with Boeing facing the prospect of a spotlight on the problems besetting its commercial jet programs and public criticism of its management by leading customers, the company opened up a little this week to highlight the positives. A month before the Farnborough Air Show opens in the United Kingdom, Boeing gave limited executive briefings on the state of its business and let reporters tour its local jet assembly plants for the first time since the onset of the pandemic
On Wednesday’s Everett and Renton factory tours, the thrill of getting a glimpse of the awesome manufacturing inside the assembly plants was tempered by *reality*. […]
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun’s recent announcement that it will be at least two years before Boeing launches a new airplane “is effectively surrendering to Airbus,” Aboulafia wrote.
That’s an interesting quote from Aboulafia.
Deliberate, controlled demolition of the West’s productive capacities, it seems to me (other *fact-fitting* hypotheses are most welcome).
energy, energy, energy flows
My reading list
https://mobile.twitter.com/beckisaid/status/1537575275231268864
I tried to look, but that site is way too cluttered for me (deliberately so, I think).
“Twitter” is for twits.. / pass
https://richardaboulafia.com/june-2022-letter
@ Pedro
That link is stunning — thanks!
Of note:
“Air Lease’s Steven Udvar-Hazy and Bank of America’s Ron Epstein think a 777X cancellation is possible, after years of delays and overruns”
“Also, since it will have been 20 years since Boeing launched an all-new jetliner, it isn’t clear whether they’ll have the talent needed to start a program in two years anyway.”
I’ve floated these ideas before: Maybe Lockheed or another company will decide to take over the Big BA… Three years out, you never know what could happen…
@ SamW
It will need to happen earlier than that: at the current burn rate, BA will run out of cash is about 1 year.
Like GE, a breakup is inevitable??
Unfortunately, unlike GE, it would be more difficult and less up side.
@Bryce
Not going to happen until the current ruling class is gone.
@Bryce,
Hey, BA is moving to a digital world. Can BA find avatars that happen to have such skill in metaverse??
Thanks for that helpful link, Pedro.
B7
From Pedro’s informative Aboulafia link:
“..Actually, they should also know that Calhoun has made a very bad situation much worse. There’s no room here for full or even partial descriptions of program disasters and snafus afflicting Boeing, but here’s a quick litany: 787 production, or lack thereof. KC-46 overruns and delays. 777X. 737MAX10 and MAX7 certification, or lack thereof. Air Force One overruns and delays. Slow 737MAX8/9 deliveries. T-7 overruns and delays. MH-139 delays. With apologies to Tolstoy, all happy programs are alike, but every unhappy program is unhappy in its own way.
The future, somehow, incredibly, looks worse. Air Lease’s Steven Udvar-Hazy and Bank of America’s Ron Epstein think a 777X cancellation is possible, after years of delays and overruns. Incredibly, it transpires that Boeing has already built around 30 777Xs, even though it won’t enter service until 2025, at the earliest, and these planes could easily require expensive modifications (as with 787 and 737MAX).
At a recent investor conference, Calhoun said it would be another two years, at least, before Boeing launched a new jetliner. That frees Airbus to grab 70% of the market, since everyone wants an A321neo. Boeing’s competing 737MAX10 doesn’t have a clear path to certification, and has gotten less than 20% of the A321/MAX10 middle market. Also, since it will have been 20 years since Boeing launched an all-new jetliner, it isn’t clear whether they’ll have the talent needed to start a program in two years anyway. With this announcement, Calhoun is effectively surrendering to Airbus..”
#shouldbefine #controlleddemolition
“oops, we destroyed ourselves! oh, well..”
Ruling Class are doin’ fine.
Bill7:
I agree that Calhoun is doing fine, he got a big bonus for doing his job and will get another big one when they fire him (just like Muilenburg, McNenany (and not I don’t’ care about the spelling)
And in a nutshell that is the problem. CEO salary is no longer tied to success its tied to the good old boys network and you pat my back and I approve your bonus.
What happens down the road? Could be the same, worse or even better. Stay tuned.
FG:
Asiana to return A380 to service as international travel demand …
>Asiana to return A380 to service as international travel demand
Mmm, still calling it a headfake. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong.
Once again, the US Exim Bank has to jump in to provide loan guarantees for BA:
“EXIM said in a statement that the loan guarantee would support hundreds of small and medium-sized business suppliers and about 4,500 jobs in the United States.
“”This transaction also helps a sector critical to U.S. economic security rebound from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic,” it said.
“A Boeing spokesperson could not immediately be reached.”
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/u.s.-exim-bank-board-backs-%24811-mln-loan-guarantee-to-aid-boeing-jet-sale
Regarding the speculated impending RTS of the 787, this article gives an impressive overview of the daunting variety of shortcomings that need to be addressed — including on 787s currently in service. For that latter category, the bill will have to be footed by BA. Even if done during regular maintenance checks, it’s still a costly undertaking.
“FAA memo reveals more Boeing 787 manufacturing defects, including contamination of carbon fiber composites”
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2021/11/20/faa-memo-reveals-more-boeing-787-manufacturing-defects-including-contamination-of-carbon-fiber-composites/
Read the date on the article my friend.
I saw the date on the article…which in no way changes the catalog of deficiencies described.
The inventory has to be reworked — and the delivered fleet has to be inspected/reworked — so as to address that full litany of misery.
Simple logic, my friend: deficiencies don’t just go away with time.
@Bryce
What are airlines going to do when out of the blue a major scheduled check-up of their 787 has to take triple the time (or more)??
Yah Bryce,
We all know those 787’s in inventory are getting turned into instant cash and those aircraft are going to be flying off the shelf when the FAA signs off on the fix…
…just like the 737 Max, when it got re-certed.
Frank:
You are correct they are cash sources, but the flip is the 737 backlog has not been cleared (new production comes into play and some of it has to do with you can cancel old, but if you don’t cancel all then you do have to take the new ones you committed to)
I thought it was most interesting that Everett is fixing 787s, I can see all the ones that need to be fixed going to Everett and new production and the approved methods being applied in Charleston.
Someone should add up the debacle of cost that Charleston has added to Boeing losses! 8-10 Billion?
@Trans
Sorry, my bad. I should have indicated:
sarcasm_font
Agree with you on SC, but I have a feeling that those ’87’s in inventory are going to
1) Come out in a trickle, like the 737 Max
2) Require extensive re-work (read: costly)
3) Might see some cancellations. The bull run is done.
Remember, because of the buybacks (your favorite subject) everything has been put on the old TransWorld Financial Services credit card (no air miles program). Those recently produced 787’s have cost Boeing at least $10 billion to make. That’s $500 million a year or $1.83 million PER DAY, in interest expense (assuming $10 billion @ 5%).
Look at it this way:
BA has 115 Dreamliners sitting there.
In 115 days, each jet will have an added $1.83 million cost attached to it.
In 230 days, each jet will have an added $3.66 million cost attached to it.
In 345 days, each jet will have an added $5.49 million cost attached to it.
This is not a cost of re-work, or upkeep, or maintenance, or something that is related to getting the aircraft fixed. It’s a useless albatross of a financial cost that eats at the margin because of stupidity and greed. It adds zero value to the product.
I find it really useful to real older articles like that, to compare what was thought and said at the time with what’s been determined afterward. Any “Narrative shaping” becomes more evident, as well.
That is some letter… The 737-7 should have been a slam dunk for certification. The fact that it is delayed can’t help but make me think the FAA is making the process extra hard. As far as everything else mentioned in the letter, I can’t help but concur with the Jack Welsh philosophy of wrecking a company for the sake of short-term profits.
Not exactly. My understanding is FAA closes loopholes that some mainframer(s) exploited during self-certification. Exhibit A ….
SamW:
What I see is a regulation that was intended for future being implemented to the current. While its Boeing fault it does affect the US production and employment.
I don’t see any benefit in having the -10 different than the -7/8/9.
All that whiz bang new alerting never produced a better safety record . Lack of a notify on the MAX did not cause the crashes, it was the complete lack of testing and training on MCAS.
The MAX 10 should have been certified by now and if it was, the reg would not apply, so whats the gain or even the point?
None of all that alerting did diddly for AF447 (yes Bryce I will continue to site it as its a poster child for Airbus system not being what its touted to be).
What is needed is Roger to be deployed and slap dumb pilots around. You can’t tell it is a a stall when its all over the panel? A private pilot would do better.
TW, Roger who?
Brilliant wrap up of Boeing status:
https://richardaboulafia.com/june-2022-letter
Any wagers as to when the 777X will be cancelled?
Another huge question is when will Boeing launch a 757 replacement (NMA). The most likely scenario: never! Read Calhoun’s recent statement on the subject. He did NOT say they would launch in two years. He said they will launch IF, and WHEN their new wiz-bang miracle digital design and manufacturing tool is proven to work, and that this will not happen within the next two years.
Most likely it happens too late for this program….or never.
I’ll say again: Boeing claiming the Digital/”Meta” is going to save them when they can’t get basics of aircraft production
and execution right is.. delusional, at best.
My guess it’s PR talk to keep up appearances for a little while longer.
Calhoun says the marginal performance improvement on a new plane with existing technology does not close the business case.
Question: marginal improvement in what, mileage? I understood that the need for a new plane is all about range. The Max10 hasa range of maybe 3000NM and the A321XLR 4500NM. If a Boeing NMA matches the 4500NM, then the increase over the Max is 40-50% in range.
If he means there is only a marginal improvement on the A321XLR, wouldn’t this be enough to split the market for this category?
John:
I don’t see the A321 being superior in range (what you have to do to get it……….) but passenger numbers.
The -10 is selling better than I expected by a lot. No question it could use a bit more range and better hot and high performance.
the -10 will not catch up with the A321 because Boeing lost that market and will not get it back. AK Airlines is interesting as they are dropping the A321. No AK is not everyone but its revealing that it does not justify a separate type in the market AK operate in which is Trans US.
So yes, an all new Single Aisle would have worked 20 years ago, even 10, now?
We need an airframe change, maybe TBW and a new engine. A lot in flux and what does Boeing gain in a me too A321 that garners no more sales than a -10?
Boeing shot itself in the foot (management did) but right now spend 10 billion or so on a me to aircraft?
Ignoring facts much? The XLR (and LR) sell that much because they have a longer range and are true 757 replacements. And while they do need extra tanks, the 737 does not have that option.
And I believe Boeing needs a me too aircraft much more than a moonshot. They have to show that they can still do it, reliable and on time. If they go for the moonshot with a blended wing, chances are they will run into issues and delays, plus production problems. If they do, they are really done, cos as Bombardier shows, getting an aircraft developed AND certified is not good enough. You also have to be able to get it produced.
@John, Matt & Trans
Lemme jump in here, with my 2 cents.
The 757 sold a total 1049 unit, for all 3 variants, freighter included.
There has been much discussion about how the market is upsizing aircraft and some of that is shown by the increase of A321Neo’s ordered, vs the A320Neo. Check out the ratio from the A320Ceo & 321Ceo and you’ll get the picture.
The NB market tops out at the 757. The LR & XLR are the replacements for that model. What would the expected market increase over the 757 today be? 50%? That would be 1500 units.
The XLR has over 500 orders. Not sure how many LR’s are ordered and out there. You could make the case that half of an extremely generous 757 replacement market is already gone, for the next 25 years.
Since the 757 tooling has been scrapped, there is no cheap ‘me too’ 757Max available. So you’re talking about a minimum $10 billion investment for a market that might bring you 750 NB aircraft (assuming Airbus doesn’t cut into those sales figures).
To recover that investment, you have to make a margin of $13.333 million on each airframe to break even on development costs. We’re also ignoring the interest you’d need to pay on that money (in BA’s case) or the interest you’d earn on that money (which Airbus wants to do by accumulating a war chest of 10 billion euro’s) just by leaving it in low risk investments.
Airbus isn’t stupid, either.
They can now charge a premium for the A321Neo/LR/XLR (just ask Alaska) as shown by the sold out production slots ’til 2026/27. Boeing has nothing in that space.
IF…
…BA were to roll out a 757Max today and start selling it to airlines, all Airbus would have to do to stick it to Boeing is lop $3-5 million off of any price an airline would get, to offset any efficiency gains.
Airbus could do it, to. The Neo was done on the cheap, all capex has been paid for. It’s all gravy now.
“f he means there is only a marginal improvement on the A321XLR, wouldn’t this be enough to split the market for this category?”
The XLR is a minimum change subtype in a family of high production numbers wide NB offer.
(reasonably) low extra effort in design and production.
Any counter B could offer comes with a completely new design effort (made even more substantial by sins of the past ) and a lowish numbers production environment.
Performance could be competitive but pricing not.
covering all this is a basic difference in premeditated design path philosophy.
@Frank
“Magic Range”
If in a family of frames the larger frames capabilities expand beyond a certain range customer interest morphs.
at one time A319 and A320 sold similar numbers
( same for A332 and A333. today gravity has moved up : near zero sales for A319, A332
sitting between A320 and A321 but still moving up. ( remember, the early base A321 had the shortest legs in the family! )
constant improvements were the driver in this. Special large boost from NEOing.
Thanks @Uwe.
Look, BA is in a nice hole it dug itself in, but I’m cautiously “optimistic”.
/s
I’ll bite: mid-2023. “While the 777-X is a superb, world-beating™ plane, recent events have shown our superb team™ here at Boeing that we need to focus on our Core Competencies™ within our superb lineup of existing aircraft..” and yadda-yadda.
Stuff like that. We’ll see.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1538414624864980992?cxt=HHwWgMC-her8xdkqAAAA
-> French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europe’s Push to Quit Russian Energy
Maybe stuff like this will have an effect, though I honestly doubt it:
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/corporate-bribery-just-became-illegal
#regulatoryCapture
My question in this situation is why did the squat switch(es) fail to stop the gear up?
https://simpleflying.com/uk-statement-on-heathrow-airport-boeing-787-nose-gear-retraction/
The pin is an added safety feature but gear should never retract on the ground pin or no pin. I don’t know how many squat switches a 787 has, but it sure has one and I suspect two or three.
It goes to show you no matter what an mfg does an airline can defeat all the features and in this case the AB not even done, sheese.
A general question: is it considered “ad hominem” to point out that a particular
commenter’s posts are consistently incomprehensible ?
One would imagine that the new, consistent 10-minute editing functionality would encourage each commenter to go back and check what he’s written.
However, it would appear that some commenters don’t (or can’t) do this.
The edit function is not appearing on my browser (it never has), or I’d correct my unnecessary “what’s” in my comment below.
A gotcha! moment for me, I guess.
😉
That’s strange: I get it consistently using Windows/Firefox and Android/Chrome. Started about 1 month ago. Sometimes I have to hit the browser refresh to see the editor.
This seems to be a stale cache issue/bug and may depend on your location.
edit function was introduced a couple of years ago.
Worked. Then ( for me ) it vanished for ~~99% of postings. ( the served page was older than my post. ) You may see the same issues with email notifications you answer “answer comment” immediately : that post is not in the page you get served. IMHO : stale cache.
Very recently this has changed to every second posting.
“ad hominem” clashes with “incomprehensible” 🙂
no transinformation. Noise.
( But the ad hominem case sits in the remainder 😉
I want to thank Frank for his explanation above of “Program Accounting”, and also for the clarity of his comments; I have never been in doubt about what’s he’s trying to say.
Thank you for your kind words. You can’t believe the amount of self-doubt I have, sometimes….
> Thank you for your kind words. You can’t believe the amount of self-doubt I have, sometimes….
You are welcome; and to your last sentence: actually, I think I can (not presuming).
Bryce: I’m on an older Mac with Firefox, and use a number of add-ons/extensions. I’ll try some more fiddling..
Mm…is your phone also an Apple?
Perhaps it doesn’t work with iOS, etc.
Maybe Scott can shed some light on that?
I think the functionality really improves the site 👍 I hope you can get it to work.
> Mm…is your phone also an Apple? No; in fact, I’m hoping to get rid of my surveillancePhone soon and replace it with a landline, for various reasons.
> I hope you can get it to work.
Me, too. I like clarity. 😉
-> “@AmericanAir is dropping 3 regional airports from its route map effective Sept. 7:
• Islip, NY
• Ithica, NY
• Toledo, OH
https://mobile.twitter.com/_ZachGriff/status/1538518758515417089
From the file of “Well, that escalated quickly” comes:
Wells Fargo names 50 stocks to short (or at least avoid)
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3849791-wells-fargo-names-50-stocks-to-short-or-at-least-avoid
“We expect these stocks to be subject to violent reversals.”
Industrials
Fortune Brands (FBHS)
GE (GE)
American Airlines (AAL)
Stanley Black & Decker (SWK)
Boeing (BA)
Indeed.
Although the Nasdaq Composite (-35%) and S&P500 (-24%) are already well into Bear territory, the Dow30 (-18.8%) hasn’t yet gone that low — so there’s still plenty of downside.
Note that there was somewhat of a rally in the Nasdaq last Friday, but that the Dow declined.
‘Americans Pawning Items to Buy Gas, Survive Inflation: Pawn Shop Owners’:
https://www.newsweek.com/pawn-shop-owner-says-drivers-selling-personal-items-buy-gas-1717156
Interesting comments from Emirate’s Tim Clark in https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2022/a350-1000-too-small-to-top-airbus-range-emirates-chief/149067.article
‘Clark says “I don’t know what will happen” if the 777-9 “doesn’t come”.’
For slot constrained airports, even the 777-X isn’t really big enough. “two-and-a-half 787s” for every A380.
TC jokes about a “three-engined – A380” but maybe Airbus should revisit the A380 plus, new winglets etc. giving 4% reduction in fuel burn are good, as is 80 extra seats, but go the whole 9 yards, do the A380-900 (at least 100 extra seats) as a plus, the wing size is already there & here’s my twist, 2 x Trent XWB engines with 2 x Trent 7000 engines.
And yes, I know the line is closed & Airbus won’t do an A380NEO as they’d only likely sell 150 to 200 frames at most (most to Emirates of course), but I guess my point is that perhaps the A380 was just a handful of years ahead of it’s time.
For most airlines the A380 doesn’t work, perhaps their only real customers were British Airways & Emirates, for both airlines, I think even the 777-9 isn’t quite big enough to provide a solution.
Boeing should cobble together as much Cash as they can and send it to the “Skunk Works” for Lockheed (with SOME Input from Boeing) to develop (IN SECRET) a Prototype NMA (Blended Wing or Standard Configuration) and it’s Tooling within TWO Years and then Show the Thing at Farnborough or Paris and have the Production Tooling Ready to Distribute to South Carolina and Washington State, or Wherever.
After SECRETLY Flight and Certification Testing (as much as can be done, given FAA Leaks) tell the World they are going to Begin Production as soon as the Building is Finished and are Ready to Take Orders.
Lockheed can then Drop it’s Airbus Affiliations and Team with Boeing.