Pontifications: Boeing vows to maintain freighter dominance

By Scott Hamilton

June 27, 2022, © Leeham News: Boeing dominated the jet freighter market from the dawn of the jet age. It aims to keep its dominance.

But for the first time since the collapse of McDonnell Douglas in 1997, Boeing is being credibly challenged by Airbus and P2F conversions. Airbus is selling the A350F. EFW, which is a joint venture between Airbus and ST Aerospace, and IAI Bedek offer freighter conversions for the A330. The A350F is Airbus’ first credible challenge to Boeing’s dominance in the widebody freighter section. (The A300-600RF was a niche aircraft. A310 combis and the A330-200F were unsuccessful.)

EFW, Precision Conversions, and nominally at least two others offer conversions for the A320/321. There are more than 100 A330 P2F and at least five dozen A320/321 P2F orders, marking the first challenge to Boeing’s dominance in narrowbody freighters converted by the aftermarket.

Boeing has been testing the market for months on whether to launch a conversion program for the 777-300ER. Boeing Global Services announced in 2018 at the Farnborough Air Show that it was launching a -300ER P2F program, but never followed through. If Boeing proceeds this time, it faces competition from IAI Bedek, Mammoth Freighters, and Kansas Modification Center, each of which already has firm orders for about 65 conversions.

Boeing’s long history of new-build freighters

Boeing offered new-build freighters of combis for the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. A freighter version for the 777X was launched this year. The only new airplane program it doesn’t offer a freighter for is the 787. However, when designing this airplane, Boeing “protected” the ability to offer a freighter version. Systems were routed around so that a forward cargo door could be designed into the airplane at a future date. Boeing is studying the possibility. If Boeing launches a New Midmarket Airplane (NMA), which remains a possibility, the prospect of an NMA freighter is high.

Brian Hermesmeyer, Senior Director, Freighter Customer Leader, acknowledged during Boeing’s briefing in advance of the Farnborough Air Show next month that studies for the 787F and NMA-F are “natural conclusions.” A driving factor is new requirements to lower noise and emissions means the 767F can’t be produced from 2028 unless exempted. The latter is unlikely under a Democratic Administration, except as a bridge aircraft to a new solution.

If a Republican takes over the White House, an exemption is likely. But the next presidential election is in November 2024 and Boeing most likely must make a decision about a new airplane program in 2023 or 2024.

An NMA-F may be an important factor in whether to proceed with the NMA. According to the database ch-aviation, there are 733 757Fs and 767Fs in service for which an NMA-F could be a replacement. (Another 62 767Fs are in Boeing’s backlog.) The 787 is too much airplane to replace the 757s and may be too much for a portion of the 767F replacement. The NMA-F has less payload than the 767F, by LNA’s analysis, but for operators like UPS and FedEx, volume matters more than volume. (Package carrier DHL is acquiring A330P2Fs and 777P2Fs.)

Aftermarket conversions

Boeing and Boeing airplanes also dominate the aftermarket conversions. The company offers Boeing Converted Freighters (BCF) for the 737 and 767. IAI offers a P2F conversion program for the 767. In 2018, Stan Deal—then the CEO of Boeing Global Services—said BGS would offer a BCF for the 777-300ER. However, the plan never progressed to production.

Hermesmeyer, at the air show briefing, said Boeing couldn’t close the business case then or more recently. “The Triple 7 freighter conversion is a very challenging business case for us,” he said. “That’s why we haven’t seen a Triple 7 300ER conversion. What we have done is provide data licenses to three companies. We continue to explore opportunities to do a BCF-style program of some kind, including potential industry collaborations. That’s something we continue to study, but for the time being, the licensees are going to fulfill that role.”

Nevertheless, in recent months Boeing has been testing the market on whether to offer the BCF -300ER. If Boeing proceeds, it will be the fourth to market, after IAI, Mammoth, and Kansas Mod. (Eastern Airlines says it is developing a Preighter version of the 777, but few in the industry give this credibility either for the execution or competitiveness.)

On the narrowbody front, there are several conversion houses in addition to Boeing’s own BCF program. Throughout the jet age, Boeing platforms (as well as those based on McDonnell Douglas aircraft) were active. Every 7-Series jet except the 787 was converted by third-party houses. Boeing proudly points to its dominance.

Airbus jumps into aftermarket conversions

EFW, the Airbus JV, offered conversions of the A300 and for many years the A330. The former was only modestly successful and until recently, the latter lagged. But with cheap A330s in the market, especially following the wholesale storing in the wake of the COVID pandemic, the A330 P2F program has taken off. EFW now has orders for more than 100 conversions. It also has more than 100 orders for conversions of the A320/321.

There are far fewer companies performing conversions on Airbus aircraft than on Boeing. One reason: the fly-by-wire design of Airbus is trickier to work around. Another is that Airbus didn’t have the foresight to “protect” the fuselage from these fly-by-wire systems, requiring rerouting. Obviously, this at long last has been overcome. One other issue (among several): the A320 family’s slightly wider fuselage than the Boeing narrowbodies makes for an oddity when it comes to containers.

Nevertheless, just as Airbus finally designed and launched a credible competitor in the A350 to Boeing’s near-exclusivity for the widebody sector, Airbus (EFW) and others are beginning to encroach on Boeing’s monopoly in the single-aisle sector. The A330 failed as a new-build freighter (the -200 was chosen, rather than the more desirable -300). But as an aftermarket conversion, the A330 (principally the -300) is making a major inroad as well.

289 Comments on “Pontifications: Boeing vows to maintain freighter dominance

  1. Boeing can “vow” all it wants, but new plane programs are paid for using money — not vows.
    And, per last week’s extensive Pontifications discussion, BA doesn’t have enough money, and it doesn’t have any realistic prospects of being able to raise enough money, to fund any of these pipe dreams.

  2. With 1500 A330s built and large A300, DC/MD10/11 fleets to be replaced, something could have been expected.

    I wonder why so 777-200ER anever took up conversion. Maybe the volume (e commerce packages) and larger numbers available pushed towards the 777-3000ER. The 300Er will be very capable (100t) and voluminous, hopefully GE comes with an attractive MRO program for the GE90’s, essential IMO.

    • Keejse:

      I followed that quite closely as I was working at the FedEx facility and the MD-11F (I was there when the first ones came through) as well as when the first FedEx 777F came through (I repaired the electronic GPU systems for those – a very failure prone European design originally for the A380)

      FedEx wanted the 777-2oos for the Pax to F conversion, but could not get feedstock. The closest was they almost got Singapore Airlines group but Singapore elected to shift those to scoot.

      No one else was giving up 200s at the time. So FedEx went all in on the 777F (and it was very well liked by uppers and the mechanics)

      Until Covid no one was giving up their 777s at all, now it seems they are available.

      But you also have to factor in the age of the aircraft and cost of conversions. An F conversion has to be viable for how long you can use it as well as what condition the engines are in when you get it.

      I saw FedEx park two or three MD-11’s as they picked up newer ones that they could use longer.

      So there is a lot that goes into those decisions not just can they convert it.

  3. related to the above story about the Boeing EcoDemonstrators…

    in the past there has been a lot of talk and proposals around electric motors in the nose wheel or various other solutions like robotic tugs and even really stupid ideas like building third rails into the taxiways to power tugs or nosewheels.

    since most many new generation turbofans have gone to integral motor-generators (quite powerful ones in the case of the 787) would it be reasonable to shut off fuel to one engine and spin it for taxi thrust using the MGU on power generated by the other to minimize asymmetric thrust issues during taxi?

    one less engine burning at its lowest efficiency mode, perhaps improving efficiency on the other by putting a significant generator load on it?

    seems like something that would be testable pretty inexpensively on an Eco Demonstrator program.

    • Bilbo:

      Only the 787 has the large MG sets. The A350 is still bleed air.

      One of the interesting aspects of the 787 power system is you don’t have to spin full up to get power out of a MG set. With Rectifiers you can convert an idling engine to power (not as much as full spin but a lot)

      The 787 has both Alternating Current and DC current distribution for the various purposes.

      That said, using the APU Generaor would get you full output as its all GEN.

      I have not seen anyone propose putting electric drives in the nose gear of those.

      Partly by firing up your engines you get running time on them and its a real bummer to find they won’t start of have an issue at the end of the runway.

      I have seen engine shutdowns used when fuel was high for a taxi in.

      We may see that again. Some taxi work requires both front wheel turn and engine thrust to get it to work. The MD-11 simulator I flew you had to do that when on the ground. It helped the wheel turn on a tight 145 deg taxi way turn.

        • You are welcome. I really enjoyed working on Power Generation. For all practical purposes I had a field degree of experience in and with it.

          Adding a bit, the APU has as almost as large a pair of MG’s as the main engines. 500 KVA (500 KW is close enough though there is technical differences that gets into power generation fiddly bits)

          In theory you could use the APU and a tug wheel system to taxi in.

          I don’t know if they have a break point where taxi out is worth the lack of getting the engines fired up and running a while before you launch.

          If something goes wrong at the gate you can have mechanics look at it and possibly fix it. Had that happen a half dozen times in 60 some years of flying in jets. Fairly regularly on the old prop jobs.

          • You still have to put the weight of the drive motor in the front wheel and if its worth carrying that weight and more so on the long 787 flights for what it gets you?

            I would have to guess 300 hp to move a 787 decently (that is from assessment of push-back Tug sizes I was around)

            And it would depend on how fast you could move a 787 that way vs the engine as well as adding weight for the wiring system to the motor(s).

            I was a mere field engineer and the calcs are far beyond my ability.

          • Think driverless electrical tugs will come and hence you don’t need APU burning JET A-1 to generate electrical power for electrical wheel motors. Still with a different electrical regenerative DC braking system that also work as motors (like subways) you could in theory taxy on battery power alone until you have enough for APU start.

          • claes:

            That might work, push-back Tugs are extremely heavy in order to be able to get traction and push back an aircraft. I think the ones at FedEx weighted 250,000 lbs (up to 747 size aircraft capable though mostly MD-11 and 777F)

            Put in batteries instead of counter weight and ……..

            But you still have to generate that electrical power.

            And you need a lot more Tugs as you have them taking aircraft to the active end of the runway and that can be a long ways away (several miles in the case of Anchorage)

            and you still don’t get the jet engines running and the systems all checked out.

  4. In the 8th paragraph there is a mistake (volume matters more than volume). Please correct.

    • this reminds me old motto:
      What is capitalism?
      Exploitation of man by man.
      And what is communism?
      Exactly the opposite!

      • Let’s wait and see if the 350 f is a serious contender for the 777xf..
        Early advantage would go to the 777xf for sales numbers and actual quality of freighter customers…..not leasing companies or 3rd.party cargo operators,.. operating planes on their behalf!!
        With the current 777f racking in record orders,;
        Plenty of time to get the xf ready for service..
        Still the 330f left a bitter pill to swallow in the abysmal Airbus freighter market..!!

        • “Plenty of time to get the xf ready for service..”

          Plenty of time…but no money.

          And even time will run out if/when the 777X program gets axed.

          • Plenty of time® for A350F to arrive in time while 777-8F customers wait and wait … and wait.

          • Boeing has a hell lot to lose if they axe the 777X program.

            Its very very very unlikely

        • @TC

          That’s right, “plenty of time to get the XF ready for service”
          Trust me the people and executives running the program think the same way. The 777X program was launched 10 years ago! And still won’t be ready for another 3 years, 5 years late. Yes…. Plenty of time. No accountability.

          I guarantee you Airbus doesn’t think like this.

          • It took Airbus four tries to get a plane to compete against the 787.

          • @ Gary
            Is that a reference to the A350? Strange, because the A350 was designed to compete with the 777 — not the 787.
            On the other hand, the 787 was designed to compete with the A330.
            So, we can equivalently say:
            “It took BA two groundings to get a plane to compete against the A330”.

          • Bryce:

            Its a shame you don’t actually check your facts.

            The A350 was designed as a split competitor for the 787 and 777.

            The 1000 variant was latter put into play to compete directly with the 777. Said 1000 in turn lacks commonality of engine with the -900 (and ticked off your favorite guy when he agrees with you aka TC)

            Facts do matter.

            And there were 5 variations of the A330, the tries 1-4, they gave up, then we got the A350 and then they went back at it again and now we have the A330NEO.

            I mean really, 3 empty swings and you are out in baseball (sort of a temporary red card in European Football or as we call it, silly white ball playing)

          • @ TW
            BA marketed the 787 as an “A330 killer”.
            In response, AB marketed the A350 as a “777 killer”.

            Its a shame you don’t actually check your facts

          • Bryce:

            You are wrong and as usual can’t admit it. Nothing new. Its a shame, a good brain used for bad purposes.

            From what I have seen of the EU and how it operates I have to wonder if that is common over there?

            I have to be sympathetic, not everyone had the privilege of growing up in Alaska where character counted in those days.

          • @TW
            Not at all clear what the EU vs Alaska has to do with aircraft marketing — but do ramble on, as you ramble about virtually everything.

          • “I mean really, 3 empty swings and you are out”

            How many Boeing “swings” that did not leave the PR leaflet domain?
            Sonic Cruiser, NSA, NMA, MOM, … 🙂
            acronyms gallore!

          • -> “I mean really, 3 empty swings and you are out”

            Remind me how many false starts of B737 MAX/B787 were there. Definitely more than the number of fingers on one hand.

        • The A350F has Etihad, Singapore, AF/KLM as customers.

          I don’t see that as a weak comparison to the 777-8F. While the 777-8F may have the numbers its also in the volatile Qatar.

          Pretty much even and the A350 is in production and the 777-X is not currently.

          I am more impressed with Airbus here than Boeing.

        • Why compare an aircraft with an aircraft that will not be flying before 2025 or even later. We know how reliable Boeing prophecies are

          • peter:

            Boeing is doing what it says it will do in regard to aircraft, so eventually they will do it.

            Caveat is the 777X may fail but I think it will be produced.

            TC is hollering for bigger airplanes again so……. There may be a market for the 777X (and clearly for the 777-8F) but how big that market is for sure is worth debate.

            But that is some years down the road so we can only compare the paper figures of the 777-8F now with the more real figures of the A350F.

            That is what the cargo ops are doing and we can see it in real time.

          • @ TW
            “Boeing is doing what it says it will do in regard to aircraft”

            No, it’s not, actually: it simply doesn’t have the necessary money to do what it says.

  5. The Boeing brain trust of fools are sitting at the round table panicking now that Airbus will soon take the lead in the freighter market, so what do they do? They make a vow. Wow, how’s that for leadership. I see positive substance coming from the European’s and all I continue to see from Boeing is talk and fancy PowerPoint spin. They can’t even get their current production discipline down.

    Bryce is absolutely spot on, where’s the money going to come from to make this ‘vow’ come to fruition?
    Remember, the 777XF was a knee jerk when Airbus announced the A350F. So, I’ll ask again, who’s leading and who’s following?

    • BA looks desperate, both it and its customers know the B767F will enter its final chapter soon, has to throw in the NMA-F into the mix. Can BA tell the public *when* the NMA will be ready for delivery?

      In a world where e-commerce has grown its importance, wouldn’t more and more customers favor the A321P2F? Look what Australia Post/Qantas has picked.

    • > The Boeing brain trust of fools are sitting at the round table panicking now that Airbus will soon take the lead in the freighter market, so what do they do? They make a vow. Wow, how’s that for leadership. I see positive substance coming from the European’s and all I continue to see from Boeing is talk and fancy PowerPoint spin. They can’t even get their current production discipline down. <

      I have nothing to add to the above except agreement.

      Boeing "vows" ?

      ok- duly noted, and appropriately filed. 😉

    • The 737 MAX was also a knee jerk after Airbus brought out the A320 Neo. Let’s hope, this time it will be a bit more successful.

      • Matth:

        Boeing had done work on the MAX, it was an alternative.

        Where Boeing went wrng was not to have had a successor back in the classic era (which is not really a Classic as that would be the 737-100/200, I curse Boeing and Aviation writers for that stupidity) and the NG should have been the last 737.

        Clearly Boeing had no choice with fighting the NEO at the time as they col make the MAX compete 1-1 and there was no airframe improvements that were going to change the efficiency.

        I put some hopes in the TBW which is the only tech I see that might be a significant change. Airbus of course can do a composite wing on the A320 series and gain some of that efficiency back.

        Still watching to see how much more efficient a TBW is and if airlines would buy it.

        • @TransWorld: What does TBW stand for?

          And it was exactly my point. Boeing needed a knee jerk reaction to the A320 neo as they were not planning ahead and not ahead in the game. They kept stating how useless a re-engined A320 would be and that it would merely catch up with their superior 737. As they were not preprared, the only option they had left was another generation of 737, when they actually needed a new design.

          Boeing got surprised again with the A350F, which they might, or might not have expected. And now they are forced again, to come up with a quick and dirty solution, instead of being ahead of the game and design a solution on their own terms. And the A350F move by Airbus is actually their smallest issue, as they have been in deep sleep for a few years now and totally missed plenty of important decisions.

          • BA focuses on where the MAX is competitive, calls the rest “niche”. Tells you their mentality: head in the sand. No different from a couple commentators here.

          • Matth:

            Truss Braced Wing. Old concept modernized, NASA is doing a lot of work with Boeing on it.

            Boeing did not get surprised by the A350, it was clearly coming.

            I think Boeing did get surprised by Airbus going with the CRF Frame and Skin system that is a diret replacment to the aluinum frame and skin system (lighter but the same ribs and skind thing)

            Boeing though spun CRF was the way to go, it turns out both work and work well. Boeing is more tech heavy in machiny to do it and Airbus more labor but you can put 100s of ribs in an auto clave.

            I was not that kind of engineer as the calcs are in the PHD level as to what works best. For now I am just calling them close to equal.

            Contrary to Bryce and his nonsense, Airbus delivery split the different between the 787/A330 market and the 777. Like Boieng they came out with a longer A350 that competes with the 777-300 market.

            Beoign response as to move to a larger market (how much of that there is, hmmmm)

            What Bryice failes to unerstand is that the A350 was desingd around the -800 and -900 model and the -800 modle has few orders. So they upgauged it to the 1000 and now its more a 777 competoriro and ceritnaly a 777-300

            But then I would not expect him to work at understanding the complexities of modern aviation. Its hard and its complicated.

            As for A320NEO, Boeing had a good point that NEO did not work in the past its had miniumal success. Its just in this case wieht new engines it was a winner out of the gate.

            Airbus was as suprised as Boeing.

            Leahy damn his soul was right that if it did work it would force Boeing into a me too move. Happy PW to get a chance again to get back in the bigger engine game!

            What it did was lock Boeing into a 737 derivative again and impeded its future. And then MCAS caused it to implode.

            Kind of like hitting 6 home runs in a ballgame, best guess and Airbus hit it out of the park.

  6. Will CEO’s of leasing companies, representatives of IATA and aviation experts make statements contrary to these wishes of Boeing? After all, they are always complaining about the imbalance of the duopoly in commercial aviation. I bet they won’t say anything, as they didn’t care much over the years and that commercial aviation was dominated by Boeing.

  7. “The NMA-F has less payload than the 767F, by LNA’s analysis, but for operators like UPS and FedEx, volume matters more than volume. (Package carrier DHL is acquiring A330P2Fs and 777P2Fs.)”

    I am puzzled by that, is Leeham saying it has the volume? The 767F is wildly popular with UPS, FedEx, DHL and many others so it clearly has he volume (most though not all are package operator including Amazon)

    • Volume and payload aren’t the same thing. The 767 can carry more payload weight. Package freight isn’t “heavy.” It takes up a lot of space (“volume”).

      • Scott:

        Yes I understand that, I worked at FedEx for 23 years. Contrary to what some believe I was also an Engineer (I often added 2 + 2 and got 4!)

        But there also is a correlation of weight and volume.

        I don’t know how you can say what the yet to be defined NMA will or won’t have.

        A MAX-10 has a lot of volume but you trade off range for weight.

        And NMA should be something around a 757-200 PCF or 757F.

        That aircraft suites UPS and FedEx to a T (replacing the 727 in FedEx case )

        A 757F of either type is not a 767 clearly but they serve different needs.

        A 787F would slot in with a 767 (with the option of more weight)

        Equaly floor loading is an issue which the A380F (proposed) did not have but suited UPS and FedEx.

        Clearly there are two discreet markets, heavy freight and package freihter

        And by the way, FedEx from China had heavier packages than FedEx USA, it was in the nature of the Cargo type out of China.

        There was only one express 777F flight out of China, the rest stopped in ANC for Customs Clearance AND sorting to logical destinations to Indy, Memphis and down the West Coast.

        On Sunday we had a number of gas and go 777 flights.

        • And it was pointed above the wrong statement (yes I know it is a typo)

          “but for operators like UPS and FedEx, volume matters more than volume. (Package carrier DHL is acquiring A330P2Fs and 777P2Fs.)”

          Volume matters more than volume, really?

          And a 757 is not a 767 and does not equate to the same use. FedEx replaced the 727 with the 757 and also bought 767F (and still is) but then they have big bucks vs a heavy freight operation.

          Equally there are a limited number of new 767F and far more conversions (Amazon).

        • Trans: no need for the continual double-spacing (we can all read, here); it just slows things down.

          Any recent thoughts on 787 deliveries? I see one analyst thinks BCA might deliver all of twelve this year.

          • While you’re at it:
            Trans: no need for the constant (lengthy) anecdotes regarding your “career”; nobody else here is plastering the forum with details of *their* careers. It’s totally uninteresting and irrelevant (and repetitive).

          • Bryce:

            As you decided FedEx was wrong and I am not an engineer by your lonely decision from the far reaches of the EU, you are stuck with it.

            You can apologize and I will cease, otherwise you suffer the wrath of my pen.

            on a side note, anyone can be a keyboard warrior. I have done all the things I say I have done and can back it up.

            Research the Ice Cut just South of Happy Valley (yea really, bleh) on the Pipeline and I can regale you with tales of running a Catwagon not down the road, but down the PAD! (said Pad going right down the bluff with no slope)T

          • @ TW
            What FedEx thought / said / did all those years ago is irrelevant. What matters is: no degree = no engineer 😎

            The fact that you keep drawling on about your past career indicates significant frustration about something.

          • Bill7:

            “Trans: no need for the continual double-spacing (we can all read, here); it just slows things down.”

            That is subject to disagreement. One of my teachers hated my run on sentences and beat it into me to shorten them up.

            The other aspect was as an engineer I had to write a lot of reports and proposals. I found it very effective to break up things not into paragraphs but separation with double space.

            So while I appreciate the critique I think it works and will continue to do so.

            “Any recent thoughts on 787 deliveries? I see one analyst thinks BCA might deliver all of twelve this year.”

            Knee jerk is I would be surprised at 6 delivered. But that is really speculative. What Boeing has been doing behind the scenes on fixing the ones built I have no insight to.

            It sounds like a -9 will get delivered to Lufthansa this month, call me a skeptic but I have all too often see the drill that you make a big show and then the drop off. I don’t blame Boeing if they went full out on one to prime the 787 pump, but unless there are others well along it does not look to be a fast process.

            If they get the production line moving again with the fixes in place, they could deliver some off that process as well.

            I don’t see a fast process but again, very cautious there

          • Bryce:

            As my mother would say, we don’t get smarter but we do acquire wisdom.

            Many fail to have one successful career I had something around 6.

            That gives me a breadth of experiences from a grunt labor and fisherman to the high tech world you live in today.

            And that positions is still there and there are identical positions across the FedEx empire. Some had letters after their name and some like me had experience.

            What you all to over there is certainly the business of any company in Europe and the EU and its weird regs.

            But its pretty amazing you think you can tell US companies how they do their hiring.

            I have a lifetime of experience to draw on, you do not and never will have my unique background. Scott comes a lot closer as we grew up in the same era and he as well as myself had a focus on Aviation from different perspectives.

            In Alaska, we eat breath and smoke Aviation. My dad worked Av support and I grew up with it as well as its the only way to get around a huge chunk of AK (think France, German and the UK combines and you still are probably smaller than AK)

            We could cut Alaska into thirds and make Texas the 4th largest state! To survive up here let alone thrive is a huge accomplishment. and yes there were some terribly close shaves.

          • @ TW
            You can invoke your mother and/or Scott as much as you want, but it doesn’t change the basic credo: no degree = no engineer.

          • @ TW
            It’s not just in the EU…it’s also in the US — which you’d know if you were an actual engineer.

            “Engineers in the United States need a bachelor’s degree in engineering. Engineers who work with the public are also required to become licensed.”

            “A master’s degree may be needed for advancement in some fields.”


          • Many companies have positions of “accountant” filled by non-qualified accountants.

        • @TransWorld

          I’m thinking Boeing must be knocking on your door to have you to solve their worldly problems 😉

          • Airdoc:

            Thank you! I certainly could do better than Calhoun! (well a rock could but……)

            I see myself purely as a figurehead, King if you will. I scour the country for the best CEO and put him in charge and get out of his way other than integrity.

            My Model is Clay Ford who realized he was not suited or capable of running Ford and got my main man Mullaly and let him do what was needed (Ford being the only auto maker that did not go belly up in the 2008 recession)

  8. I don’t see as this is something Boeing has any control over.

    The A330-300 particularly has plenty of feed stock and Airbus clearly made a huge mistake in market assessment when they did the A330F.

    It may in fact be an opportunity with the A330NEO as an F model. As Airbus only has the A350F in engineering, it would be a good one to follow up with.

    The A330 also has an odd width compared to the Boeing dominated market. So they have to decide on wasted space or a new can set that works in it.

    I would fully expect Biden to extend the 767F, Leeham is ignoring the jobs aspect and the relatively miner impact the ICAO 2027 regs have which were intended to be the higher production passenger aircraft not freighters.

    As the KC-46A continues to be produced well into the 2030s? Hmmm.

    I am curious why the 777-200 is not getting a close look, that fits as a direct replacement for the popular MD-11F. There is a market gap between a 777-8F and the current 777F size wise.

    And will the F market continue its spiral or will there be a drop? Amazon has seen a big drop in business.

    If intention Pax comes back then you have that belly freight that was the enemy of a dedicated F model (sans UPS, Fedex and DHL etc)

    I would also not be surprised if the Biden admin does not step into the MAX -10 and nudge the needle to a waiver. Elections are coming up!

    • Let’s wait and see if the 350 f is a serious contender for the 777xf..
      Early advantage would go to the 777xf for sales numbers and actual quality of freighter customers…..not leasing companies or 3rd.party cargo operators,.. operating planes on their behalf!!
      With the current 777f racking in record orders,;
      Plenty of time to get the xf ready for service..
      Still the 330f left a bitter pill to swallow in the abysmal Airbus freighter market..!!

      • TC:

        As noted above, A350F does have some Blue Chip customers, 777-8F is more limited with a lot more risk in Qatar which is always a volatile airline as well as area of the world it operates out of.

        Airbus clearly is going to get the A350F into service well before Boeing gets the 777-8F into service.

        If Boeing can get its act together the 777-8F looks to be a real contender but it has competition for the first time.

        And what happens to the current 777F market? Is that left open or does it all shift up or do the 777-200 and 300 conversions take over?

        F has been a nice business for a single mfg (Boeing) but when they have to split a pretty small market for NEW F models?

    • Isn’t the problem with the 767F related to the “I” in ICAO meaning “International”? That is that it’s not wholly up to the US federal government, other countries won’t let it fly?

      • Good question, but enforcement I think is up to the country of mfg.

        What about existing let alone conversions of pre 2027 aircraft that is not included in the reg?

  9. More trouble for the hapless MAX.
    And if the MAX is in trouble, so are BA’s coffers.
    And if BA’s coffers are in trouble, so are its planned programs.

    “US regulators to examine Boeing 737 MAX production after series of incidents”

    “Boeing will face further examination as the US Congress reportedly plans to audit Boeing production, including its 737 MAX aircraft.

    “The news follows the results of an investigation made by the Investigative Division of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which disclosed at least 60 in-flight safety problems, including six emergencies, in the year after the plane was re-certified.

    “According to the investigation, Boeing 737 MAX aircraft were involved in at least 22 cases of flight control system failures, including autopilot malfunction, and at least 42 cases of malfunctions of other plane systems, including engine shutdowns, which lead to the partial loss of aircraft control for the flight crew.

    “The investigation caught the attention of the US Congress, which has requested a new audit to examine the production oversight of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft.”


    Does that sound like a Congress that will be willing to grant BA a safety exception for the MAX-10?

    • If its the ABC Australia it will be forgotten by the end of the week. I see the report is being ‘constantly improved’ , ie they have got so much wrong .
      US FAA has a reporting system for all the types in US airspace , they have just cherry picked one model

      • @Dukeofurl

        In the interest of air safety, it should be ‘cherry-picked’ and why shouldn’t it?
        We’ve been told over and over that no other airplane has ever been through a more detailed recertification as the Mad Max and now a safe airplane is safer.
        Go ahead, see if you can extract safety reporting data from the FAA reporting system. It’s confidential. Try the NASA site as well.

        My point is the FAA is hiding Mad Max in service data and someone on the inside provided the Australian reporter the data.

        So, let’s welcome an audit of Boeing, if it’s as you say just cherry-picked data of one model, then what does Boeing or the FAA have to worry about if all is well?

        • Let us do a direct comparison of MAX vs Airbus A320NEO and see how many incidents each has be 1000 miles flown.

          I worked on electronic equipment for 39 years, there were always failures including the iron clad UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply for computer backup) that was supposed to be built like an aircraft system

          Pilots adhere to a minimum required equipping operating list. So yes they will stop a flight if it falls below that.

          And both Airbus and Boeing have lists that are approved for equipment that can be failed for a flight. Airbus could have two or more of its required 7 computers off line and still fly.

          So if you are not going to cherry pick your data, then do a direct comparison, not cherry pick to the MAX.

          The assumption that nothing will ever break on a MAX is pure nonsense, it has nothign to do with flight safety. Be it mechanical, electronic or electrical, its going to break.

          That is what you have people like I was, to fix that stuff when it does.

          Both A320 and MAX share the same damned engines for crying out loud. And the A320NEO has had some serious issues with the P&W engines and we don’t know what the true long term story on the LEAP is (remember the Trent 1000 that went for 5 years before it showed its real issues? sure you do)

          But no, we get the MAX is falling, Chicken Little strikes again.

          • “Joe Jacobsen, who has 37 years of experience as an aerospace engineer with the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing and who has also worked on air crash investigations, found the incidents unnerving.

            “He was most concerned about the reported incidents involving stabiliser trims, which help with the directional rotation of a plane, including during take-off and landing.

            “It’s a D-grade airplane”, Mr Jacobsen said.

            “A poor design combined with manufacturing defects is a recipe for disaster.”


          • “Both A320 and MAX share the same damned engines for crying out loud.”

            Except the details given by ABC about the incidents and emergencies did not revolve around the engine technology at all.
            The gravest were about flight control issues, and that’s an area where NEO and MAX have virtually nothing in common. Not only that, but it’s an area that already led to two fatal MAX crashes.

            “So if you are not going to cherry pick your data, then do a direct comparison, not cherry pick to the MAX.”

            Fine, but there’s no reason not to look at the MAX even if we don’t have the data on the NEO yet.
            The MAX was grounded for more than a year for safety reasons following two fatal crashes which left 346 people dead.
            The MAX definitely earned the extra scrutiny here, to be honest, as NEO thankfully hasn’t got anywhere near that track record.
            Just like the A380, not the 747, was heavily scrutinised after Qantas’ and AF’s respective uncontained engine failures.

            “The assumption that nothing will ever break on a MAX is pure nonsense, it has nothign to do with flight safety. Be it mechanical, electronic or electrical, its going to break.”

            Nobody is disputing that, but if things fail more frequently than on other planes, or even previous variants of the same plane, asking whether there is a common cause behind this, is very much a legitimate question to ask. And the current question is – contrary to what you’re implying – not so much about the MAX itself (i.e. its design), but Boeing’s production standards. And we all know Boeing is still having challenges there – see the 787 delivery stop.

          • Jacobsen is the go to guy for some years now to amplify the Boeing is bad message
            Why has no other major media picked this up …or was it shopped to them in last few months and they said no thanks.
            ABC in Australia is was the dummy who dont check their stuff, who ran with it. ( Im sure they dont spent their limited resources chasing aviation issues) its a major issue for them on other occasions

          • @ DoU
            “Why has no other major media picked this up”

            The news wires were alive with the story yesterday and this morning.
            I see the story on the LNA Twitter feed, AeroTimeHub, SimpleFlying, MSN, Global Herald, Travel Weekly, Barron’s online, MarketWatch, La Prensa Latina,…is that enough for you?

            Congress, the NTSB and Wall Street acted on the story…is that enough for you?

            “The DOT Inspector-General’s office [has] confirmed … that Congress requested an audit of Boeing’s production oversight and that the review of the production of the 737 MAX will be a part of this audit,” the NTSB email said.”

          • anfromme:

            You do not seem to get that there are issues in aircraft all the time and it matters not of its an A320CEO, NEO, MAX or NG.

            But if you are going to do data, then the right way to do it is to compare apples to apples.

            In the case of unequal hours (the NEO has more exposure so total breakdowns would be higher) the right way is to compare it to a metric like per 1000 flight hours.

            The Airbus FBW has program issues all the time. Things break all the time on the A320 series just like they do on the NG and MAX.

            The entire MAX was not at issue (and Bjorn has stated that more than once). It was not just MCAS but the program writing of same and what it did with an AOA failure. The two crashes were due to one single cause, not a flying disasters that is portended.

            A number of A320s have crashed as well, if you look at those crashes they often involved depending on the automation and not knowing what to do when it did not work as they had it setup.

            The reality is an unstable approach in an FBW is as bad as an unstable approach in a 737 type mechanical system.

            So yes the data is out there for the A320NEO, its just not hyped up the way that article was written.

            How many crashes did the A320 have while the MAX was grounded?

            Its really back to, do you think the MAX has other issues and do you contend it should not be flying?

            Nothing wrong with you saying that if you support it and what the issues are, but failure to have comparable data or supply if for the A320 is indeed cherry picking.

            The Equipment I took care of had failures all the time despite the best care and attention. I would not be surprised to find an aircraft has more stuff in it than all my systems combined.

            Aircraft are the most complex technical systems int he world stuffed into an impossibly small package.

            Hate the MAX on a personal basis, well and fine, don’t fly it.

            But don’t try to force a conclusion that it has more issues than any other comparable aircraft unless you have the data to back it up.

          • @ anfromme

            Thank you for that rational, logical post — it’s exactly the type of analysis that one would expect from a qualified engineer.
            However, your message will not be appreciated and/or understood by some: for them, denialism and secondary victimization are the preferred mode of reaction.

            Returning to the ABC article: don’t you find it particularly disturbing that — after re-cert had occurred — an entire sub-fleet of 100 MAXs had to be grounded again in order to sort out a serious electrical issue? Definitely not the type of sloppiness that one would expect in “the most scrutinized plane in history”.

            “But in April last year, five months after they were cleared to fly again, 100 MAX jets were again withdrawn from service after the discovery of an electrical fault in the cockpit that could result in the loss of critical flight functions.”

            The problem of sub-standard production keeps popping up its ugly head at BA.

      • The number of A320/321 neos in service is 3 times greater than the numbet of MAXs flying. So, to achieve the same statistical weight, there would have had to have been 3 times as many serious incidents with the neos in the same time frame — i.e. over 150 serious incidents, and 18 emergencies. Bit difficult to keep a lid on figures like that.

  10. I noticed that the article mentioned that Boeing “most likely must make a decision whether or not to launch the NMA in 2023 or 2024….”
    But Calhoun just stated for the record that he will not launch until the digital tools are mature and that will take AT LEAST two years. Based on his own statements, Calhoun will launch sometime between late 2024 and never (with the smart money on never, in my view).
    I base this on Calhoun’s own statements and his documented history as a GE cost cutter.
    Reading a book on Jack Welch called “The Man Who Broke Capitalism.” Some interesting details there. A slew of his disciples were incubated by him at GE and swept through the C-suites of America like a corporate pandemic. Essentially all of them were failures, though a few like McNerny left before the grimmest consequences of their foolish cost cuts became apparent.
    Best quote from the book: ‘A lot of GE leaders were thought to be business geniuses. But they were just cost cutters. And you can’t cost-cut your way to prosperity. ”
    There in a nutshell you have Calhoun and his whole merry gang of GE beancounters who have taken a wrecking ball to corporate America these last 20 years.

    • NMA won’t be ready until 2031 or later, so the NMA-F won’t be ready until 2034 or later.

      That’s a huge gap.

      • No worry: customers are always willing to put their plans on hold while waiting for BA’s stellar products.

        ♡ Because We’re Worth It ♡

        • That there’s some enjoyable snark, there..

          ‘NMA-F’, eh ? So a non-existent aircraft will thoughtfully have a Freighter version, eh?


          • Bill7:

            I have to agree, Bryce does snark well and its sadly true in this case.

            That said, if there is a big enough market Boeing could parallel develop a F variant. I don’t think so.

            That said, Boeing could well put in for a 767 extension if they show serious on a 787F and a NMA F.

            Keeping in mind, the big Freighter really are a different market vs the (currently) single aisle type.

            Only UPS took the 757F in any numbers. Vast majority of the 757 used in F ops is the PCF type.

        • The coffer is bare, the cupboard is bare. There are gaps in the product lineup.

          BA’s top executives can say whatever, but those with clear eyes can see thru’ their smoke and mirrors.

    • At GEAE it was a balance between cheif engineers, project managers and cost cutters during the Welsh time, Boeing just picked the cost/program guys and lost the balance. You need strong engineering/test program managers not to run ahead of yourself. GE Schenectady did some stupid and very expensive moves that they have been working their way out of since Jack left.

  11. ‘A lot of GE leaders were thought to be business geniuses. But they were just cost cutters. And you can’t cost-cut your way to prosperity. ”

    I think you can, for ~5 yrs.

    -> Streamline processes/ combine- cut jobs, sell & hire back real estate, push out investment, squeeze suppliers, buy back shares keeping WS happy. Meanwhile hire top communication executives / lobbyists to confuse / embed stake holders & government.

    Before long term effects start taking effect, sell your stock options & find a new challenge moving forward exploring new opportunities. And never look back.

  12. “A driving factor is new requirements to lower noise and emissions means the 767F can’t be produced from 2028 unless exempted. The latter is unlikely under a Democratic Administration, except as a bridge aircraft to a new solution.
    If a Republican takes over the White House, an exemption is likely. ”

    I think this is one of the instances where a company gets so bogged down by politics (mind you: politics they’re getting actively involved in, lobbying etc) that they completely ignore the big picture of what would be the best course of action.
    And extending the 767F’s production life beyond 2028 – 47 years after it first flew, still with the same engine generation – is just missing the point completely. It wouldn’t even buy them any serious time with regard to new projects – while also thwarting their own stated “eco” ambitions.

    But Boeing being Boeing these days, I fully expect them to delay their new plane a bit more, try to lobby for an exemption for the 767 beyond 2028 – to either not get it in the end, or to get it and only get maybe a year’s worth of additional production out of it.

    Rather than simply closing down the 767 line, appreciating what it has done for Boeing over the years, but then focus on the next right thing for their product lineup. Sure, it would cede some ground to Airbus for a few years, but with the objective of creating a great, competitive product down the line.

    But as I said – I fully expect lobbying for short-term gain to win out. Again. Just like during the CSeries saga, and look how well that turned out.

    • anfromme:

      As much as I detest Calhoun and his predecessors back to Stonecipher, I would do the same if it was my business.

      So, lets count up the numbers as best I can.

      There will be be 170 KC-46A built after 2027 (based on the assumption the USAF elects to extend the current KC-X contract per recent statements). All those will be the old gen polluting engines.

      At best there will be 24 767F built a year after 2027.

      How many 767 Pax to F conversions per year? All Amazon’s are conversions.

      UPS and FedEx are the big buyers of the 767F and they can afford new, most operations go with the lower cost Pax to F conversions.

      A 787F is going to be high cost. Maybe a nice but not huge market.

      So yea, unless someone really presses and wants the 787F and willing to pay the price for it, there is no reason not to get as much leverage out of the 767 as Boeing possibly can.

      I do not buy that a Democratic administration would kill it, Scott says extend and that would take them X number more years.

      And factor in hours in the air. FedEx flies and parks their as does Amazon.

      Boeing could probably pay to convert a coal plant to natural gas and save more emissions than replacing the 767F would (its not like a 787F would be no emissions, it would be20% fewer than a 767, coal plant going 24 hours a day? – make it natural gas and 95% less emissions. )

      And what about all those A330-300 conversions with those old engines?

      There is a balance and while I detest Calhoun, I would make that same judgement as it has nothing to do with him and good business sense and there are far worse emissions issues in the world by orders of magnitude than a paltry few 767F after 2027.

      • A natural gas dual cycle (gas turbine/steam turbine) plant can produce a unit of electricity with about 1/3 the CO2 emissions (roughly 67% reduction) as a coal plant, nothing like 95%.

        2/3rds is still a lot and is pretty much the whole reason the U.S. has actually reduced CO2 emissions over the last 10-15 years although we still produce much more per capita than other rich industrial countries.

        • Dan F.

          Thank you, I stand corrected, I was just throwing numbers out, only so much time to research and I have a lot of other areas I participate in.

          • Yes, you very often engage in “just throwing numbers out”…

          • Ahh yes, but then there is the Mary Poppins of Aviation.

          • It’s not that difficult if you follow news closely, excluding an infamous news channel. I mostly read news.

          • -> “Both A320 and MAX share the same damned engines for crying out loud.”

            I wonder who’s laughing. Fantasy commentator making stuff up.

  13. A couple years ago GE put the company in the hands of an outsider, Larry Culp, who was appointed CEO and Chairman. Yesterday the WSJ reported that he just booted out the longtime CFO of GE Aviation and replaced him with an outsider.
    Meanwhile Calhoun recently booted out Boeing’s CFO, replacing him with one of his GE minions. (Every Mr. Burns needs his Smithers.)
    Apparently there is one place where GE leaders are still regarded as business geniuses….Boeing.

    • Thanks for that comment, John.

      > Meanwhile Calhoun recently booted out Boeing’s CFO, replacing him with one of his GE minions. (Every Mr. Burns needs his Smithers.) <

      Funny, that. 😉

      • Smith was Boeings CFO since 2011, so him retiring after 10 years is just a standard executive changeover.

        Theres always a ‘Sideshow Bob’ around who thinks he knows everything

          • Fanciful claim. The CFO is hardly connected to their other problems.

            Sideshow Bob’s think they know the internal workings of Boeing executive changes than say experts who have covered Boeing for decades like those at LNA.

            The clown cars are becoming more outlandish

          • Only some cannot and would not read what’s written on the wall!

            One who knows nothing dreamed up fanciful accounting and bold enough to tell the world …. 🙂

            What’s sales? When is it recognized? Haven’t you read BA’s filings??

        • >.. so him retiring after 10 years is just a standard executive changeover. <

          "Nothing to see here; move right along.."

          Sure: "standard executive changeover", and Stuff Like That.


          • Probably wants to be CEO , has his chance if he moves elsewhere

          • Regardless of exactly why Smith departed we know for certain that Calhoun replaced him with a guy from GE, a failed conglomerate whose stock is in the toilet. After decades of presenting itself as an incubator of managerial genius, GE resorted to hiring a CEO from outside , with zero GE experience.
            So my point that GE managers are still regarded as geniuses only in Calhoun’s Boeing playpen, stands.

  14. Looks like some operators are happy that there’s a new freight offering in town:

    “All-Boeing cargo operator Silk Way West Airlines has placed an order for a pair of Airbus A350 Freighters, plus options for a further two examples.”



    SilkWay currently operates 12 B747s, with an average age of 13.3 years.

      • > There’s plenty of time® ….. <

        Yes, wait-and-see mode seems to be working fine for BCA bunch and their flacks; waiting themselves right on out of the business, it seems to me. Almost like it's a plan..

        everybody say "Golden Parachutes for all participants!"

        We'll see how it goes.

    • Was waiting for someone to gloat about that massive order for a whopping 2 airframes..
      Been on silkways’ case for 6 months now.., pleading with them to take the 2 350f’s… probably for basically nothing..
      Looks like they finally succeeded!!
      Let’s hope AB can do better this time around and learned their lesson from the 330f fiasco !!

      • TC:

        Its the small orders here and there that add up and you have to wonder about large orders (Qatar).

        I would call its a routine nice adder but not earth shaking.

        Earth shaking would be Lufthansa cancelling the 777-8F and picking up A350F!

        I am in fact surprised that Lufthansa elected to wait. Maybe prudent while things settle out as its going to be a rough 4 years I think.

        • As of 30. June 2022, Airbus has now over 30 confirmed orders for the A350F and increasing by the week.

          • I have it at 22 but that info could be dated.

            They are doing nicely with it, I had not expected that but had also not expected to see the 777X delayed again. Silly me.

          • Boeing could® …. but can’t. Anything new here??

    • Every plane passenger sits adjacent to only one aisle.

      Out of interest what would you use the other aisle for when you have one thats convenient and what difference does say 9 hrs make compared to 6 hrs

      • Explain to us, please, how you arrive at the conclusion that a window-seat in the A321 economy section is “adjacent” to an aisle…

          • No, my “problem” is trying to make sense of your weird (and incorrect) assertion…

        • Like the other dude/ alter ego, Duke seems quite unfamiliar with the meanings of words..

          “adjacent”: L. : adjoining, contiguous.

          It’s not hard, Friend: a cheap etymological dictionary could help even you.

          • Duke:

            I get what you mean. I flew Sardine class to Taiwan on the way to the Philippines back in the 80s (747 SP). No better than a single aisle as far as my experience was concerned .

            For some reason I got first class from Japan and business class from Seattle to Anchorage (I got to wave at Anchorage as we flew by it from Japan).

            I got a whole row of seats to myself from Japan to Seattle and got caught up on my sleep (and blessedly cool after the Philippines heat and humidity, ungh)

      • Duke: I’m happy to provide an answer to your question above, and it will be in a dialect
        of English understandable to all. All you have to do, first, is answer the question I asked
        you earlier below, where I asked you for evidence that *your claim* that ABC’s reporting on the Boeing 737MAX’s ongoing safety issues is factually incorrect. Deal?

        • “..evidence for..”

          Sure wish the edit function worked on my box.

          • Bill7:

            Right now mine is working, its more often now but not consistent.

            There is no pattern to it I have scoped out.

  15. How about “Boeing C-suiters and PR hacks Vow to get Richer off of BCA Carcass”, as an alternative lede? That’s how it looks to me, at this time.

  16. Dukeofurl said on June 28, 2022:

    > ABC in Australia is was [sic] the dummy who dont [sic] check their stuff, who ran with it. <

    Is your claim that some part of their recent reporting of the Boeing 737MAX's continuing in-service safety issues is *wrong* ? If so, please provide a correction to it, so we can all be the wiser.

    That commenter continually makes assertions without evidence. Almost like..

  17. Adding: has anyone else noticed that the “two” consistently evidence-free commenters seem to arrive and depart almost simultaneously (usually when asked for evidence to support their unlikely claims) ?

    odd [scratches head]..

    • Wheres your evidence of anything

      Most of your comments seem related to your work as the blog ‘Hall monitor’

    • Bill7:

      I have noted the Bryce and Pedro show so that is a good observation.

  18. > Most of your comments seem related to your work as the blog ‘Hall monitor’ <

    I do not think so, but thank you for the feedback.

    Also, some evidence for your claim above that ABC's recent reporting on the Boeing 737MAX's recurring safety issues contains inaccuracies *could* help your credibility. If you're on Boeing's
    A-team, they really are in a world of hurt. 😉

    • Just look at the Airbus plane faults reported in Avation Herald just this month
      Canada A321 at Regina on May 31st 2022, hydraulic leak
      Arabia A320 near Ahmedabad on Jun 6th 2022, engine shut down in flight
      Thai AirAsia A320 near Bangkok on Jun 5th 2022, loss of cabin pressure
      British Airways A319 near London on Aug 6th 2021, avionics issues
      TAP A339 near Lisbon on Jun 17th 2022, engine problem
      Allegiant A320 at Tulsa on Jun 17th 2022, fumes on board
      World2Fly A333 at Lisbon on Jun 18th 2022, could not fully retract landing gear
      Qantas A332 at Sydney on Dec 15th 2019, hydraulic leak prompts evacuation
      British Airways A319 at London on Jun 22nd 2022, fumes in cockpit trigger rapid disembarkation
      Play A20N near Keflavik on Jun 13th 2022, suspected fuel leak
      VARA A320 at Perth on May 24th 2022, loss of cabin pressure
      Spirit A319 at Detroit on Jun 23rd 2022, gear indication on landing
      HK Express A20N at Hong Kong on Jun 27th 2022, smoke in cabin
      Eurowings A319 at Corfu on Jun 26th 2022, panel missing on landing
      SAA A333 over Botswana on Apr 15th 2022, both engines surged until landing Johannesburg

      Surely all this says that planes are complex pieces of macahinary with high maintenance problems and errors .
      Doesnt mean they are ‘unsafe’. Thats just scare mongering by the misinformed – who often get their info from unreliable sources . Imagine thinking that !


      • Thanks, Duke. Have you any further comment
        on your previous claims that the ABC’s reports on the 737 MAX’s ongoing safety issues were the work of “dummys” [sic], or in some way false or duplicitous?

        Thanks in advance, Duke; and, Yours Always in Truth,

        I Remain,


        • 7.30 / World exclusive by Kathryn Diss, Kevin Nguyen and Meghna Bali
          none have any experience in Aviation nor the technical understanding
          Strangely , compared to the original ‘sccop’ they now have a full story
          including actual names for sources along side the ‘usual suspect’ Pearson.
          Its still a grab bag of whataboutism only barely ‘adjacent’ to safety concerns

          this is what I call a safety problem
          ‘Canada E190 and Canada B773 at Toronto on Mar 7th 2020, both aircraft accelerated on same runway at same time, both aircraft rejected takeoff

          • Duke said: “Strangely , compared to the original ‘sccop’ they now have a full story
            including actual names for sources along side the ‘usual suspect’ Pearson.
            Its still a grab bag of whataboutism only barely ‘adjacent’ to safety concerns.”

            Who is “Pearson”, and of what relevance would he be to the 737MAX’s ongoing safety issues, after two of the selfsame Boeing planes have fallen out of the sky
            killing all 346 persons on board ? I know of no person named “Pearson” who might have any relevance to the Boeing 737 crashes..

            But then: why am I choosing to contend with a Boeing-shill who *can’t even get proper names* right?

          • Duke: your previous claim (see above in this thread) was that the ABC reporting on the Boeing 737MAX’s ongoing safety issues- after two of those planes have crashed already, killing 346 persons- was wrong. Please support that claim, or *publicly retract* it.

            Thank You.

          • @DoU

            More reading difficulties.

            Pierson isn’t named as a source — he’s merely commenting on the incidents.

            The sources are:
            “The safety report data was extracted from the FAA Service Difficulty Reporting System as well as anonymous reports submitted to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System.”

          • You havent read the ABC report have you . Its not ‘about’ the Max MCAS issues which are appalling negligence for Boeing

            Dont just skim it but understand what it says
            ‘The incidents, pulled from US government air safety databases, are among more than 60 mid-flight problems reported by pilots in the 12 months after the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recertified the plane’s airworthiness in late 2020.’

            Specific time period and specific incidents cherry picked from the FAA SDRX database.

            Get back to us when you have understood

            And reading between the lines Pierson is the source for those ‘generalist’ reporters bylines listed on ABCs report/scoop/ beat up

          • @ DoU
            More weirdness.

            Why bring up MCAS? The ABC report — and the rest of us — are talking about the MAX in general…not MCAS in particular.

            And do inform us more about this “between the lines” indication that Pierson is the source? The DOT and NTSB have started an investigation into this matter — do you really think they’d do that because of Pierson?

          • Duke:

            Please pull back, I would dislike seeing you suspended.

            Nothing wrong with asking people to support their info as you do latter on.

            Yeas ABC Australia is one retraction after another.

            And while we need to watch the snark, I full support your presentation in that it is cherry picked and is routine aircraft ops that affects all aircraft (and I do mean all)

            Good work on the A320 incidents.

          • Warning: Not alt-reality

            Picking the relevant period and incidents =/= cherry pick.

      • @ DoU
        Referring to your AH list, in order to be comparable to the events reported in the ABC article, we need:
        – In-flight events only;
        – A320 family events only;
        – 180 serious incidents and 18 emergencies in 18 months since MAX recert (see post above — the number of neos is 3x the number of MAXs);
        – A grounding of a large sub-fleet to address a safety issue;
        – A clear relationship to production quality issues.

        Off you go.

        • Its not intended to be ‘comparable’ because any cherry picking of these incident reports is rubbish

          You have complex systems that require a lot of maintenance. As well no matter how long a type has been in service new problems will arise that need a range of responses.

          • In other words: you have no evidence to back your claim that the reported incidents with the MAX are just typical, everyday aviation glitches.

            Your evasive answer speaks for itself.

          • Duke has all the evidence and you clearly have not a clue about the subject.

            Anyone that knows anything about aviation knows how complex aircraft are and they are the most technicality advanced and put in the smallest package (as well as light) as possible.

            Bryce is just showing his gross ignorance here. Mary Poppins could do better.

          • Duke has no evidence and you clearly have not a clue about the subject.

            Anyone that knows anything about aviation knows that issues as reported by ABC are unacceptable — which is why they’ve prompted a DOT audit.

            TW is just showing his gross ignorance here. Mary Poppins could do better.

  19. My guess is that Boeing will in fact get waivers
    so they can continue to produce 767Fs, and also
    for the [dog’s breakfast, doomed] Boeing 737MAX™-10. Getting those waivers, if it happens, will not be in that company’s long-term interest, I think; that’s assuming that
    keeping present-day BCA viable as a true competitor to Airbus is their goal. Maybe it’s not- as I’ve speculated before.

    • @Bill7

      I’m not so sure about these exemptions (correct term in the FAA regulatory world).
      Maybe for ancient 767, but Boeing has burned the bridge with the unethical and deceiving way they went about ensuring the Mad Max MCAS was hidden. This embarrassed the FAA, and killed a lot of innocent people and when they get burned they will make things difficult, difficult meaning no more soft ball for you Boeing. I’m seeing it daily and frankly, it’s long overdue. Boeing has scammed the product change rules long enough for derivative airplanes. This is why the 777X is in so much trouble and yes, the Mad Max -10.

      Now with all this said, there’s a very good reason why the Boeing corporate office (Ivory tower) is being moved to WDC.
      The FAA will issue the exemption and only if pressure is mounted from certain members of Congress. I hope I’m wrong.

      • Thanks very much for this comment, Airdoc.
        It’s always good to hear from those
        who’ve actually been there.

        • I see no reason not to waiver the 767 as often stated, its not an F issue the reg is directed in regards to passenger aircraft numbers.

          And the MAX-10 is caught up in a well meaning but misplace reg as well.

          It was intended for future grandfathering, not the MAX. No one expected the MAX-10 to be delayed or the -7 to be at some risk.

          So lets not be anti Boeing just to be anti Boeing.

          The risk is two very different cockpit systems and that is not good.

          You saw what happened with the Asiana 777 that the pilot was used to Airbus auto throttle and never occurred to him that it would not cover for his crappy landing.

          Someone needs to PROVE that screwing with the MAX alert system is going to make it safer.

          Those modern alert system have proven NOT to do what they portend.

          None of them was derived from human factors researcher, all the bells, whistles and screaming voices have proven to be failed by being ignored.

          So the modern alert system has failed.

          Anyone that has been in construction as long as I was can tell you that.

          It becomes routine so fast your head would spin.

          Its called the backup alert system. First it was clangers on the wheels of dump truck and earth moving equipment. After a while you ignore that.

          So then with electronics, they used horns. Yep, same thing, ignore it.

          then it was horn warbles and yep, you ignore that too.

          I rode with my brother up North in his new van, lane alert, always going off, he says, yea I don’t pay any attention to it, its just background.

          • I rode with my brother up North in his new van,

            If you’re in Sarah Palin land, how much further north can you go?

          • Frank:

            Sigh. I did not vote for her nor do I endorse her but like the guys that live in the EU, they have no choice but to live with Bryce!

            I was up here before she was even born so……. I ain’t letting her win by driving me out.

          • @ Frank
            Notice that @TW was so busy talking about himself (again) that he didn’t get around to actually answering your question? 😏

          • @Bryce

            What? I thought @TW has taken over the blog for awhile. 🙂

    • The USAF can be stuck as well as the 767-2C is FAA certified with its old PW4000 engines that will be stopped for new production as when the 767F is stopped due noise and emissions. For some reason the USAF/DOD decided that the KC-46A should be a tanker converted civil certified aircraft (maybe thinking their suppliers having a harder time rolling over the FAA than Wright Field as they experienced when Cobham started to try to FAA certify the refueling hardware/software that did not work properly anyway…)

        • Yep, and lets talk about BOOM, an ecological disaster that uses low emissions engines.

          Ergo, that is why ICAO and various EU ops are nothing more than bureaucratic posturing saying they are doing something when the poor Dutch boy needs 5,000 fingers to stop all the leaks.

          • Looks like someone has overlooked the fact that BOOM isn’t actually flying — it’s currently just a pipe dream.

            The same person regularly makes the same (tense-related) mistake w.r.t. the MAX-10.

  20. I see good friend Duke has still provided *no evidence whatsoever*for his claim that the ABC’s reporting of the Boeing 737’s ongoing, serious safety issues was inaccurate. None.

    And yes, friend Duke, it’s Ed *Pierson*. I tend not to trust self-interested parties- especially when they can’t even get trifles like proper names right. Those who cannot (or, conspicuously, don’t) get small stuff right cannot be trusted w/ bigger issues, such as the dog’s-breakfast 737MAX’s *lack of* airworthiness (mark my words, folks).

      • Another extrapolated personal fantasy.

        I see “corrections and clarifications” — not “retractions”.
        And I don’t see the MAX article in the list.

        Got anything else?

        • Emperor’s new clothes … only the “smart” and the “most excellent” can see. 😄

          • I have never seen so many correction in a publication of any kind.

            Duke: You done good, they just are so anti Boeing they won’t admit it.

            Too bad they don’t look in a mirror occasionally.

        • Theres retractions in that ABC list , they have pulled whole stories
          ‘The ABC has now removed that article from its website.’
          ‘image was immediately removed from all ABC platforms as soon as possible. ‘
          ‘This claim was incorrect and the story has been withdrawn.’
          many other stories have required substantial corrections

          This is only the first days on the story in question. Retractions will come in future weeks as they have a ‘process’

  21. DoU said: “Perhaps you and him are ‘adjacent’”
    More comic relief, setting aside the grammar for the moment.

    I like Duke a lot, and am pleased he’s somehow still around.

    • Bill7:

      I like Duke as well but it would be good if he got his fact correct at times. Not that I am perfect but when presented facts on something I had wrong, I fully admit it.

      As a side note, Boeing has installed the Synthetic AOA on the 2nd MAX-10 test aircraft. That is from Av Week.

      Also, it will be backfitted to the MAX fleet but no timeline was stated.

  22. Airbus scored 2 A350F ‘s yesterday. But what worries me more is that despite the good specs an 777-8F might have, certification is a different topic.

    The 777-8F will be certified using change product rule, with the 777-9 as certification base. That certification process is under high scrutiny today.

    Knowing the (monumental) certification trouble the 777-9 is going through, making promises based on a derivative based on a 777-9 type certification makes any planning superfluous at this stage.

    Ignoring this is a risky strategy.

    • Different rules for cargo versions

      Remember the An-124 , an ex soviet military plane got civilian cargo certification.

      • It’s either a changed product or a new type. Both require a lot of time & authorities have become allergic to outside / political pressure, remarkable exemptions, ambitious grandfathering of requirements and design and self certification.

        EIS 777-8F 2029? Market pressure having Boeing promising 2027 for 777-8F EIS, means not so much to me.

        • keesje:

          It really does not matter, first, Boeing has LOTS of time due to their screwing things up (its a feature not a bug!)

          And its all derived off a modern FBW aircrat, so all its wonderful. I mean FBW is the wonder of all wonders and aircraft never have problems that use it!

          On a more serious note, note that the 777-8 and the 8F are both the same length? Scott noted it but no one commented on it.

          So, Boeing was gong to do a -8 anyway (next) so you shift the focus to a 8F and with the extended gestation period, you have lots of time to engineer and test it.

          Boeing has the numbers for now and some good airlines for the 8F, Airbus has a good customer group and will get to market sooner and will keep picking up orders so I would say its pretty much a dead heat.

        • @ keesje
          Patrick Ky (EASA) was in the US last week to discuss certification of the 777X with BA and the FAA.
          If the outcome of that meeting was that the 777X will not be certified as a derivative, then the whole program is in quicksand.

          • And so it should be closely reviewed for what ever certification requires. There a lot of physiacl changes and I think there is deep interest in the control surface actuators which became an issue during test flights. As well the cockpit and flight assistance for the pilots is very new and deserdly under scrutiny

            the 777-300ER was certified itself as a derivative of the 777-200 series. So the process of a substantial derivative of derivative is complicated

          • Duke:

            I believe the ER series was a derivative of the original 777-200 and then LR series.

            And I agree, the AHJ need to verify all of it be it Boeing or Airbus with its failing lightening grid and the RR engine failures.

            Clearly the 777X has far more issues than it should have.

            Just like we see Airbus giving tech to China, we can’t trust Boeing to do the right thing (which Airbus mostly does).

            So there are two sides to that coin. Airbus aiding and abetting a country that want to take over the world vs Boeing and its build issues.

            One we can fix, the other, well if things go hot then the chickens come home to roost.

            The EU was in Soviet gas and oil denial and now they are seeing the reaping of the whirlwind.

            It is worth a ponder of what is plain as egg on the front of your shirt can be denied.

          • @Trans

            ” Airbus aiding and abetting a country that want to take over the world vs Boeing and its build issues.”

            Which country is that? The US? Russia? China? Great Britain? France?

            You know, all those current and former Imperial nations – some with other countries/territories still under their control.

          • @ Frank
            Remind us: which country was recently making noises about “acquiring” Greenland?

          • Decoupling is not an one-way street.

            “As a top US exporter with a 50-year relationship with China’s aviation industry, it is disappointing that geopolitical differences continue to constrain US aircraft exports […]

            Boeing aircraft sales to China historically support tens of thousands of American jobs, and we are hopeful orders and deliveries will resume promptly.”

  23. On the subject of the 787(F), one wonders if the DOT audit announced yesterday will further delay/derail plans to re-commence 787 deliveries in July.
    One also wonders if the audit will lead to a hiatus on 737 deliveries.


    “The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General confirmed Wednesday that it will conduct an audit of the FAA’s oversight of Boeing’s 737 and 787 assembly lines in Renton, Washington, and Charleston, South Carolina, respectively. The move follows several complaints received by Congress, the FAA, and the IG’s office about ongoing production deficiencies and undue pressure on the company’s staff”

    “Scheduled at the behest of chairmen and ranking members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its aviation subcommittee, the audit will center on an evaluation of the FAA’s oversight of Boeing’s 737 and 787 production. Specifically, it will focus on Boeing’s processes for identifying and resolving production issues and addressing allegations of unjustified pressure on employees at the plants.”

    “In a statement, the DOT’s IG office said it will begin the audit next month at FAA headquarters and regional offices responsible for overseeing Boeing production, as well as relevant Boeing locations.”


    “Meanwhile, the 737 Max, whose twin fatal crashes in October 2018 and March 2019 resulted in a 20-month grounding by the FAA and other global aviation authorities, has again come under scrutiny following reports by the Australian Broadcasting Company of six midair emergencies and dozens of groundings in the year following the lifting of the grounding order.”



      • Wow – look at those socialist loving, tree-hugging, medicare for all, Europeans investing in ‘Murica and creating jobs for the good people of Alabama.

        Someone should tell Alaska that they can order some A321Neo’s and write

        “Proudly built in America”

        all over them…

          • Frank:

            In a side note of Bizzare and still Aviation, Pacifia Northwest just send me a Brocuhur to invest in them.

            Its got a collage of an A320/A350 on it when in fact they are going to use (if they ever get off the ground) 757s, amazing.

            AK might flying the A321 NEO into here once in a while but have not seen it.

  24. Interesting GAO report:

    “Aircraft Certification:
    Comparison of U.S. and European Processes for Approving New Designs of Commercial Transport Airplanes”

    Some differences:

    “…In contrast, EASA officials said they use a risk-based approach for evaluating compliance findings as part of their review of the final certification package based on agreements made with the manufacturer earlier in the certification process. As part of this review, EASA engineers evaluate the technical basis of the compliance findings.”

    “…However, EASA officials said that they oversee the manufacturer’s certification compliance activities and all aspects involved in designing the airplane.”


    • I read the entire report ( not just the summary), essentially both use similar methods with only small differences.

      However when both agencies rely on 90% of certification processes by the applicant it comes down to’ whos watching the watchers’

      • Reading entire reports is a great way to improve reading skills!
        Did you notice that some of the key differences were already mentioned in my previous post above?
        Often, “small differences” can be very important.

      • Duke:

        Bureaucratic piling on, where were they when the FAA and Trump went rogue?

        • Hmm: 2 path were visible:
          ignore nagging EASA intervention
          and judicious use of “if you get difficult we will mire your own stuff with conjured up interventions”
          Just the regular A()merica thing.

  25. Boeing talking about an NMA-F when there may not be any NMA?
    Sure…first comes the NMA-F, then an extended range variant, the F-Ultra, or NMA-FU.
    The marketing practically sells itself.

    • Well, it’s the same story with the 777X, isn’t it?
      BA is talking about a 777XF when there may not ever be a certified 777X passenger version.

      • Yes, they need to have plans ready for any contingency.
        I expect they will continue to completion with the 777X. I am much more pessimistic about potential launch of an NMA.
        The 777X is a derivative, so what is the total program cost, 1-2 billion?
        The NMA is a clean sheet program, so cost estimates are in the range of $15 billion, an order of magnitude higher.
        The GE/McDonnell execs who took over are big fans of derivatives but have avoided clean sheet programs like the plague….cheaper is always better.

        • Boeing has already written off $6.5 billion on the program. The wings alone were $2 billion. Because of all the differences, it’s essentially turning into a clean sheet.

          • Kind of like saving money on the 787 outsourcing and we are going to be assemblers and then spending 30 billion!

            Oh, and why are we not making the ROI that Rockwell is?

          • The follow up question is, did it make business sense to spend that kind of $$ on a wide body niche plane when you have no good alternative to the A321XLR space? Did the 777X really have a better business case than the NMA?
            Let me guess, although in the end the 777X will cost, what, $10 billion, when they launched the plan was it would cost $2.5 billion?
            I am just guessing here, what was the actual budget when they launched the 777X?
            One of the recurring failures of the GE/McDonnell business style is starting every project with unrealistic pie-in-the-sky budgets and schedules. This makes execution impossible, and likely drives increases in the final cost.
            How about starting with a realistic plan and staying close to that plan?

          • @John

            BA launched the 777X in 2012.

            The A321Neo was launched in 2010. The A321LR in late 2014. The A321XLR in 2019.

            Boeing wasn’t even looking at the space that Airbus moved into and no NB they had would have matched the LR & XLR. They needed (and still do need) a clean sheet in that spot.

            The NBA/MMA/MoM/797 was always a 767 replacement.

          • -> did it make business sense to spend that kind of $$ on a wide body niche plane when you have no good alternative to the A321XLR space?

            On the surface, at a cost of $15 to $20 billion, what do you think?? It’s a “niche” market.

          • niche.

            a niche product makes sense in context of being a family member of core market products.
            See A320 and subtype A321(X)LR
            potentially A350 and the ULR subtypes ( 359 and 3510 based )

          • Unfortunately the smartest minds in BA’s upper echelon has painted themselves into a corner, don’t you agree?

            BA is late to the MoM market, how many potential sales can it make?

    • > NMA-FU. The marketing practically sells itself. <

      Heh- good stuff. I think we'll see a Boeing NMA right around the twelth of Never. I am hoping they prove me entirely wrong.

  26. Looks like China Southern has really gone sour on the MAX:

    “China Southern inks US$12.2b deal with Airbus for 96 jets”

    “The move is a blow for rival Boeing, historically the Chinese carrier’s biggest customer in Asia’s largest economy. China Southern in May removed more than 100 of the US manufacturer’s 737 Max jets from its near-term fleet plans, citing uncertainty over deliveries.

    “That tack was a sharp reversal for China Southern, which had outlined plans to rapidly expand its 737 Max fleet, saying in its annual report in March that 39 were due to arrive this year, building toward a total of 103 deliveries through 2024.”


        • I’m predicting the Chinese will not re-cert the mad max. Boeing spent a ton of money developing a mad max completion and delivery center in Zhoushan. I was involved with getting the FAA & CAAC to approve this plan.
          Now the place sits empty….. like most of Boeing’s plans these days.
          Working there all those years I always heard Boeing has deep pockets. Well those pockets have a hole in them now.

      • That’s a whole lot of new orders for Airbus, no? Looks like ratcheting up
        production (including in Mobile, AL, USA) could work out OK for them.


          • Our prolific but often off the mark commentator struck again:

            -> … Airbus is giving them both fighter …

            Does AB itself has any top-secret fighter tech?? 😂

          • -> The Chinese were late to getting orders in and those will be spread out over time.

            Has United order any MAX from Boeing before March 2020? About three years ago, AB sold 290 A320 family jets to China. Who’s late??

          • @Bryce

            The politico was sold to Axel Springer. The article’s title is eye catching click bait.

            -> … spokesman for Airbus said: “Airbus’ relationship with Chinese companies, including AVIC, is *fully compliant with all European and international laws and regulations, notably with regards to the existing arms embargo on China*. As such, Airbus’ industrial and technology partnerships in China are exclusively focused on civil aerospace and services.”

            Buried in the article:
            -> “There is no indication that any of Airbus’ technology has ended up in the possession of the Chinese military.”

            It’s another case of much ado about nothing! But resident AB basher would run away with it, like a drowning man would grasp at a straw!!

            It’s a whole article written on a report from a U.S. based consultancy, Horizon Advisory.

          • @ Pedro
            Yes, the Politico article fits into the series of sensationalist articles that have appeared in the past few months as part of a campaign to try to prevent LM/AB from winning a KC-Y contest (if one comes). It’s the same old theme: Airbus does business with China, and therefore can’t be trusted with “sensitive” US military projects. As you can see from our commenter’s reaction above, a lot of people in the US are receptive to such paranoia.

            Regarding the AB order announced on Friday, you are correct in stating that China also ordered 290 aircraft from Airbus in 2019: see link. On the other hand, BA has had zero orders from China since 2017.


          • “The politico was sold to Axel Springer. ”

            Springer SE is no longer traded as ownership
            is about 50/50 between Friede Springer/Mathias Doepfner and KKR.
            content wise all branches of Springer AG today are strongly US interests aligned.

            “Der Spiegel” has long ago lost its journalistic bite.

  27. Disparare analyst views on the potential resumption of 787 deliveries:


    “Citi analyst Charles Armitage said in a note to clients Friday that recent data suggests Boeing (NYSE:BA) is optimistic regarding FAA clearance of the 787 aircraft.

    “…While we still do not propose a specific time frame for 787 deliveries, we reiterate our view that these planes are being prepared in anticipation of delivery. To us, this would indicate that Boeing are optimistic regarding FAA clearance.””


    “However, Armitage’s comments contrast Morgan Stanley analyst Kristine Liwag who said yesterday that the US DOT audit of FAA oversight of Boeing 737 and 787 production is “incrementally negative for BA.”

    “Liwag, who has an Overweight rating and $215.00 price target on Boeing, told investors that it “potentially incentivizes added FAA scrutiny at a time when BA is seeking approval of the 787 and is facing supply chain constraints on the MAX production line.””



  28. Interesting article on Bloomberg:

    “Boeing Pain From US-China Trade War Seen in Airbus Bonanza”

    ““As a top US exporter with a 50-year relationship with China’s aviation industry, it is disappointing that geopolitical differences continue to constrain US aircraft exports,” a Boeing spokesperson said Friday in a statement. ”

    ““This is China sending a sign, and it hurts Boeing terribly,” said George Ferguson, analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.”

    “Boeing is storing around 150 jets that it built but never delivered to China, most of them narrow-body Max models. Restarting those hand-overs would generate cash that the US manufacturer badly needs to help pay down its $58 billion debt. Those deliveries also would help make the case to speed Boeing’s 737 production, Ferguson said.”


    • > ““This is China sending a sign, and it hurts Boeing terribly,” said George Ferguson, analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.”
      “Boeing is storing around 150 jets that it built but never delivered to China, most of them narrow-body Max models..”

      Poor Dears. Maybe making proxy war on your biggest provider of goods, and one of your biggest suppliers of energy energy energy has a touch of downside to it- who could’ve ever known?

      Consider my alternative hypothesis, though- to me its fit is seeming quite good,
      but we will see (are seeing now, I think).

      • -> At the market’s peak in 2018, China took around 350 jets in a single year, notes Richard Aboulafia, analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory. By prioritizing China’s deliveries, Airbus could further squeeze Boeing, he said. “The Chinese are preparing for a comeback just like you’re seeing in the rest of the world, and it’s pretty clear the US is at a disadvantage,” he said.

  29. > Looks like someone has overlooked the fact that BOOM isn’t actually flying — it’s currently just a pipe dream. <

    I was trying to find any possible relevance of that comment to the topics at hand, myself, regardless of tenses.

    He's definitely on a roll again today. I have this (unwanted!) vision of- his Daily Work being done, setting us all straight- his head drops finally onto the keyboard in Ecstatic Completion (sorry).

    • I don’t believe currently BOOM has found an engine supplier, all it has is a research agreement. 😂

      In an alt-reality world, the above doedn’t matter.

      • WRT ‘Boom™’: if one were truly serious about launching a product, would one really name it
        after that product’s worst feature- the feature that has killed off supersonic transport before?

        #unserious / something else going on

        • They have a test article and I think its about to fly. Lots of bucks going into this.

          No I don’t think Boom will ever get off the ground as a real aircraft but the absurdity of a low emissions aircraft that used 100 times the fuel to carry a few people ? Wow.

          • Sigh. When would you stop acting like a kid??

            -> While these are all exciting milestones in the development of the XB-1 aircraft, *very little of what it demonstrates will translate directly to Boom’s planned Overture supersonic passenger aircraft*.

            *The body shape will be completely different on Overture*. And the J85s will not power the much larger Overture aircraft.


            No engine, no airplane (yet) … the test is all show and no go, much ado about nothing.

    • Sure!
      Just like the occasional test flights of the MAX in China in the past few months have been continually (mis)interpreted as an indication that re-cert was imminent.

      And you consider this to be “real news”…? 🤔

      • “Preparing to Resume..”

        Wake me up when it happens *in fact*; Boeing PR has been pumping out this word-stuff for months now: “787 Deliveries Imminent!”

        When you just lost 292 orders to the Other Guys, you gotta say *something*.

    • Hope springs eternal? For how long before the reality sinks in??

      -> The first reaction is denial. In this stage, individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality … When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals.

      • Reality is (drum roll):

        -> China Southern in May removed more than 100 of the US manufacturer’s 737 Max jets from its near-term fleet plans, citing uncertainty over deliveries.

        • And to make matters worse: there’s now also a DOT audit starting this month, precipitated by the shocking revelations in the recent ABC article.
          What incentive do the Chinese have to un-ground the MAX when it seems that it’s still plagued by serious (production) issues?

  30. An AirCurrent “Scoop” is reporting that Delta is “close” to ordering up to 130 MAX-10s from BA, with a possible order announcement in Farnborough:


    The article was published on July 1, so one wonders to what extent the coming DOT audit — which was only announced on June 29 — will have an effect on this story. The DOT audit is due to commence this month.

    And, of course, there’s the black certification cloud hanging above the MAX-10, which is unlikely to be certified before the coming Dec. 31 deadline. Will Congress — which requested the DOT audit — be minded to grant an extension? And even if it does, will EASA (and other regulators) follow suit?

    • @Bryce

      Delta CEO sees *political* risk in not having U.S. made Boeing on order.

      Tells you all you need to know.

  31. Supply chain issues at Boeing:

    “The big news recently coming out of Boeing’s CEO is that he believes that supply chain issues hitting the aviation industry will extend at least into 2023 and possibly late into the year. According to Reuters, Calhoun also said that the “biggest restraint” on suppliers was “labor availability”.”

    “Boeing investors got an advance warning of the supply chain issues when Tom Gentile, CEO of key supplier Spirit AeroSystems (SPR 3.52%), a manufacturer of aerostructure and components on the Boeing 737 MAX and other aircraft, told investors it expected to maintain a rate of 31 737 MAX aircraft a month. Previously, Spirit had expected to ramp up production in the fall, leading to a total of 350 for the year, but Gentile now expects just 315.”

    [*** note: 315 for the year corresponds to an average of 26.25 p/m]

    “Boeing is struggling to ramp up production on its key aircraft program, the narrow-body 737 MAX. It’s a significant issue for the company because Boeing’s operating margin in its commercial airplane segment is highly dependent on volume. In other words, the more planes delivered, the more margin expansion opportunities.”

    [***note: Did you see that, @TW? Production rate affects margin]

    “The component shortages are well documented, but it’s worth dwelling on Calhoun’s comment on “labor availability” in the industry is an issue. This suggests the supply chain issues may turn out to be more structural in nature than many previously thought. Some of the factors negatively influencing the supply chain — the war in Ukraine, lockdowns in China and elsewhere, a lack of investment in crucial commodities and components such as semiconductors and energy — can be resolved and are likely to prove temporary. However, the difficulty of acquiring and retaining a skilled workforce may prove a more lasting issue. Indeed, speaking in a Bloomberg interview Calhoun recently said a slowdown in the economy would be “helpful” for Boeing as it would make recruiting and retaining skilled workers easier.”

    “Boeing’s problems with ramping up production echo across the industrial sector. The demand is there; the ability to meet all of it is not. As such, companies can’t rely on volume increases to expand margins. Meanwhile, the component shortages, raw material cost inflation, and labor availability issues mean the issues won’t go away anytime soon.”

    “In this environment of difficulty with expanding production, pricing power is key to profit growth and margin expansion. As such, it’s likely to be challenging if the company you invest in isn’t demonstrating pricing power and can fully offset cost increases with pricing actions.”

    “As for Boeing, its traditional reliance on volume ramp-ups and the fact that it is executing against a large backlog of already placed orders mean it is likely to face ongoing margin challenges.”


    • So…just move production to Africa like Spirit did with the C series !!sorry a220 for you purists.., after All mighty Airbus demanded dramatic cost reduction for the program.!!!
      Off to Africa we go.!!
      Looks like they’re going to succeed.. albeit…not exactly the hotbed of aerospace manufacturing..
      Well …
      Waiting for the Bus boy report of the huge fuselage hole that opened up on the Emirates a380 after take off from Dubai..intially thought burst tire.(.turned out not to be the case).. when they landed at Brisbane.!!!
      No concerns .!!!.ok now all back to your usual
      Verbal assault on Boeing. !!!

      • TC:

        Spirit moved some production of some parts over to (Morocco?) who like the Airbus countries has invested in aerospace and is trying to create an industry.

        Its not like they are going into the totally messed up Congo (created by Belgium I believe in one of their imperialist conquests)

        Spirit is just joining in the spirit of lowest production costs like formerly was done in China (and the center fuselage is built in China with Western tech)


        But yes, lets bash Boeing while stabbing the West in the back (reminds me a lot about the former Soviet situation)

        At least Morocco does not claim the Mediterranean sea as its own.

        And as we know, Airbus is like Boeing in twisting arms, they are just not as public about it.

        • It looks as if yesterday’s huge AB order has put BA’s “back office” into a *very* bad mood.

          Also manifesting marked racist views toward Africa.

          Very poor behavior indeed!

          • It’s pretty funny, actually, because they have no ammo: “Airbus bad!”, and “China bad!”

            oh, that’ll help..


          • @ Bill7

            The Motley Fool article is quite comprehensive, and its conclusions are bad news for BA.
            For the “back office”, the situation is going from bad to worse. There must be considerable panic behind the scenes. Time for a scapegoating blitzkrieg.

            Talk about the Seven Circles of Hell…

          • Sure Bryce..and if Boeing outsourced there, to cut costs ;
            we wouldn’tt here the end of it….

          • @ TC
            Who says Spirit’s use of facilities in Morocco is about “cutting costs”?
            What about *quality*? Morocco has been making parts for all Airbus commercial aircraft for years, and the Spirit facility there previously made parts for Bombardier. A very satisfactory relationship, yielding high-quality products.

            Contrast that with the disastrous quality that BA is getting out of “FOD Central” in Charleston. Worse still: despite that appalling quality, BA is moving even more production to Charleston — in a move that is clearly driven by cost-cutting. An example of “cut corners so as to cut costs”.


        • Morocco has occupied Western Sahara. Yeah as long as it’s not taking over the Mediterranean, our AK commentator doesn’t blink an eye. Haha.

          • He’s also conveniently forgetting that “a certain other country” effectively claimed part of the Caribbean in Oct. 1962, and used force to selectively impede shipping in international waters.

          • I suspect that Wednesday’s announcement of an impending DOT audit of the FAA’s oversight of MAX production — prompted by the shocking ABC revelations — may have taken the wind out of his sails.

            Don’t hold your breath.

      • BA already has major B777 & B787 subcontractor(s) in the M.E. I can guarantee you BA would have zero concern where Spirit makes components if they can lower the price.

  32. Kind of ironic that the pandemic shutdown lasted about 12-18 months, and 12 months later we still can’t get supply chains up to prepandemic levels.
    Maybe a driver is that the shutdown lasted longer in China and elsewhere?

    • Very important aspect: the lockdown forced many people to seek new jobs, because their old sectors ground to a halt. They’ve now gotten to like those new jobs, and they don’t want to go back to the old ones. Things that play a role: salary, working hours, commute time, holiday time, ability to stay working from home, etc.

      • It’s imp. to note that while many countries had on and off lockdiwn over the last two and a half year or so, China continues without any lockdown most of the time during that period.

    • Nobody produces stuff for “long term” storage at a US west coast ancorage.
      That transport infrastructure break down is a power up for further FUBAR.

  33. > For the “back office”, the situation is going from bad to worse. There must be considerable panic behind the scenes. Time for a scapegoating blitzkrieg. <

    Actually, what's been notable to me is the relatively muted response in our US corporatist press (and associates, to whom you've alluded, I think) to China's 292-plane Airbus order. Imagine, as a thought experiment, if an order of that size went to the USian outfit.. it didn't, though.

    Mere denial, or something deeper going on? We will see.

  34. > may have taken the wind out of his sails. Don’t hold your breath. <

    Haven't heard from ol' Duke- a good friend of mine, by the way- for a few days. Seems like he'd be right on top of those corrections and retractions that he said were imminent.
    Trans, too..



  35. On June 4 Calhoun was quoted:
    “…Our customers express confidence to me….”

  36. Interesting Chinese perspective on last Friday’s big order of Airbus planes

    (1) It seems that the Chinese are less than impressed by BA’s recent safety record:

    “There is no doubt that economic factors such as product performance, safety, and cost-effectiveness are an important basis for airlines to make decisions, especially amid the earlier grounding of Boeing 737 MAX due to safety concerns and its suspected involvement in a recent serious plane safety event in China.”

    (2) And then the geopolitics:

    “Simply looking at civil aviation cooperation between China and Europe from a geopolitical perspective cannot help Boeing expand market share in China. The Chinese market is big enough for cooperation with many countries, but it should be based on equal footing and mutual benefits.”


  37. Another Chinese article takes a series of swipes at BA and the US:

    “…but the two devastating plane crashes involving B737 Max have undermined market confidence in the US aircraft manufacturer. Moreover, the US government’s increasing crackdowns on Chinese companies also pose serious challenges and risks for bilateral business cooperation, analysts pointed out.”

    “The US has been imposing sanctions on various areas, including the maintenance and repair of Boeing aircraft, and there are big problems when it comes to safe operation of equipment, which will actually greatly affect the reliability and stability of Boeing’s aircraft services, and this is an important concern for the airlines when buying planes, Lin Zhijie, an independent market watcher, told the Global Times on Sunday.”


    • quelle suprise 🙂
      chicken coming home to roost.

      The US is so absolute proud on using the sanctions machine.

      • The results “achieved” with the sanctions are so obviously counter to their purported aims- and over and over, and over yet again- that one might almost think that it’s intentional..

        The war is not really on RU; it’s on domestic Western populations, I think. This winter should tell us much more.

        • An adequate illustration from our leaders™ here in the US:

          “..White House economic adviser Brian Deese on Thursday told CNN that high gas prices were a necessary inconvenience to preserve the “future of the liberal world order,” amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. The average price of gas exceeded $5 per gallon for the first time in U.S. history in early June. CNN’s Victor Blackwell asked Deese to speak to comments President Joe Biden made earlier in the day suggesting Americans would pay high prices for “as long as it takes” for the war in Ukraine to end. Blackwell noted that experts have predicted the war’s end is unlikely to come in the near future before asking Deese “what do you say to those families that say ‘listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years. This is just not sustainable’?”

          “What you heard from the president today was a clear articulation of the stakes,” Deese answered. “This is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm.” The Biden administration has drawn considerable criticism for its handling of the economy, especially on inflation and energy policy. Amid rising energy costs and opposition demands for increased domestic production, the government on Friday announced it had yet to decide on a plan to deny or approve, in part or in full, the expansion of oil and gas drilling leases in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico..”

          “Suffer, proles!” seems to be the ruling-class’s message to the rest of us.

          • Hot air, isn’t it?
            The sanctions haven’t hindered Vlad to any great extent — au contraire, the elevated oil price (caused by sanctions) is putting a record amount of revenue in his coffers.
            Not clear at all how this is aiding “the liberal world order”.
            Nothing wrong with stopping or reducing the purchase of Russian energy — but do it quietly and in a measured manner, rather than using rash, symbolic grandstanding.

            Russia, China and India are now laughing while “the west” licks its wounds.

            Incidentally, JP Morgan is expecting gasoline prices in the US to hit $10 per gallon…

      • If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

        No doubt our prolific commentator would see things differently in a world of alt-reality.

  38. ‘Boeing SC’s 787 delivery reboot is ‘almost there.’ Or is it?’:

    “..The newest fly in the 787 ointment splashed down one week later. The U.S. Department of Transportation muddied the waters Wednesday by announcing its inspector general will audit the FAA’s oversight of the Dreamliner program’s manufacturing problems. The 737 Max also will be scrutinized.

    The agency didn’t say how long the process will take, only that it will start this month. But it’s more likely than not that a complex government review will push the long-awaited 787 delivery reboot down the runway, past Farnborough.

    “It’s concerning on many levels,” said aviation consultant and longtime Boeing watcher Richard Aboulafia, managing director at AeroDynamic Advisory. “If the FAA is under scrutiny, that increases the risk of further delays.” ..”



  39. I thought I had made this comment here, but can’t find it:

    So the Farnborough Airshow is weeks away. Airbus announces a huge order for 300 aircraft from China.

    Usually OEM’s hold back this kind of news to make a splash at the airshow.

    Begs the question;

    If Airbus can announce an order for 300 jets now, what else have they got hiding up their sleeves for Farnborough?

  40. > If Airbus can announce an order for 300 jets now, what else have they got hiding up their sleeves for Farnborough? <

    The timing of that announcement did surprise me, with Farnborough and its PR value so near.
    On the other hand, they don't really need to make a lot of noise at present- unlike the other guys, who seem to specialize in that area. As I see it, and AB announcements at Farnborough will be pure gravy: maybe the inevitable 320-series (330?) composite rewing? Just guessing.

    On a distantly related topic: will there ever be a New Boeing Aircraft, of whatever stripe ? (notice I used no Boeing-speak acronyms; they're tiresome and confusing).

    • “….will there ever be a new Boeing aircraft…?”
      The short answer: “No”

      • I agree, John. See my very recent comment on Boeing’s Bullsh!t Acronyms.


        lots of paper airplanes, and those just off the top of my head.

        misdirecting bullshit.. none of it’s gonna happen.

  41. Airbus seems to be keeping quiet, not to stir the pot. They have an interest in stake holders underestimating the situation Boeing (and its partners, share holders) got themselves into during the last 10 yrs.

    • And in further MAX news today — an emergency landing in Pakistan due to a faulty fuel gauge:

      “SpiceJet’s Delhi-Dubai Flight Lands In Pakistan’s Karachi After Pilots Suspect Unusual Fuel Reduction”

      “The Boeing 737 Max aircraft — which was heading from Delhi to Dubai — started showing unusual fuel quantity reduction from its left tank when it was mid-air, they said.”


      Of course, the BA “Back Office” will now jump in to tell us that such malfunctions are perfectly normal… failing to appreciate that, in the context of the DOT review announced last week, such new incidents are a PR fiasco.

        • At the current rate of occurrence of serious incidents, it would — tragically — appear to be only a question of time before another MAX crash occurs.

          If/when that happens, it will be the end of the line for BA.

Leave a Reply

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