Leeham News and Analysis

There's more to real news than a news release.

There's more to real news than a news release.

Future of 737-10 MAX clouded by Calhoun: What it means

Download

By Scott Hamilton

CEO David Calhoun said Boeing might cancel the 737-10 MAX program if the FAA doesn’t certify it by year-end or Congress doesn’t grant an extension of a mandated deadline. Photo Credit: Leeham News.

July 17, 2022, © Leeham News: Boeing CEO David Calhoun cast doubt over the future of the 737-10 MAX in a July 7 interview with Aviation Week magazine.

With questions about whether the Federal Aviation Administration will certify the MAX 10 by year-end, doubts about the program’s future had been whispered in the market for weeks. A Congressional mandate adopted in the wake of the MAX crisis established the Dec. 31 deadline for the MAX 10. Boeing already has talked with customers about swapping MAX 10 orders for the 737-9 MAX, according to market sources.

The 737-7 MAX also remains uncertified even though flight tests have been completed.

Calhoun’s comments

Calhoun told Aviation Week explicitly that canceling the MAX 10 was an option Boeing will consider if certification isn’t done by year-end and if Congress doesn’t grant an exemption. (Today’s Democratic-controlled Congress is unlikely to do so. If Republicans take Congress following the November mid-term elections, an exemption becomes more likely.)

“The intent of that legislation was never to stop the derivative product line with respect to the MAX,” Calhoun said on the first-quarter earnings call. “So, I believe our chances are good with respect to getting legislative relief. It doesn’t mean we’ll get them and if we don’t it’s a problem.”

“The [737-10] is a little bit of an all-or-nothing,” Calhoun told Aviation Week editors in an interview at the company’s new headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. “I think our case is persuasive enough. . . . This is a risk I’m willing to take. If I lose the fight, I lose the fight.”

Awkward timing

Calhoun’s interview and timing with Aviation Week is a tradition with Boeing and Airbus in advance of the Farnborough and Paris Air Shows. (Calhoun’s full interview, including other topics, is here. The interview with Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury is here.) But there is an element of awkward timing in Calhoun’s remarks casting doubt over the future of the MAX 10. Delta Air Lines, which Boeing has been chasing since the MAX 10 was launched in 2017, is expected to announce a big order for 100 airplanes this week at the air show.

Delta’s first order for the Airbus neo or Boeing MAX ultimately went to Airbus for the A321neo. But the bake-off actually slightly favored Boeing and the MAX 10. However, part of the airline’s demand is that Delta Tech Ops be licensed to perform engine maintenance, repair, and overhaul not only for Delta but also be free to contract with other airlines. CFM refused. Pratt & Whitney, which already sold the Geared Turbofan to Delta on the Airbus A220 and granted a license, agreed. This tipped the order to Airbus. (Scott Hamilton’s book, Air Wars: The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing, details this.

Delta also wanted to place an order for the MAX 10 earlier this year. But Boeing didn’t give the pricing or the delivery slots to Delta (or to Westjet, which concurrently was seeking an order). Instead, Qatar Airways and Boeing announced a memorandum of understanding for the MAX 10. This MOU has since expired. It’s unknown if these delivery positions remain reserved for Qatar.

Calhoun’s comments will undoubtedly generate questions about the future of the MAX 10 at any press event announcing the Delta order, which will take the blush off finally winning Delta—the only major US carrier without any MAX orders.

What if the MAX 10 is canceled?

If Delta announces the order, Boeing will have around 800 sales for the airplane. Canceling means swapping the MAX 9 and perhaps the MAX 8 for the MAX 10. Many of the outstanding orders were originally for the two smaller variants.

But what does canceling the MAX 10 mean for competing with the Airbus A321neo? Through June, there were more than 4,200 orders for the A321neo. The MAX 10, launched years after the A321neo (2010 vs 2017 for the MAX 10), is roughly the same capacity but with a much shorter range.

A freighter version of the New Midmarket Airplane may be a key reason Boeing returns to the idea of a twin-aisle design for the Next Boeing Airplane (NBA). Photo Credit: Leeham News.

Canceling the MAX 10—a prospect LNA thinks is unlikely, but not out of the question—increases the likelihood that Boeing could launch a new airplane program sooner than later. LNA also believes this tips the scales back toward a twin-aisle New Midmarket Airplane. There are many reasons, but one includes the prospect of an NMA Freighter to replace the Boeing 767-300ERF.

Boeing faces a requirement to terminate production of the 767F after 2027 due to ICAO noise and emission standards. The FAA proposes adopting these standards, effective at the end of 2027. The 767F doesn’t meet the standards. Calhoun said Boeing seeks an exemption. A Democratic presidential administration might grant an exemption to bridge to a new technology airplane. A Republican administration likely would grant an indefinite exemption. But the presidential election isn’t until 2024. Boeing should decide whether to launch the NMA next year or in 2024.

Airbus CEO Faury told Aviation Week it makes no sense for Boeing to launch a new single-aisle competitor to the A321neo with improvements to today’s engines when the CFM RISE Open Fan may be available for service in 2035. In this, he’s not wrong. But Airbus is focused on the single-aisle and is not looking at the bigger picture.

No announcement at Farnborough this year

LNA doesn’t expect any program announcement from Boeing (or from Airbus) at this year’s Farnborough. We have long maintained that 2023 or 2024 will be the year Boeing proceeds. The MAX and 787 inventories should be well on their way toward full deliveries. Cash flow will be restored. Some of the debt will be paid down. Boeing’s balance sheet and stock price should recover enough to pursue an equity offering if leaders choose.

Boeing should be positioned no later than 2024 to at long last launch a new airplane.

 Category: Airbus, Boeing, Farnborough Air Show

269 Comments on “Future of 737-10 MAX clouded by Calhoun: What it means”

  1. “Boeing already has talked with customers about swapping MAX 10 orders for the 737-9 MAX, according to market sources.”

    Fascinating…

    • Not really
      ‘Many of the outstanding orders were originally for the two smaller variants.’

      I would think the upgrades were part of Max groundings compensation from Boeing, so it could cost Boeing actual money instead …unless the offer was non recourse.

      • Hot air.
        Don’t you remember when the MAX-10 was launched? Most of its announced new orders were simply cannibalizations of previous MAX-8 and -9 orders. This was well before the grounding.

        If BA is already approaching airlines about downsizing from the -10 to the -9, then the company is testing the water before it takes a plunge.

        • Or it’s simple misdirection, not that that ever, ever happens in this industry.

          😉

        • Yawn …and how many A321XLR orders were upgrades from earlier A321 orders. Often ‘new’ orders are just a reannouncement of a more generalised agreement to specific numbers and types

          In general thats a good thing as you get a customer to pay more …Macdonalds have always done that sort of thing by asking ‘fries with that’
          Business rule 101. Its the revenue that counts and steering a customer to a higher profit item is a sales success ( or in Boeing case avoiding a cash payout)

          • Is Airbus going around asking customers to downgrade orders from the A321 to the A320?
            Nope.

          • The A350-800 had a number of customers that were told – you have 2 other choices.
            Similar to the 787-3

            It happens.
            Perhaps you have forgotten the A320-100 version as well, or the 737-100 , they were once choices that were dropped

          • @DoU

            “…they were once choices that were dropped”

            Nice to see you’re finally admitting the possibility that the MAX-10 may be on its way to being “dropped”.

          • “A320-100 version as well, or the 737-100 , they were once choices that were dropped”

            a case of factual carelessness.

            A320-100 was superseeded by A320-200, same frame improved details.

            The shorty 737-100 was dropped, replaced with the larger -200 and a plethora of further revamps. 🙂

          • Are you repeating my information and claiming it as your own.
            Those 100 versions were once available , till they weren’t .

          • Hnn? no!
            I am pointing out your inability to differentiate between apples and oranges.

  2. I am guessing non-US regulators signed up to the Max 10 waiver for crew alerting regulations on the understanding it’s time limited. Boeing would need to get their agreement to override that time limit, not just the US Congress.

    • Very good point, which everyone keeps overlooking.
      Patrick Ky (EASA) was in the US a few weeks ago to discuss certification of the 777X and MAX-10. He may have made it clear that EASA would not be granting a waiver…who knows? The fact that BA is already approaching customers about order conversions from the -10 to the -9 may fit into this picture.

      • If the MAX-10 is cancelled, I am interested to understand what happens to the retro-fit of the synthetic AOA system that was to debut on the MAX-10 but would be fitted to all MAX aircraft as an EASA requirement to allowing the MAX to fly again after the two horrific tragedies.

        Will EASA cave in and allow this requirement to be swept under the carpet if the MAX-10 is dropped?

        I wonder if this is factored into the calculus of dropping the MAX-10.

        • I would imagine that the synthetic AOA currently fitted to the MAX-10 test aircraft will need to be fitted to the other MAX models — per EASA’s original requirement — regardless of whether the MAX-10 gets certified or not.

          • I won’t hold my breath, there’s time, training and cost involved in fitting it to other MAX models … so because … history …

            I expect that if the MAX-10 is cancelled, there will be the argument that the original agreement is now moot and that “look the MAX-8 and MAX-9 have been flying safely after the changes to MCAS so nothing additional is required”.

            Call me cynical, but I will be very happy to be proven wrong.

          • @ JakDak
            What you say is a distinct possibility.
            BA can certainly try it — but I don’t know if that argument will have much success.

          • JakDak:

            I think you are spot on though I think Calhoun is posturing.

            The reality is that the reg was put in place for one reason and its being applied for a different one and it makes no sense other than weird statements by one Democrat (head) of the committee.

            If a two year delay was granted why would you not extend it for the very aircraft it was intended for?

            I can only laugh, its fine to have thousands of MAX 8 and 9 flying without that sacred alert system but god help us if we let one -10 fly with them! Are you guys really reading what you post? If I ran my life that way I would be in the poor house (and never would have had a job as it required thought and logic)

          • @TW

            I too am bemused by the idea of requiring a modification for safety, but then allowing a number of years to implement such safety mods.

            To my mind, if it’s required for safety, then it’s required from day one, if it can wait a few years, either it’s not actually required for safety, or there appears to be an overriding political/commercial aspect which is somewhat oxymoronic.

            With the Delta order, it may be that Delta is essentially a pry-bar to help “convince” congress to extend the certification period for the MAX-10.

            Boeing did have two years to get this done, the deadline isn’t a surprise & why on earth is the MAX-7 not certified yet?

          • “I too am bemused by the idea of requiring a modification for safety, but then allowing a number of years to implement such safety mods.”

            Pressured by BA & FAA,
            => under the table deal to compromise.

  3. “Delta’s first order for the Airbus neo or Boeing MAX ultimately went to Airbus for the A321neo. But the bake-off actually slightly favored Boeing and the MAX 10. ”
    Any knowledgeable person would understand that but in this case other factors came into play . Often is when its finely balanced. Im sure The A321 neos will work well for Delta too.

    • “…but in this case other factors came into play…”

      Yes, apart from the engine maintenance issue, there’s also the difference in range. Note the quote from the article above (emphasis added):
      “The MAX 10, launched years after the A321neo (2010 vs 2017 for the MAX 10), is roughly the same capacity **but with a much shorter range**.”

      If Delta takes the MAX-10 now, it’s probably because of irresistible bargain basement pricing.

      • Scotts claim is only correct when you add in all the extra ACT fuel tanks the A321 needs
        His aeronautical engineer colleague Bjorn has made clear with similar fuel load ( that means A321 has 1 extra fuselage tank)the Max 10 is roughly equivalent range
        “Both aircraft have about the same range when sensibly equipped. The A320 series wing holds about an ACT’s (Auxiliary Center Tank)-worth of less fuel. So Boeing justly equipped the A321neo with two ACTs and the MAX 10 with one. This means both aircraft are just passing 3,200nm without becoming limited by the fuel amount.”
        https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/13/boeing-737-max-10-analyzed/

        Without giving the context , Scott is wrong
        With no extra fuel tanks in a standard configuration , clearly the max 10 flies further ,merely because its standard tank system ( from the redesigned NG wing) carries more fuel

        • but airlines can order, did order the LR or XLR when they needed range for flights the 737-10 can’t do.

          • Thats what the XL and XLR have extra fuel tanks for – the XLR needs a lot of changes incl a hefty increase in gross weight.
            Any airliner can do the same and SAS had a regular 737 flight from Stavanger to Houston around 2014 Reduced payload ( only 44 seats) and extra belly tanks made it happen
            Thats an 8000 km- 5000nm route which is almost XLR max range – but in a 737 NG!

          • … with one third the load.
            (you can get the businessJet variants from both manufacturers fully stuffed with aux tanks. range galore … for 5 persons.:-)

            The trick with A321 variants is that you can
            actually place additional fuel without pronounced penalty. PAX and belly space.

          • @DoU

            Did you read Bjorn’s conclusion or purposely left it out?

            -> “As our previous analyses have shown, the *737-9 is inferior to the A321neo* and then-proposed A321neoLR for long range stretching.”

            Yup. Not only the MAX 9 fails to compete with the LR for range, it is *inferior* to the A321neo. Customers vote with their money, and order.

        • “With no extra fuel tanks in a standard configuration , clearly the max 10 flies further”

          Because it can carry fewer passengers?

          Can you explain why United ordered 70A321neo in addition to A321XLR??

          How many orders of A321XLR does AB have received?

          • The A321XLR is a highly modified increased gross weight version of the A321.

            That standard A321neo order just sounds like the very old A320 order that has been delayed for years , and now re-announced as a different version. I think it was carried over from the Continental merger.

          • ” … was carried over from the Continental merger.”

            More hot air.

            There were no outstanding Airbus order from Continental at the time of merger (Continental had orders of over three dozen BA NB to be delivered.). On the contrary, United had NB order with Airbus.

        • @ DoU

          “With no extra fuel tanks in a standard configuration , clearly the max 10 flies further ,merely because its standard tank system ( from the redesigned NG wing) carries more fuel”

          Same old argument every time.

          Why doesn’t BA just put some extra tanks in the MAX-10, so as to win back market share?

          • Because PAX would have to sit in undies and with no baggage in the hold. MAXed Out!
            It is fuel _or_ payload for this product.

          • Hello Bryce,

            Re: “Why doesn’t BA just put some extra tanks in the MAX-10, so as to win back market share?”

            According to Bjorn Fehrm’s posts on this blog analyzing and comparing the Airbus NEO’s and the MAX, because runway takeoff lengths would be too long if takeoff weight was increased above that of the MAX 10, due to the limitations placed on rotation angle by the 737’s short landing gear. The MAX 10’s landing gear was changed to a trailing link design to allow increased rotation angles, but still fits in the old NG wheel well when retracted. Higher gross weights would require even taller landing gear and an expensive re-design of the wing center section.

          • Hello @AP,
            The question was rhetorical in nature.
            @DoU likes to demean the extra tanks in the A321neo, but they give the plane a very neat edge over the competition, don’t they?

          • Bryce . Read Bjorn’s analysis again , it clearly shows the extra range – when made possible by aux fuel tanks- is at the cost of normal payload or space for pass bags when you go above 3200 km
            IGW is the answer to this problem and aux fuel tank which takes much less space is why the XLR was invented.

            Heed the wise advice of AP Robert in this related matter rather than the screeching parrots

          • @DoU Fact is, there is a variant of the A321 that easily makes it across the Atlantic with a full cabin. There is no 737-10 that can do that with a similar payload. That’s the important message here.

            Aux fuel tanks or not is quite irrelevant. The pilot or the airline prefer to have a single type, that can fly short and long ranges, as that saves money.

            If you have a very large fleet like Delta, then you can have multiple types and the cost benefit of a single fleet is smaller.

          • @ Matth
            A user with the CabinFlex version of the A321 neo (now standard) can convert it to an A321 LR in a single night.

            What an attractive option for airlines.

          • Matth:

            The important message is there is a trade off on fuel carry, pax load and what you want to do with it.

            So yes, the A321NEO can do things the -10 cannot, but the -8 is used Transatlantic with fewer passengers.

            The A321NEO has advantages in high and hot and likely shorter runways though that may well be mute as the operators don’t fly into those places as it does not justify an aircraft that large.

            Boeing is selling the -10 far better than I thought so the reality is that it is a lot due to the Pax numbers not the range.

            The Penalty for range is it cost you more fuel to get there and higher fuel burn doing so.

            At one time Singapore was going to fly Singapore to New York with an A350-900 carrying all of 172 passengers (talk about not green!)

            So yea, they had the one route in the world that works.

            And Airbus has run up against the issue of the tank setup on the Super A321.

            Pretty funny its ok to waiver that but not other stuff. Some unkind soul would say Hypocrisy reigns supreme!

          • If you don’t like the -10 then don’t buy it or fly it. Nuff said

          • Matth , a max 10 or A321 can make it across the Atlantic with the same fuel.
            They need a IGW-flap change-novel centre tank XLR to make it both ways, full load, all year and all of Europe – not just the ‘edges’ of Europe.

            the standard XL, is payload limited as it has 3 ACT and then not enough room for all pass baggage.
            For the same fuel load the Max 10 needs only 2 belly ACT as its wings are more fuel.

            Check out how the A321 can only be longer ranged with the extra ACT and the LR is less payload than the standard A321
            https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/what-can-and-cant-the-a321xlr-do/
            Note the A321 neo in standard form
            ‘The main A321neo weakness is that it is fuel limited at around 2,650nm. In practice that means the A321neo cannot do flights much longer than US trans-continental’

            Still a lot for most airlines of course , but Trans Atlantic ‘fully capable ‘ its not
            ‘Airbus assumes a weight of 90kg per passenger when calculating the A321LR range. This assumption is reasonable on short haul flights for low cost airlines but unrealistic on a trans-Atlantic flight. In practice airlines use around 100kg per passenger including luggage. ‘
            LR means more amenities too and things like economy + with better seats

          • Only Airbus A350 can fly ultra long distance, too bad BA has nothing to compete in this segment.

          • The lightweight brigade strikes AGAIN. Only mention the LR but ignore the XLR. Why???

          • @DoU

            Thanks for the link to epsilonaviation. This one so supports my statements.

            Boeing hasn’t published their payload/range chart yet for the 737-10 (https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/737MAX_RevG.pdf) but we can assume, that the range will be around 3,000nm fully loaded in ULC config. The Airbus manual is here for comparison: https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2022-02/Airbus-techdata-AC_A321_0322.pdf

            You link states: “In order to account for real life trans-Atlantic conditions one needs to subtract at least 250nm for summer conditions and 500nm for winter conditions.” So let’s subtract those values to get 2,750nm in summer, 2,500nm in winter months for the 737-10.

            – DXB-KUL or NRT-ANC are within winter range for an A321XLR in ULC config. The 737-10 can’t do that, not even in summer.
            – In a low cost config with 200 Pax, the XLR can fly 4 additional suggested city pairs, which again, the 737-10 can’t do.

            Yes, the standard A321neo is fuel limited at those 2,650nm, but the 737-9 (and the -10 will not be better) also has to start trading payload for range at 2,500nm.

            You also suggested, the 737-8 can do trans-Atlantic. The range chart from Boeing isn’t much more favorable for the -8 compared with the -9, and if you deduct the 250/500nm for real life performance, the payload will also be seriously affected.

            The sales numbers tell a very clear message. The A321 sells much more then the 737-10. And those decisions were made with much more detailed information than we ever will get our fingers on. These are the real and relevant values, not the marketing blabla that (both) send out.

      • Hello Bryce,

        Re: “Yes, apart from the engine maintenance issue, there’s also the difference in range.”

        But what if in the MAX/NEO competition Delta, which has a fleet of about 731 narrow body aircraft (according to my calculations from the data on Wikipedia’s Delta Fleet page), consisting of 15 sub fleets with ranges from 1,510 statute miles to 4,705 statute miles (according to Delta’s Public Fleet page), was shopping for 100 to 200 workhorse narrow bodies to fly the short and medium range US domestic routes that constitute the vast majority of Delta’s narrow body flying, instead of replacements for its small long range 757-200 subfleets? In that case any extra purchase price beyond that required to fly Delta’s domestic routes, and extra money spent on carrying around unneeded extra fuel tanks would represent wasted profit, rather than an advantage. If Delta was shopping for 757-200 subfleet G (5 aircraft), H (15 aircraft), or S (18 aircraft) replacements, then I agree the A321 neo XLR’s would be the obvious choice; however, for the other 693 aircraft in Delta’s narrow body fleet, either a MAX with one ACT or an A321 neo with 2 ACT’s would have about the same or more range (3,300 sm) . See below for a list of Delta’s narrow body subfleets, ranked from highest to lowest range, according to Delta’s public fleet page. Note that in some cases, the range cited by Delta is much less than that advertised by the manufacturer. For instance, Airbus advertises a range of up to 3,700 sm for the A321 ceo on their webpage; however, Delta cites a range of 2,565 sm for this aircraft. According to a dead-heading Delta A321 Captain that I sat next to on a Delta flight a few months ago, all of Delta’s A321 ceo’s were delivered with one ACT, and their A321 neo’s are, at least so far, coming with 2 ACT’s. Delta could have ordered longer range configurations, but they didn’t. Apparently, in their A321 orders to date, they have been shopping for a configuration optimized for domestic flying, not for long range international flying. Note that the two most numerous subtypes in Delta’s fleet (737-900ER: 159 aircraft, and A321-200 ceo: 127 aircraft) have ranges, according to Delta, of 2,565 to 2,810 sm.

        757-200 Subfleet G (5 aircraft): 4,705 sm
        757-200 Subfleet S (18 aircraft): 4,705 sm
        757-200 Subfleet H (15 aircraft): 3,980 sm
        757-200 Subfleet C (11 aircraft): 3,370 sm
        757-200 Subfleet D (62 aircraft): 3,370 sm
        A321neo (3 aircraft): 3,370 sm
        757-300 (16 aircraft): 3,285 sm
        A319-100 (57 aircraft): 2,835 sm
        737-800 (77 aircraft): 2,835 miles
        737-900ER (159 aircraft): 2,810 sm
        A321-200 (127 aircraft): 2,565 sm
        A220-300 (11 aircraft): 2,415 sm
        A220-100 (45 aircraft): 2,415 sm
        A320-200 (61 aircraft): 2,167 sm
        B717-200 (64 aircraft): 1,510 sm

        https://www.delta.com/us/en/aircraft/overview

        • Hello @AP,
          Yes, if range is not an issue, then the A321neo loses an edge over the MAX-10.
          Same applies to containerized cargo.

          I raised the point about range because “a certain commenter” keeps denying a range difference…and now he has it straight from Scott’s mouth.

          Not sure why your Delta acquaintance is quoting such ranges — other operators are routinely flying much further distances in the A321neo:

          https://simpleflying.com/longest-a321neo-routes/#:~:text=Looking%20at%20routes%20operating%20between%20now%20and%20December%2C,by%20SAS%2C%20this%20connects%20two%20Star%20Alliance%20hubs.

          • Scott was talking about a different context. His colleague Bjorn established that their range with similar fuel load is the same…..before both become limited in other ways.

          • @DoU
            Once again: the earlier analysis by Bjorn was just after the MAX-10 was announced… **and before its MTOW was known**.
            Its MTOW turned out to be lower than Bjorn assumed in his article.

            The rest of the universe quotes different ranges for these planes.

        • AP_Robert
          I guess you mean sm is sea miles, but it is called “Nautical miles”!!!

          Bryce
          The A321 does not loose out on containerized cargo because the MAX cannot carry containers.

          • @RSJ
            “sm” is “statute miles”.

            As regards cargo: that was my whole point, i.e. that the A321 can carry containers whereas the MAX cannot. But that’s a moot point unless an airline is interested in containerized cargo.

        • Re: “According to a dead-heading Delta A321 Captain that I sat next to on a Delta flight a few months ago, all of Delta’s A321 ceo’s were delivered with one ACT, and their A321 neo’s are, at least so far, coming with 2 ACT’s. ”

          I can’t remember for sure whether I asked this Captain how many ACT’s Delta’s A321’s had, or how many center tanks Delta’s A321’s had. If I asked him the later question, and he was counting the A321’s standard center tank as a “center tank”, then his answer would also be consistent with Delta’s A321 ceo’s having zero ACT’s, and Delta’s A321 neo’s having 1 ACT.

          • Thats because the standard A321 neo can just make US transcon range
            ‘The main A321neo weakness is that it is fuel limited at around 2,650nm. In practice that means the A321neo cannot do flights much longer than US trans-continental’- Epsilon
            The ACT as a fixture takes payload when empty or full. And more than 2 means it takes pass baggage space as well when the the plane is full

        • Funny. Delta has the A220-300 flying 2,415 SM – which as Bryce pointed out are statue miles as the max range, because it lists 3887km. (This also happens to be close to their longest flight with the A220 – Dulles to Seattle.)

          130 seats.

          Air Austral put 132 seats in it’s aircraft and flies it 2,870NM or 5315km.

          airBaltic flew a similar route from Riga to Dubai and 149 pax.

          JetBlue flies it’s A220’s with 140 seats from Boston to San Jose, 2,336 nautical miles, 4326km.

          Who knows…

          • Airbus lists the range of the 220-300 as 6,297km (3,912 sm)

          • @Scott

            I know. Any reason as to the discrepancy?

          • I don’t know where the lower figure comes from, so I can’t answer your question. We know from the BBD days the range was never as short as suggested.

          • Hello Frank and Scott,

            Re: “I don’t know where the lower figure comes from, so I can’t answer your question. We know from the BBD days the range was never as short as suggested.”

            Remember that Boeing filed an anti- dumping petition for aircraft described as follows?

            “The merchandise covered by this petition is aircraft that have a
            standard I 00- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a
            minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined
            below. ”

            See page 42 at the following link.

            https://leehamnews-5389.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/BBD-Complaint-042717.pdf

            I’m pretty sure that I remember Delta arguing at the time that the CS100’s they had ordered did not fall within this category of aircraft because Delta had purchased either a lower gross weight version that would not be capable of flying 2,900 nm, or one that would be limited to a lower range by the flight management computer.

          • Perhaps Delta decided they didn’t need to pay extra for more range and purchased the 2,200 nm range short haul, high frequency, hub and spoke version? Possibly another illustration of my recurring assertion that when a customer is looking for an aircraft for short and medium range flights, it may not be an advantage to be trying to sell a longer range but more expensive aircraft.

            “The CS100 and CS300 are available in standard and extended range configurations. The standard configuration, for short haul flights on typical airport high frequency “hub-and-spoke” routes, has a range of up to 2,200nm. The extended range version for point-to-point and transcontinental flights provides ranges up to 2,950nm.”

            https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/bombardier2/

            Note that 2,200 nm = 2,532 sm (Delts’s website quotes 2,415 sm).

          • @AP is right. Delta’s deal with Bombardier included a cap on the range and if DL operated the C Series at more range, then it would pay more money to BBD.

            Hamilton

        • AP:

          How dare you bring logic to this discussion!

    • According to FG report at the time: Delta’s order was to “replace its aging McDonnell Douglas MD-80/90 series and *Boeing 757s*”.

      • Back in 2017:

        -> Delta was in the middle of a trade dispute between Boeing and Canada’s Bombardier, the then-producer of C-Series narrow-body planes, which Delta ordered.

      • Cant have been to replace 757 as the final decision when overturned saidd that Boeing had no competition with the then Cseries range ( all below 150 seats)
        Someones made a typo

  4. Reading Scott’s (excellent) book, one can really appreciate the significance of Leahy’s drive for market share. All these years where Boeing have been unable to deliver 787s, MAXs, 777Xs, whilst Airbus have been doing so (even during the pandemic) will in the long run settle out as another long term shift in market share. Boeing in the future won’t be able to get orders from airlines who are flying today’s airframes year’s younger than originally planned.

    If you buy a new car every 3 years, and then one year you’re forced to stretch to 4 years because the manufacturer is late delivering, why would you then go on to order a replacement only 2 years after taking delivery? You wouldn’t; you’d drive that for 3 years, and your order pattern has skipped a year.

    So I think Boeing’s delays are going to lead to some lean order years in every sector of the market, which could make financing interesting.

    Boeing has traditionally masked declining market share with profit growth driven by an expanding market for air transport. I think there’s a real possibility that we’ve passed “peak air”, due to a variety of things (environmental restrictions, the pandemic). If so, the importance of market share is really going to come to the fore. Boeing don’t look like they’re going to have a compelling product line up even if they do launch a new project in 2024. They really need to launch 3 or 4, if they really want a line up that moves the game on from what Airbus can already sell.

    It’s also interesting that, whilst Airbus are looking at the green future, Boeing really isn’t. So, a 2024 launch / 2030 deliveries could be putting a product into a market that is already in the process of moving on. If Airbus do a convincing H2 demonstrator, there’s a lot of legislators (outside of the US) that would take that as a cue to rewrite some laws…

    • “So I think Boeing’s delays are going to lead to some lean order years in every sector of the market”

      That’s already happening.
      When was the last sizable order for the 787 or 777X?
      What has happened to MAX orders? Only 152 so far this year, and 375 last year — despite the great expectations after re-cert. There were 660 cancellations (combined) in 2019/2020.
      In the same 3.5-year period, the A320 neo family had 1579 orders.
      For the A220 family, the order tally in the same period is 225.

    • > I think there’s a real possibility that we’ve passed “peak air”, due to a variety of things.. <

      An important, if contentious point. ERoEI is going steadily down, and the proposed
      solutions appear to be smoke and mirrors, from my POV.

      • Matthew:

        Currently Boeing has the slots filled and the wide body market favors Boeing as they have it covered with the 787 variants on the current low end of mfg in Widebody.

        The 777X covers the high end (there seems to be some degree of that need with A380 returning to service)

        Boeing needs 2 new aircraft certainly not 4.

        If everyone was afraid the market had moved by the time they came out with anything no one would come out with anything.

        If Boeing does a new aircraft then they and the airlines will be discussing the market as well as where the airlines think its going.

        Airbus orders are piling up at 6 years out now. That is why they often have options to or will negotiate a change. Single Aisle to wide body or the other way.

  5. “Boeing should be positioned no later than 2024 to at long last launch a new airplane.”

    The global 130-170 seat segment is so large, Boeing can’t simply hand it over to Airbus. That’s what would happen if they go for an NMA.

    If they do, Airbus probably would do a quick & dirty 250 seat, 3500NM A322NEO, based on the 101t XLR. Light, cheap, capable.

    • There is no guarantee it would sell though. See for example A330 neo vs 787 – airlines overwhelmingly prefer more expensive but much more modern plane.

    • I would say the heart of the market is the 150 to 180 seat though you can make a good argument that the 220 seat market is big (50% of the A320 series is not the A321 though why its not just the A320-300 you have to wonder)

      The MAX group competes equal at the A320 level and throw in the -9 that you can move to if you don’t need the 220.

      Boeing tried the 757-300 and it was not a big success. Things really get clogged up boarding and de-boarding when you have a long single aisle.

      And a good question is, whats the market in the 767 area? Boeing had the 787-3 variant at one time (and yes there are inter Japan versions carrying a lot of pax in the 787-8 (or-9). Its an odd one where the high costs of a wide body for that specific market are worth it to them (they used to fly 747s on those routes as well as 767s)

      What none of us knows is what data Boeing has. Clearly they have the organization down well in that area, despite the dissing from people like Leahy, the 787 has been a huge sales success (shot in the foot by Boeing).

      Where you place an aircraft depends on who has what to say and commits.

      We can see the possibles but the specifics are held close.

      • My bet is for the NBA/A322, the sweet spot is more pax. That’s a passive way to pretend reduction in carbon emission.

  6. Boeing is following McDonald Douglas into oblivion

    • John:

      Well I think you could make a good point that Boeing is part of the ride of MD into oblivion!

      I don’t think it will do so just based on defense alone but???????????????

  7. Well it has been reported today, Sunday, by multiple sources that Delta is getting up to 130 MAX 10s, so that part of the story has been told. And they said official announcement is tomorrow and/or this week depending on where one reads the story.

    • Got any links to those stories?

      I see speculation here and there, but no indications that the deal is sealed.

      • CNBC is where I saw it first, on the Internet.

        • SamW:

          Maybe Delta looking to ensure there is competition?

          Delta flies a really diverse fleet and as was pointed out by AP, sub fleets withing those fleets.

          Delta clearly is working towards consolidating the diversity into A220/A320 and maybe Boeing.

          But without Boeing they would not have gotten that sweet deal on A330/350.

          With Delta clout the -10 then becomes a given.

          It would be a case of politics doing what it should and the reg intended not to apply to the -10 and its unforeseen delays.

          And we get the -10 and Boeing can say nanner nanner to Airbus that we have cool stuff on our aircraft (synthesis AOA and speed) you and your 3 freeze prone AOA and Pitot do not!

          • “And we get the -10 …”

            It has to get certified first…

          • @TW: I remember Robert Crandall said just that as he ordered 200 MD-80S maybe 30 years ago. But the DC-9 was a good plane. One story reports only 182 seats on the Delta -10s. If that’s actually the case, Ed Bastian has a good idea how these planes are going to be slotted into their operations and how they can generate money. You don’t order 100 – 130 planes without a solid business plan.

        • Mh…that Reuters link seems to suggest that we’re in for a rather dull show: a MAX order from Delta and a handful of 777XF orders from Lufthansa, and that’s it. Other potential “big ticket” announcements don’t seem to have ripened yet.

          • The strategic leaks and other clues suggest that Boeing
            wanted to heavily front-load their messaging.

            😉

            Wonder how things are going w/ the 787. “Almost there!”, or..

        • US media are invariably “strong” warlike in language. They are also rife with strong headline statements that get no coroboration in the article body. unhinged.

          787 will/has killed A330,

      • EasyJet is possible to place an order of A320neo family.

      • But with provisos regarding certification — see @Pedro’s post below.

  8. I’m astounded that a major aerospace CEO, Calhoun, makes this bold statement that they are considering canceling the mad max 10….. all before a big international air show. The message is clear their program is a mess, poorly managed (yet the program managers are promoted and/or moved to other loser programs) won’t make the end of the year for certification and the FAA is in no mood to grant them an exemption. I must stress that exemptions only are granted when the manufacturer can prove ELOS, (Equivalent Level Of Safety). So folks the ELOS on the mad max is the 55 year old six pack situational awareness, if you don’t know what this six pack I’m referring to, look it up. And what they did to make a “safe airplane safer” to get the recertification after the grounding doesn’t make it better. It was a band aide just like the 787 lithium main battery containment box was a bandaide.
    The 737 was designed 55 years ago. Boeing is having a difficult time because regulators insist that new airplanes comply with the product change rule in the CFR’s. Have any of you ever thought about why the certification CFR’s have evolved over the decades applying lessons from accidents and many people killed?
    Today Boeing is a company engulfed in solving problems that never should have happened and it looked for shortcuts, lied to regulators and customers and call themselves ‘ethical’ but wound up short circuiting quality and safety. All in the name of money, but that money really doesn’t exist for them.
    For airlines it’s all about the deal, if Delta orders the mad max 10, it’s as Bryce pointed out, because Boeing pretty much gave away and call it a win, this deal also contains massive give always in Boeing services… services that all answer for their each POL. The Boeing executives will all pat themselves on the back and reap their massive stock bonuses. The more things change the more they stay the same.

    • The Calhoun statement was designed for Congress, who is the only one who can give a waiver. So it only wants to get approval under grandfather conditions that apply now , not future ones
      The delays are down to FAA increased scrutiny and the pandemic various restrictions and delays

      • Congress can apply the pressure to the FAA, ultimately they will grant it, not Congress.

        This law: Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act does two very important things:
        1. Require Integrated Safety Analysis of Design Changes for All New and Derivative Aircraft: The FAA must conduct a rulemaking to require proposals for new aircraft designs (type certificates) and variants of existing aircraft designs (amended type certificates) to undergo an integrated system safety analysis. The bill requires FAA to undertake an analysis of the cumulative effects of proposed design changes to the aircraft, human factors issues, and impacts on training for pilots and maintenance personnel. In the 737 MAX certification process, FAA failed to review the proposed design changes at an aircraft level, which led to FAA misunderstanding how the MCAS system would operate. This reform would help catch how new design features interact with other aircraft systems.
        2. Ensure New and Derivative Aircraft Comply With Latest Flight Crew Alerting Regulations: The FAA would be prohibited, beginning two years after enactment of the bill, from issuing a type certificate for a new airliner design unless the airplane is equipped with a centralized crew alerting system that helps a pilot differentiate, prioritize, and respond to warnings, cautions, and advisories activated on the airplane. The FAA certified the 737 MAX even though the aircraft’s flight crew alerting system did not comply with the latest airworthiness standards. In response to a National Transportation Safety Board recommendation, the bill also would ensure for all future airplanes, including the 737 MAX derivatives, a manufacturer will complete a systems safety assessment on the flight deck alerting systems.
        The FAA is the enforcement agency. Mandated by congress.
        Boeing doesn’t want to comply with the rules because they can’t manage.

        In the end it’s all politics, safety be damned.

        • the waiver will apply current rules instead of the updated ones.

          The crew alerting system isnt complicated per see, its a ‘box’ provided by a 3rd party avionics supplier with its own software. The current crew alerts are various coloured lights and buzzers. This changes to a display more like a 20 yr cell phone with one or two lines of alphanumeric fault description . ‘Modern’ is is not

          The current PFD screens on the Max have displays for engine performance and various other ‘systems’ such as hydraulics and electrical

          The problem for Boeing is this would make the crew training completely different just for one version. It kills off the commercial reasons for a ‘family’ of 737s with the same training

          • Hence the plan to drop the MAX -10 if the waiver doesn’t come.
            Maybe even before then, if the available cash level starts to get really low and choices have to be made.

          • I wonder if Duke accepted a large cut in pay, compared to the last guy.

            > ‘Modern’ is is not <

            indeed.

          • @DUK

            Nope you’re wrong. The exemption, if allowed, applies to the rule taking affect Jan 1,2023. This is why Boeing is sweating the mad max 10 cert. timeline.
            Your ignorance shows on understanding complex airplane systems and certification rules making the statement the EICAS upgrade isn’t complicated.

            And your last paragraph 🤷‍♂️
            What price safety??

            Lastly, even if the FAA grants the exemption, will the other worldwide regulatory, i.e. EASA. follow suit?

        • Airdoc:

          And what would you do with all the -8 and -9 flying and to be built for many years?

          • @TW

            Why not ask the Chinese that question.

            Used to be a slogan out there; if it’s not Boeing I’m not going. Don’t hear that one any longer.

      • @DoU

        “The delays are down to FAA increased scrutiny and the pandemic various restrictions and delays”

        The delays are down to BA not adequately addressing queries from the FAA, not producing required documentation, and not producing a “mature timeline” for certification.

  9. First Boeing used congress to block the A220 deal for Delta. Now they are using Delta to put pressure on congress. Not sure if this is smart or desperate, or both.

    • Congress wasnt involved in blocking the A220 deal with Delta, that was some agency involved with trade disputes, US International Trade Commission.

      • Keesje:

        I ask you the same question I ask Airdoc. What do you do about all the -8/-9 and possibly the -7 flying and to be built with the old system?

        • You ground them outside the US, until they have a synthetic AoA.

  10. It looks like Calhoun is betting on the Republicans taking control of the Senate and House. That seems a safe bet at this point.

    • Wont help Boeing this year . While elections are in Nov, the new congress isnt seated till early January.
      I can bet a lame duck congress after the election will vote for a waiver no matter the election result . These sorts of votes arent ‘party line ‘ events

      • If “these sort of votes aren’t ‘party line’ events”, then surely the present Congress will also vote in BA’s favor — right?

        • Yes.
          Same for the 5000 page omnibus bill where it was a minor provision in the first place.

  11. I’m confused. Has BA made an 180 degree turn about the NMA freighter?

    -> For the mid-market jet, industry sources have said Boeing is settling on a family of two wide-body aircraft.

    These would effectively combine a twin-aisle cabin sitting on top of the reduced belly space of a single-aisle jet.

  12. I am now certain that between the the large pending Delta order for an uncertified plane; their demonstration of the [non-flying] Autonomous Flying Taxi (I can hardly write that phrase without bursting out laughing); and still more long-term, idle talk of a NBA/NMA/NLT/NSA, Boeing is clearly, clearly on the mend. 😉

    • With regard to the Delta order: it seems that BA still hasn’t learned that there’s no point in having sales with little to no margin.
      Perhaps the company is just desperate to receive some deposits, to keep the wolf from the door while the cash dwindles…

      • It would be nice to know the details of the
        pending Delta MAX™-10 order, I think.

        Cash churn is helpful sometimes, but..
        where did/will it come from? Weren’t these companies very recently bailed out of the huge, ultra-deadly “pandemic” (scare quotes fully intentional) by US Taxpayers?

        So confyoozing..

  13. “Desperate Boeing Giving Unprecedented Deal to Delta On 737 MAXs, But Threatens Not To Build The Planes”

    “If Delta is buying new Boeing aircraft, it necessarily means they’ve gotten a nearly unprecedented deal on the planes. With Boeing losing numerous orders as a result of delays and groundings, compounded by Russian sanctions and China’s state-controlled carriers going with Airbus narrowbodies, they’re desperate to put better numbers up on the board.”

    https://viewfromthewing.com/a-desperate-boeing-giving-unprecedented-deal-to-delta-on-737-maxs-while-threatening-not-to-build-the-planes/

        • The MAX 10 has 182 seats ONLY! Almost 10 fewer extra legroom economy+ than A321neo

        • DAL wants the MAX 10 to share the same 737 pilot pool. Not a separate one.

          DAL also says their 767s need replacement in next 5 to 8 years. But BA’s NMA has little chance to meet that timetable I guess.

  14. Bloomberg: “Boeing Vows It Won’t Build ‘Gliders’ as Engine Shortage Expands”

    “But there’s a standing rule as Boeing copes with strains at engine maker CFM International Inc. — the joint venture between General Electric Co. and France’s Safran SA — that have delayed turbofans for the 737 Max. “I won’t make gliders,” Deal said, using the aerospace industry vernacular for engineless planes.

    “That’s in contrast to rival Airbus SE, which had around 20 A320neo gliders parked in its factories globally at the end of May. While the European planemaker is pushing ahead with plans to ramp up narrow-body output to a record 65 jets a month by the middle of next year, Boeing is taking a more cautious approach with its 737 Max under the watchful eye of US regulators.”

    Of note regarding the NBA:
    “While a team of engineers is working on Boeing’s next new airplane, the company isn’t moving urgently to counter Airbus’s sales success with the A321neo. “I’m not in a rush to do another new airplane,” Deal said. “I will do another new airplane in its time.””

    Backtracking (sort of) on Dave’s earlier — highly untactful — threat:
    “Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun recently warned Boeing might scrap the Max 10 program if it’s forced to add the new crew-alerting technology. “To me, that’s not a high probability path. The high probability path and the commitment we’ve made to our customers is to get this airplane certified,” Deal said Sunday.”

    https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/boeing-vows-it-won-t-build-gliders-as-engine-shortage-expands-1.1793209

    • Airbus has 20 new A320/321built still waiting for the engines & Deal was told he could use that to poke Airbus.

      Funny if the sad reality of 100 parked 787s, 20 777x and 150 parked Maxes wasnt there. Many without engines.

      And I’m sure Scherer won’t make a joke about that. Why would he?

      • Stan probably forgot about all those BA whales sitting in parking lots.
        He can’t see them from his office window, so…

        • Will BA continue to build not-yet-certified MAX 7 and 10 for 2023 delivery in 2022 or not??

  15. I’m quite a bit puzzled. Let’s assume, lawmakers came up with a sugar tax, and Coca Cola would “threaten” to stop producing Coca Cola, if it doesn’t get an excemption. Who the he** should care? Calhoun is like, either you do what I want, or I can’t do what I want. Who does he think he is?

    And it again shows now in black & white, that Boeing’s first priority isn’t safety. If it was, it wouldn’t whine for an exemption, but adhere voluntarily to the new (and safer) rules. If they do not provide an improvement, why have them in the first place, no?

    • BA cronies are already asserting that the law is unnecessary — and even counterproductive — because the 737 has an “excellent safety record” (ahem…) and changing to EICAS on the MAX-10 would only increase the risk of confusion for pilots switching between the -10 and other MAX 737 models.
      Another argument is that BA is a “major exporter” (ahem…) and a huge employer, and that Congress should consider putting America first (where have we heard that before…?).

      On the other side of the argument: Congress passed the law because of the outrageously inadequate safety culture revealed by the MAX crashes, in an attempt to force a lazy dinosaur to drag itself into the 21st century. A capitulation by Congress would flush the reputation and standing of the US, and showcase a country in which safety takes a back seat to corporate dollars.

      • False claims, and absurd too boot
        The waiver was never intended to apply to the 2 Max derivatives under development, the expectation was that. 2 years would be enough for them to be completed . If they wanted to restrict either the 7 or 10 or both , then a 2 yr time period wouldn’t have been provided.

        • Congress gave BA a two years’ window to certify their MAX variants. BA likely fails to meet the deadline. Who to blame??

          TC: get your act together.

          • Pedro:

            I ask you the same question I ask . What do you do about all the -8/-9 and possibly the -7 flying and to be built with the old system?

          • @ TW
            Simple: in Europe, Canada, etc., you ground them again until they have a synthetic AOA.

          • EASA doesnt have a condition when Max was cleared as safe to fly that synthetic AOA be implemented.
            Maybe they are looking at that for the longer Max 10 , but doesnt apply to the earlier models.

            Check EASA press release wording – yes I read it unlike your good self- for the conditions on Max 8 and 9.

        • @ DoU
          How do you know what the “intention” of the waiver was?
          And which claims are you asserting as being “false”?

          • Nah; those two commenters are very careful to *not* provide details that might be examined for their veracity.. broad-brush laziness is their “style”.

          • It was published expert commentary at the time … the clue is in ‘2 years’
            If they wanted to be any ‘planes not yet certified’ it would have said so
            or with a rapid implementation, say 90 days

            I now can see we are dealing with children here

  17. According to the CNBC story on the announcement of Delta’s order for 100 737-10’s, they will be equipping their 737-10’s with 20 First class seats, 33 Delta comfort seats, and 129 Main Cabin seats. I thought this made for an interesting comparison with the seating arrangements Delta uses in some of its other domestic large narrow body aircraft (737-900ER or larger).

    It is just 2 total seats more than Delta uses on its 737-900ER’s.

    Compared to the 737-900ER, Delta added 12 Delta Comfort seats, eliminated 10 Main Cabin Seats, and did not change the number of First Class seats. Thus Delta will be using the extra length of the 737-10 cabin relative to the 737-900ER cabin mostly to increase the number of Delta Comfort seats.

    It is the same number of First Class seats as all domestic configurations listed below except the 757-300, which has 24.

    It is more Delta comfort seats than all domestic configurations listed below except the A321neo, which has 142.

    Some of Delta’s Domestic large narrow body seating arrangements, listed from most to fewest seats.

    757-300 (234 total seats): 24 FC, 32 DC, 178 MC
    757-200 Subfleet D (199 total seats): 20 FC, 29 DC, 150 MC,
    A321neo (194 total sets): 20 FC, 42 DC, 132 MC
    A321-200 ceo (191 total seats): 20 FC, 29 (DC), 142 MC
    737-10 (182 total seats): 20 FC, 33 DC, 129 MC
    737-900ER (180 total seats): 20 FC, 21 DC, 139 MC

    Delta also has an international and premium route configuration for the 757-200, and has announced one for their A321 neo’s.

    757-200 Subfleet S (168 total seats) : 16 Delta One, 44 DC, 108 MC
    A3231 neo premium (148 total seats): 16 Delta One, 12 Premium Select, 54 Delta Comfort, 66 MC.

    https://www.delta.com/us/en/aircraft/overview

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/18/delta-buys-100-max-planes-in-first-big-boeing-order-in-over-a-decade.html

    • While the Ryanair’s, Spirit’s and Frontier’s of the airline world are figuring out ways to squeeze more and more cheap cramped seats on new aircraft, Delta is ordering new aircraft with higher and higher percentages of premium extra legroom seats.

        • AP:

          Clearly Delta can make more money with premium seats if you fill them than cattle class.

          What is the leg pitch for the rest of the cabin?

          When my wife travels we get the extra leg room option as she does not fit well into the shortest pitch. Me? I am shorter and not an issue.

          And neither one of us has an issue with width (weird seat people aside and then 5 feet would be too little)

          • Trans said: “When my wife travels we get the extra leg room option as she does not fit well into the shortest pitch. Me? I am shorter and not an issue. And neither one of us has an issue with width (weird seat people aside and then 5 feet would be too little)”

            No one cares, dude. Please spare us all of your oh-so-important personal details.

    • So, when compared to their new MAX-10s, Delta’s standard A321neos have greater range AND carry 12 more passengers (including 9 more premium passengers).

      Moreover, compared to their existing B737-900ERs, the MAX-10 will carry only 2 extra passengers.

      Now we can understand why it took Delta so long to put in this order, and why it’s asserted that the airline was offered stunning price discounts.

      • No , the A321 neos dont have greater range
        ‘The main A321neo weakness is that it is fuel limited at around 2,650nm. In practice that means the A321neo cannot do flights much longer than US trans-continental’- Epsilon

        Airbus juices its numbers by using a non standard ‘low weight for pass and baggage’ which arent realistic for longer flights but can be used in short haul
        In practice airlines have to use the aux tanks as permanent and lose payload and revenue space , exemplar was the so called LR version

    • Is AB penciling replacement for those 757s?? 😏

  18. Without going into details, I think airlines like Delta, EK, BA don’t want to become “captive” with either A or B. Seeing the situation Boeing is in, strengthening them a bit isn’t a bad thing long term. They even say so.

    It seems Delta does well their 737-800 and 737-900ER fleets, replacing (some of) them with very similar aircraft makes sense from an transition standpoint. Just like they do with their A330s.

    The majority of their NB is/will be A, but only A isn’t preferred long term. Even the 2018 CSeries debacle (an arrogance classic) doesn’t have Delta loose sight of their long term interests.

    • Hello Keesje,

      Re: “The majority of their NB is/will be A, but only A isn’t preferred long term.”

      Delta’s narrow body in-service Airbus/Boeing fleet breakdown, as of today, is 304 Airbus aircraft and 427 Boeing aircraft according to Wikipedia. See below.

      Airbus: 304 aircraft as follows.
      A220-100: 45
      A220-300: 11
      A319-100: 57
      A320-200: 61
      A321-200: 127
      A321neo: 3

      Boeing: 427 aircraft, as follows.
      717-200: 64
      737-800: 77
      737-900ER: 159 aircraft
      757-200: 111 aircraft
      757-300: 16 aircraft

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_fleet

      • Delta also has 152 A321neos on order, and another 39 A220s…aswell as today’s 100 B737-10s.
        Importantly, its 127 B757s and 64 B717s are nearing retirement.

        • @Bryce

          Their 737-800’s (77 of them) are 21 years old, so we know what the Max’s are going to replace.

          IIRC those 717’s are on lease and going back by….. 2025?

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-to-take-southwests-717s/

          Delta to take Southwest’s 717s

          Delta Air Lines (DAL) plans to add 88 Boeing 717s to its fleet, picking up planes that Southwest Airlines (LUV) didn’t want anymore.

          Delta said it will start leasing the 717s next year as long as its pilots approve a new labor contract, which isn’t certain. Also, Southwest said some of the deal’s details still need to be worked out.

          Delta said it will begin taking three planes a month starting in mid-2013.

        • Some B717s will remain in service for years, as DAL’s “flex fleet” (dials up and down as demand changes).

      • How old are these Boeings?

        64 717 >20 yrs
        77 737-800 >20
        193 757/767 24.9

        If you look back in a few years, many would be retired/in storage.

  19. AAB talked with Phil Lebeau.

    ‘Boeing is a mightier aircraft maker than Airbus, says Qatar CEO Akbar Al Baker’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J28sI16jWZo

    Someone is desperate…

    (little man throws in a curse, as well. Not directed at anyone, but on live TV)

    • Airbus has Quality problems so Al goes to mighty Boeing. Interesting.

      I wonder if Royal Highness, Group CEO of Qatar Airways and Secretary-General of Qatar Tourism Al-Baker has the strength, vision to admit when he gets it wrong sometimes.

      It seems Airbus has a careful marketing strategy at this moment, keep quiet, be friendly let Boeing shine.

      Crushing B pointing out everything will only pour fuel on the fire, with side effects that don’t help. The low publicity 300 ship Chinese order 2 weeks ago might be indicative.

      Let Boeing look stronger then they are, if everybody wants that..

      • Well, he allowed his MAX MOU to expire…so he seems to have grasped that that mightn’t have been a clever “order” after all…

      • Perceptive comment.

        “Never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.” -Napoleon B. (?)

        The complacency in the BCA CEO’s most recent comments continues to amaze.

    • Hell freezes over before China buys a jet that makes the ARJ21 look like the Piker it is (that is a pun from the Pike in Canada by the way)

      • That “piker” has FBW and EICAS…unlike the benchmark pikers offered by a certain OEM in the US…😏

        • Done over 15 years , and based on existing airframe and western avionics and engines
          Its a great achievement and only possible when its state control with no financial wolf at the door.
          It will make a great little regional jet in its home country

          • The piker 737 has been around for 60 years and it’s *still* “not up to modern standards” (quote from Sully)

    • Nothing like your ‘meltdown’ when the 777X goes into service as the 777-9 and 777-8F

      • The 777X program is now delayed by a FURTHER year — see my post below.

  23. “Airbus CEO Faury told Aviation Week it makes no sense for Boeing to launch a new single-aisle competitor to the A321neo with improvements to today’s engines when the CFM RISE Open Fan may be available for service in 2035. ”

    Yep, I am sure there is no tongue in cheek there that Faury is looking out for Boeing best interests with a vapor ware engine that is 13 years away! (the new Turbo Prop thingy is always 13 years away)

    Now if I was a skeptic I might well think the best strategy would be to let Boeing sink itself with a new aircraft.

    It must be hard for Faury being such a kind hearted human being that he puts Boeing well being over Airbus. You would think the Airbus board would fire him!

  24. Official statement from Delta:

    “The 737-10 is currently awaiting final certification from the Federal Aviation Administration, which is expected in 2023. In the event of a delay, the agreement has adequate protection in place, including allowing Delta to shift to another model of the MAX family if necessary.”

    https://www.travelindustrywire.com/article121735.html

  25. TAAG to operate Airbus A220-300

    https://www.ifn.news/posts/taag-to-operate-airbus-a220-300/

    ‘The Luanda-based airline has Boeing 737-700, 777-200 and 777-300ER aircraft in its current fleet. Furthermore, TAAG took delivery of DHC-8-400 turboprops two years ago. In the coming years, the new Airbus A220s are intended to replace TAAG’s older Boeing 737-700s.’

    Another flip (albeit smaller)

  26. And I ask all the same question. The -7 (if certified) does not have the new whiz bang system, the -8 does not and the -9 does not.

    Yet thousands will be flying into the indefinite future.

    The -10 has 900 orders roughly?

    But its fine that the rest are certified and in much larger numbers but the -10 is not.

    Someone make this illogical logical if you would.

    • The -8s and -9s in Europe and Canada are only *conditionally* flying, pending installation of a synthetic AOA.

      Just as with parole: privileges get recinded when agreements aren’t fulfilled.

      • Not ‘conditional’ in the sense you think
        These were the actual conditions that have been met in full and declared safe to return to service

        “In summary, the EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the following main actions:

        Software updates for the flight control computer, including the MCAS
        Software updates to display an alert in case of disagreement between the two AoA sensors
        Physical separation of wires routed from the cockpit to the stabiliser trim motor
        Updates to flight manuals: operational limitations and improved procedures to equip pilots to understand and manage all relevant failure scenarios
        Mandatory training for all 737 MAX pilots before they fly the plane again, and updates of the initial and recurrent training of pilots on the MAX
        Tests of systems including the AoA sensor system
        An operational readiness flight, without passengers, before commercial usage of each aircraft to ensure that all design changes have been correctly implemented and the aircraft successfully and safely brought out of its long period of storage. ”
        https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-declares-boeing-737-max-safe-return-service-europe

        • Stop lying (by omission, in this particular case), Dukie:

          “..EASA’s requirements go beyond what the FAA laid out in a draft mandate issued in August by adding a third AOA sensor to the model. The synthetic sensor, which will provide more data redundancy for systems including the MCAS, >> will be introduced on the 737-10 and retrofitted on other models, including those in service<<, Ky said.

          “We wanted not only to make the corrections linked to the MCAS but also reexamine significantly all the architecture of the flight controls. This work brought us—together with Boeing and the FAA—to discover some weaknesses which had not been discovered before,” Ky said, noting that among these were the problems with “the famous [AOA] sensors.”

          https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/easa-sees-737-max-approval-november-says-boeing-add-third-aoa

          Dukie's one slippery dude.

          • You quote a ‘draft mandate ‘ from 2020 -it says so in your quote .

            Clearly the final mandate was different- which I have quoted with source.
            Some commentators dont even read their words, not that they can be relied on to say anything coherent.
            Abject apology required for your gross error of not knowing the difference between draft and final.

        • Duke, did you read the concluding statement (page 11) in the EASA document that was linked to in the press release?

          “In order to ensure the long-term safety of the 737 MAX, EASA has also agreed with Boeing two key post-RTS
          actions: (i) the development of a modification to further improve the AOA integrity, to be integrated in 737-10 version and retrofitted on the in service fleet, and (ii) the further evaluation of the CAS. ”

          https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/B737_Max_Return_to_Service_Report.pdf

          As (i) appears to have been developed & is present on the MAX-10 at Farnborough, it’s likely that Boeing is taking this seriously i.e. it’s mandated/binding, not just a handshake agreement or suggestion & thus it’s likely that retrofitting to the “in service fleet” may also happen for the same reason.

          I agree it’s open to interpretation without a copy of the actual agreement to look at.

          I say “may” above, because I’m basically a realist; there are politics, commercial & legal issues at play … until it’s done, nothing is certain.

          I’m quite interested in what’s meant by “further evaluation of the CAS”.

          • I also posted two links on this below.

            Presumably Duke will now apologize to us all for extensively and assiduously “peddling falsehoods” on this forum?

            ************

            I also find the reference to “CAS” (Cockpit Alerting System) to be very interesting!

          • Thanks for this comment, JakDak. Bryce quoted it below, and I though it was his.
            Kudos for your fine legwork..

          • Duke, Bryce, Bill,

            As I say, “it’s open to interpretation without a copy of the actual agreement.” … it’s not over until the lady sings.

            We’re all guilty of some subconscious bias and we have our own opinions, we glean what we can from various sources and interpret them the best we can.

            If we share evidence and information openly, we might get close to what’s actually happening.

            Duke (thanks) found a press release that led me to the other document, my interpretation of that document is that the 3rd synthetic AOA system is in an agreement, the basis of which allowed the MAX-8 and MAX-9 back into the air. How the retrofit of the synthetic AOA system will pan out in reality is possibly more complex.

            I’m really only interested in safety. I do not like politics or commercial gain being prioritised over safety, I find it abhorrent.

          • @ JakDak
            The quotes/links that I posted below leave far less room for interpretation.

            I agree that safety is paramount. But it appears that the BA “back office” will gladly wriggle and manipulate so as to try to cut corners.

    • Nonsequiturs piled atop..

      Short version: all MAX™s *should* have that feature, right now; that the regulatory bodies allowed it to be delayed on the earlier MAX™ iterations until the -10 is finally, finally, maybe,
      certified is a fine example of Regulatory Capture.

        • > Good faith placed in a bad player… <

          You are right, I think- alas.

      • Adding: Boing better mightily hope another MAX™ does not crash in any way
        attributable to its many currently-missing
        safety features.

    • Note Airdoc’s answer to your persisting question: it’s pithy, and brutally accurate.

      I will not mention China, myself.

    • @TW

      Logical: Congress passed over two years ago the law that all future airplanes must be fitted with EICAS, the lobbyist in WDC paid by Boeing told Congress that this is ample time for Boeing to get the 7 and 10 mad max’s certification accomplished before Dec 31 of this year. The FAA is enforcing this new law, due to awful program mgmt they aren’t gonna make the cutoff date and now Calhoun and his cronies are whining, pulling in customers like Delta and Alaska to due their bidding and making threats the program could be xld.
      They have had lots of time to make this come to fruition, they have failed.

      Illogical: is your inane questions.
      A better question to be asking is why are these same Boeing executives still there?

      • Thanks for the above comment. I wonder just how much time BCA needs, if two years have not been friggin’ enough. Five years? Ten years? Twenty? I’ll claim again
        that that company will not be doing themselves any favors in getting exemptions / waivers
        that in fact keep them in the Stone Age.. and that’s assuming there’s not another MAXCrash.

        • Airdoc:

          That is not logic, is nothing more than sophism.

          You do not address the question at all. You shuffle and divert.

          the only point you have that is valid is not related to the question (I agree, Calhoun and the clowns should be long gone).

          Tell me what your plan would be for (going to assume a bit here) for the -7/-8/-9

          None of which are committed to or required to have in any jurisdiction the whiz bang alert system.

          That is purely a US regulation.

          And those -7/-8/-9 will continue to be produced for at least 10 years.

          How Now Brown Cow?

          Nothing in US cert says anything about the Synthetic AOA/Airspeed.

          So then you have a major discussion between the FAA and EASA (who did require it but only on the -10).

          • > So then you have a major discussion between the FAA and EASA (who did require it but only on the -10). <

            No. As has been pointed out to you *repeatedly*, the MAX-8 and MAX-9 were given *provisional* certification by EASA, with the stipulation that those earlier versions would be equipped with the same synthetic data info (as should have been on *all* MAXes from the beginning) after the MAX-10 was certified with same..

            "It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his Salary depends
            on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair, ca. 1930.

          • TW

            No deception in my answer.
            Don’t like it, so what.

          • TransWorld said, on July 18, 2022:

            >Airdoc:

            That is not logic, is nothing more than sophism.

            You do not address the question at all. You shuffle and divert. <

            Trans, can you point to the parts of commenter Airdoc's post that are "sophism"? "You shuffle and divert"
            would be better applied to what *you*
            generally do here, in my experience; in particular, you virtually never provide
            evidence for your many assertions.
            Instead, you give us strange personal vignettes of no relevance to the topics at hand..

            I value Airdoc's comments, and thank him for them: they have the ring of truth.

          • ‘the MAX-8 and MAX-9 were given *provisional* certification by EASA’
            Completely false and unsupported by any official EASA statement.

            Indeed Boeing has met all their requirements – which are in lockstep with FAA – for the M8 and M9

            The Falsehood brotherhood still stalk the streets with their nonsense , based on draft and out of date requirements

          • Poor @DoU is *very* selective in the documentation that he adheres to.
            One often sees that with denialists…

          • Selective ?

            So you dont know what is draft and final either , do you even have
            had your high school graduation

            never mind, EASA has moved in lockstep with FAA and approved the M8 and M9 as meeting all its requirements.

            The readers shouldn’t listen to the clown car drivers either

          • Dukexyz nuking the truth:
            “EASA has moved in lockstep with FAA and approved the M8 and M9 as meeting all its requirements.”

            Patently wrong.
            M8, M9 got a provisional cert until the “near term” upcoming M10 comes with a proper solution and
            M8 and M9 then get this solution backported.

            At the moment it seems B might feel forced to nix the -10 to A: circumvent that set requirement B: to get around introducing a proper reporting engine to the 737 line.

          • @ Uwe & others
            See my detailed post below on this subject.

        • The mad max was launched in 2010 and the 7X in 2012, 10 and 12 years respectively….. for derivatives. Still no TIA for 7X… hmmm 🤔
          Many of the smart people that say Boeing will launch a new clean sheet and have it delivered in 10 years are pipe dreaming. 😂😂

          God help the poor folks on the next accident. I really do not want this to happen.

          • > Many of the smart people that say Boeing will launch a new clean sheet and have it delivered in 10 years are pipe dreaming. 😂😂
            God help the poor folks on the next accident. I really do not want this to happen. <

            Agree on all of that.

          • Max 10 was launched 2017 at Paris Airshow .
            So not 2010 like some claim who have no idea of historical time lines.

            Its infantile games to suggest this timeline is better than that timeline or has great significance especially to those who may not have even made model airplanes

          • @DoU
            More reading difficulties.
            He said “Max”…not “Max-10”.

  28. Thanks for that link. One near-moribund outfit makes a bunch of noise about orders for a currently-uncertified aircraft with a “colorful” safety history; while the other guys quietly rack up big points on the scoreboard, while at the same time putting big money into R&D, and rainy-day funds..

    I won’t mention China, in either case.

    😉

    • Of course there’s major back slapping from the Boeing team at The air show. They must keep the Wall Street masters pleased. And their stock options fulfilled.

      • Agreed, Airdoc: Boeing the Company is the last of the C-suiters’ concerns.

    • I think a 737 (or A320) based aircraft is essentially build for 40.000 ft, M.8, 100.000 hrs, 60.000 cycles with 175 passengers on 1-4 hour flights. 4-6 a day.

      As MPA translating in limited range/ endurance, war/payload, oversized cabin and poor low level efficiency.

      https://07185918574543712684.googlegroups.com/attach/45d26eeabaef7/MPA%20Overview.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrHUtRAnA8ZF_Ayp5nCmxJEmWLpDdCNsc-Ly8b37QHnvqPSSX3DgeDFvAyEKUeoleQMXjiJLCkAbQfr2O3SnfU5-VvyHzokFX59Sz3fOshiUyXpMAz0

      The US Navy had no real choice, the P3 was out of production for 20 years and even older.

      • Well the USN actually did have a choice, Lockheed proposed an updated and new build Electra.

        A lot of disagreement on the loiter aspects and low down patrol of a Jet vs a TP (which is why the Electra was chosen.

        But the Irony is that not only the US but UK, Germany are also buying that same non ICAO complaint aircraft.

        As Gretta would say, how dare they!

        In the US the gas guzzler and emissions emitter cars dies a natural death as they aged out. Back in the day you used to see regular oil burners (US for clouds of smoke aka from oil).

        Now they quit working and go into Limp mode and you have to park it or fix it.

        • “As Gretta would say, how dare they!”

          How many missions does each fly in a day?? 🙄

          • I wonder who is “Gretta”?

            Maybe Trans is thinking of *Greta* Thunberg, young spear-carrier for the [elites-driven] Great Reset?

          • @TW

            What’s ICAO in full? Internatiinal Miitary Aviation Authority??

    • ICAO sticks to its commercial knitting , as its in the name

    • @TW

      I will admit the US Navy decision to go forth with the P-8A 737 derivative was brilliant. I think it’s really Boeing’s sole performer of a program. The Navy loves it and the mission it performs is absolutely critical.
      And don’t say this nasty old CFM. I have extensive experience on these engines and they are extremely reliable. The only issue is EGT margin and this usually drives the engines off wing, but there are ways to deal with it on wing for improvement.

      But the P&W GTF is raising eyebrows and too bad Boeing didn’t offer this like Airbus does on their NB’s. But wait! Who sits on Boeing’s BOD and the CEO is an ex GE disciple. Hmmm 🤔

      • GTF was never an option. GE had to develop an almost new core for the leap-1B to fit under the 737 wing . Its smaller diameter core , smaller fan diameter and runs faster rpm than the Leap-1A. No way IAE/Pratt would have done that for Boeing to share the orders with GE.
        For military aircraft the SPC doesnt matter so much , they just add fuel to meet the range and the very reliable CFM-56 is exactly what they want – started out as the core for the B-1B many decades back and only became a civil engine by accident as re-engining for the DC-8

        • Once again Dukes your wrong. The fan diameter on the LEAP 1B is 78”
          The NG engine is 61”
          I worked on the mad max program P&W was initially being considered. So was a CMC!
          You really should just stop on comments about complex airplane systems.
          BTW, you mention SPC, that’s not the correct term. The military cares a great deal about fuel burn just as the airlines do.

          • The GTF for the A320 is 81 inches diameter. Just reducing the fan size without a smaller core would have been a serious loss of efficiency from a reduced BPR.
            The difference in fan size between Pratt and the GE Leap for Boeing is almost 12 in
            Mounting the 1B ahead of the wing caused enough problems as it was – MCAS hello- without an even bigger diameter.
            You lack of knowledge in this area suggests you knew nothing of the engine issues.

        • @Duke: PW made a very serious effort to put the GTF on the re-engined 737, and would have been fine as a dual source as with the A320neo. GE “bought” exclusivity with Boeing. I write about this in my book Air Wars.

          Hamilton

          • Thanks for this comment. I’m still reading that enlightening book.. lots of useful context
            for present-day machinations to be found there.

  30. Interesting on the Farnborough show and some interesting subsidies (gasp) for European battery mfgs. and gasp, them thar toxic T Li batts.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/politico-pro-morning-mobility-farnborough-air-show-dbs-data-battery-industry-freak-out/?itm_source=parsely-api?itm_campaign=parsely_recommended_widget-4&itmMedium=site_widget&itmSource=parsely_recommended_widget&itm_content=widget_item-0

    And its not my reporting that covers so much of the inside dirt in the EU!

    • And the much-trumpeted Chips Act in the USA is somehow different, is it?
      No subsidies there?

  31. DukeTrans dizzyingly wrong, as usual:

    “..EASA’s requirements go beyond what the FAA laid out in a draft mandate issued in August by adding a third AOA sensor to the model. >> The synthetic sensor, which will provide more data redundancy for systems including the MCAS, will be introduced on the 737-10 and retrofitted on other models, including those in service, Ky said. <<

    “We wanted not only to make the corrections linked to the MCAS but also reexamine significantly all the architecture of the flight controls. This work brought us—together with Boeing and the FAA—to discover some weaknesses which had not been discovered before,” Ky said, noting that among these were the problems with “the famous [AOA] sensors.”

    https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/easa-sees-737-max-approval-november-says-boeing-add-third-aoa

    Gish-gallopers.. well-compensated, no doubt.

    • EASA written release when Max was cleared to fly says differently
      ‘The EASA AD requires the same physical changes to the aircraft as the FAA, meaning that there will be no software or technical differences between the aircraft operated by the United States operators and by the EASA member states operators (the 27 European Union members plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland). Following the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the UK Civil Aviation Authority is now responsible for clearing the aircraft to operate to/from and within the U.K as well as for U.K. operators.”
      https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-declares-boeing-737-max-safe-return-service-europe

      There is some questions about the Max 10 and its sensors but the M8 and M9 are cleared to fly with the changes Boeing has made.

      Theres no chance of them (EASA) ‘uncertifying’ these models if a 3rd AOA solution is used.
      Its not just what one official ‘thinks’

      • Stop spinning, Dukie: you’re not helping your dim case.

        “There is some questions about the Max 10 and its sensors but the M8 and M9 are cleared to fly with the changes Boeing has made. ”

        Carefully and pointedly obtuse, given what’s provided (spoon-fed, actually) above.

        But Duke’s just doing its job (R.o.B. was leagues better). One sometimes had to think a moment or two before replying to the latter.. and he could
        (very kindly!) compose, spell, punctuate, apostrophize..

    • It has been repeated ad nauseam and some posters still wilfully ignore. Why? Pedaling false information is their aim??

      • > Pedaling false information is their aim?? <

        Yes. "peddling", though. 😉

        Agreed-upon rules in language are *so* helpful- assuming obfuscation and obscuration are not a writer's goal (samples found above).

  32. Dukie: there are direct quotes and links from EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky on what is required from Boeing and its seemingly ill-fated 737MAX series- please read them, if you wish
    to be informed. Press releases definitely do not equal rule-making.

    Stop tap-dancing around the issues, Friend; you’re not good at it.

    • Im not interested in a ‘director’ and their ‘reportered’ musings . The Max 8 and 9 are certified, and met the conditions required for return to service.

      The FAA and EASA requirements are in lock step for the planes that have been certified.

      Children of course will have their own fantasy worlds, we can see this were they cant even accept EASA clear communications on the matter and prefer to spread misinformation
      There is no ‘undoing’ of what has been cleared to fly after extensive evaluations and having requirements met.

      • Duke appears to put quite a bit of weight on his particular usage of the word “certified”, above. We’ll see how it goes.

        > There is no ‘undoing’ of what has been cleared to fly after extensive evaluations and having requirements met. <

        Mmm.

      • Duke: “cant” and “can’t are different words, with very different meanings. Same with “wont” and “won’t”. Get an inexpensive etymological dictionary and see for youself..

        Once we have
        some generally agreed-upon meanings and rules, perhaps we can converse; but for now I do not trust you (or your buddy, Trans) in the least. I’ll note again that it’s the native USians that seem most troubled in their use of English.. those who have it as a second language do just fine. Odd..

      • @DoU

        “There is no ‘undoing’ of what has been cleared to fly after extensive evaluations and having requirements met.”

        Of course there is — it’s called a grounding.

        And the planes in question weren’t “cleared to fly” — they were **conditionally** re-certified. You do understand the word “conditionally”, don’t you?

        • Dukie knows all that, but he’s got a job to do (badly) 😉

          > it’s called a grounding. <

          "Splat!" [sorry; third time's a charm..]

  33. AP_Robert is another commenter who writes clearly and well, and I appreciate that he’s willing to present evidence for others’ examination.

    Nice.

    • > – MAX-10 cert slipping to 2023.
      – 777X cert now slipping to end 2024 (a year later than the previous estimate). <

      ..or there's Something Else going on, which remains my sketchy hypothesis. So far, the model fits- though I do have to remain vigilant against so-called confirmation bias. We'll see how it goes.

    • I can’t help but feel reminded of the repeated delays announced for the C919 (Spacejet, MS-21). Is Boeing trying to imitate the Chinese to score some bonus points with them?

      Looks like now that they actually have to certify an aircraft (as opposed to previously just self-sign whatever), they struggle as much as the so called copycats. Maybe Embraer could offer to get the job done, for $3-4B?

      • Agree.
        Now that self-cert is off the table, it seems that they no longer know how to get a plane certified.

        • Thirded; ’tis curious. How’s that MAX™-7 doing, anyway?

  35. I’m glad our gramatically-challenged friends are still here: they make me smile with their every comment.
    “Rah-rah! We’re Number One! Number One! Rah-rah!

    Stuff like that. 😉

    I only wish our [effete, insular, corrupt, inbred, defective, lazy A.F.] rulers here in the Exceptional Nation
    took having a> strong industrial base< as seriously as
    China and other [serious] nations do..

  36. I’m hoping that my close friend Dukie will take issue
    with what’s posted below, and *provide particulars*
    to support his claims:

    “..EASA’s requirements go beyond what the FAA laid out in a draft mandate issued in August by adding a third AOA sensor to the model. >> The synthetic sensor, which will provide more data redundancy for systems including the MCAS, will be introduced on the 737-10 and retrofitted on other models, including those in service, Ky said. <<

    So far- and always- Dukie's schtick has seemed to be
    "Listen to Me; I'm an Expert!"

    Cool- very cool- but please show us, rather than telling us. Can you?

    • ‘Ahm still trying to figger out why some commenters
      try to compare an actually existing, operational A321 destined for a longhaul flight with an unavailable, uncertified Boeing MAX 10 that purports to fly from Chicago to LA, or somesuch..

      So confyoozing..

      • hehehe…this is too easy
        Draft mandates from Sept 2020 are ancient history now .
        Man up and admit you were mistaken

        Final decision Sept 2021 after the 4 conditions set after the grounding were met for M8 and M9
        ‘We have reached a significant milestone on a long road,” said EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky. “Following extensive analysis by EASA, we have determined that the 737 MAX can safely return to service. This assessment was carried out in full independence of Boeing or the Federal Aviation Administration and without any economic or political pressure – we asked difficult questions until we got answers and pushed for solutions which satisfied our exacting safety requirements. We carried out our own flight tests and simulator sessions and did not rely on others to do this for us.”

        Pull the other leg about the A321 – which in standard configuartion without any extra belly fuel tanks struggles with the range promised .

        Listen to one airline owner who bought them
        ‘When launched in January 2015, Airbus claimed the A321LR would have a 4,000 nautical miles range that would make it a proper 757-200 replacement. The fuel burn per seat would be at least 25% lower than the aging Boeing aircraft. The aircraft entered service with a few airlines, including TAP Portugal. TAP owner David Neeleman declared last week in a Flightglobal.com article that the “A321LR didn’t end up having the range it was promised …”
        That was the XL version , Airbus twisted the numbers with a very low pass and baggage weight , not the normal one for longer flights

        For the basic version – but probably the most common ordered
        ‘The main A321neo weakness is that it is fuel limited at around 2,650nm. ”
        https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/what-can-and-cant-the-a321xlr-do/

        Again the experts view , not the view of the circus clown car pilots

        • You’re funny. So when you buy a car and the base model doesn’t have the strongest engine, then you cry foul and say what a useless car?

          There are different versions of vehicles (and other machines), so you can buy exactly the model you require. Add the options you want. That is, if there ARE options available.

          • You appear to be even more funny:

            Think brakes, lights, mandatory environmental polution stuff.

            This here is not “dial an option” but a required feature.

            competent PR aides seem to be busy elsewhere these days.

          • Nothing to do with car ‘options.’

            Its more like buying a car and its not getting the full tank range or MPG that the manufacturer claims
            Electric car owners also find the car range isnt what they were lead to expect either

            This was the longest range ‘optioned model’ the XL ( its not a different type – just a marketing name for all the long range options package, which seem to mean a belly hold full of aux fuel tanks .

            But thats beside the point , Airbus claimed the particular model ( with the ‘XL package’) TAP bought could do better .
            It failed to live up to that.

          • Regarding A321LR range:

            “The A321LR variant of Airbus’ A321 jetliner underscored its impressive range with a record-breaking flight from Mahé in the Seychelles islands to Toulouse, France – covering a total distance of 4,750 nautical miles in 11 hours.

            “This milestone was reached in late March as part of the A321LR’s 100-hour flight test and certification programme. To make flight conditions as realistic as possible while evaluating cabin systems, the A321LR carried 162 human heat-replicating dummy passengers in addition to its 16-member test crew.”

            https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2018-04-the-a321lr-goes-long-with-record-breaking-flight

          • LNA did a good background on the A321LR ( my typos called it XL)
            https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbus-formally-launches-a321lr-we-look-behind-the-lr-to-see-whats-there/

            some useful info on what those extra aux tanks options mean- for each tank!
            ‘The first thing that happens is that our empty weight increases with 0.6t. The ACT only weights 0.4t each but the base installation kit with plumbing, pumps, safety fire wall, etc., takes another 200kg.

            and as for those LD3 passenger bags. Forget it when you have all 3 aux tank positions taken

            “We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.’

            The capabilities offered by Airbus in its ‘brochures’ lean to what the LCC offer. No premium ( heavier) seats and more likely baggage left behind if they run out of time to manually load it, or the headwinds are stronger.

          • It’s strange that I can’t find article with that exact quote from FG’s web site.

            I bet such newsworthy info would also appear on most aviation sites. Where to find them?

            @DoU

            Any chance it was *retracted*??😏

        • Looks like Duke doesn’t grasp the difference between “necessary” and “sufficient” when it comes to the EASA re-cert.

          The document on which he keeps leaning, lists the conditions *necessary* to *resume* flying in the EU.
          That’s not the same as being *sufficient* to *remain* flying in the EU

        • [Deleted as violation of Reader Comment rules–Hamilton]

  37. I want to put this as bluntly as possible: what are
    self-appointed expert DukeofUrl’s bona fides- if any?

    “Listen to Me!”, seems to be its refrain. Why should we?
    I have seen its type before, I think- though not recently.

    • I dont have any expert knowledge , thats why I rely on others who are and are credible –
      Its seems that my quotes from experts are showing up the uninformed for their ramblings

      • “Its seems that my quotes from experts are showing up the uninformed for their ramblings”

        No: your quotes are showing your selectivity in choosing/interpreting information.

  38. With regard to the (deliberate) confusion being sown above w.r.t. a synthetic AoA:

    “Mike Fleming, senior vice president of the 737 MAX return to service, Commercial Customer Support and Commercial Derivative Programs said in November 2021 that “The enhanced system will monitor five different parameters, that will help us determine whether we have an erroneous signal or not. And then if we determine that we have an erroneous signal, then we’ll suppress that and you won’t get the issue.”

    “Boeing has agreed to introduce synthetic AoA with the MAX-10 and then retrofit it to the rest of the MAX fleet. Boeing completed the synthetic AoA critical design review in October 2021 and will flight test it in 2022. When certified, it will then be retrofitted to the rest of the MAX fleet.”

    http://www.b737.org.uk/max_enhancements.htm

    Also:

    “Ky said that if all goes to plan, the majority of the 737 MAX range could be airborne once again before the end of 2020. However, they are demanding that a third (synthetic) sensor be fitted onto the MAX 10 model before launch, which is expected to take place in 2022.

    “As the additional (software) sensor can take up to two years to be developed, they will go ahead with re-certification of the -7, -8, and -9 models, allowing them to fly with the expectation that they be retrofitted with the third sensor later on before giving final approval.”

    https://www.gatechecked.com/easa-eu-boeing-737-max-safe-3756

    • And, as a pre-emptive response to the expected “stuck grammophone” retort, here’s a repeat of a post above:

      Looks like Duke doesn’t grasp the difference between “necessary” and “sufficient” when it comes to the EASA re-cert.

      The document on which he keeps leaning, lists the conditions *necessary* to *resume* flying in the EU.
      That’s not the same as being *sufficient* to *remain* flying in the EU

    • And from @JakDak’s post above:

      Duke, did you read the concluding statement (page 11) in the EASA document that was linked to in the press release?

      “In order to ensure the long-term safety of the 737 MAX, EASA has also agreed with Boeing two key post-RTS
      actions: (i) the development of a modification to further improve the AOA integrity, to be integrated in 737-10 version and retrofitted on the in service fleet, and (ii) the further evaluation of the CAS. ”

      https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/B737_Max_Return_to_Service_Report.pdf

  39. 737-10 further delays might have to do with the crew alerting system.

    https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/max-10-held-up-over-crew-alerting-system/

    A system that didn’t help crew at all in many 737 crashes before the 737 MAX. It seems authorities reviewed crash investigation reports of the last 20, 30 years and recognized a pattern.

    Not only a pattern in the systems functionality but also a pattern in how the system was kept out of the wind, with the help of the OEM, to avoid expensive modifications/ crew training over the years.

    And a line in the sand way drawn. Long overdue. And now Boeing is trying to move it again. Using safety track records authorities might have second thoughts about but signed off on in the past.

    • From your link:

      “The Seattle Times is reporting a prominent lawmaker wants the certification of the latest models of the Boeing 737 MAX delayed until Boeing can bring the crew alerting system up to current standards.”

      “Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Transportation Committee, says the MAX 10 should have the new system. “The FAA should side with safety and establish a high bar for the certification of the 737 MAX-10,” he said in a statement issued last week. Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., has sent a proposal for a watered-down version of the up-to-date system, which its authors say could be employed on the 10 and be retrofitted on the models already flying, to the FAA and NTSB for review. They say it will cost less and create less disruption. The Times says Cantwell has said she will support the revised system if the FAA approves it.”

      *******

      Any normal company would be ashamed of being forced in this manner to update its products so as to meet “current standards” of safety.

      • The brazenness from that company is quite something- and how’s that going to look after the next MAXCrash?

      • Crew alerting system is a different matter to the AOA

        The FAA shouldn’t be listening to a ( soon to retire Chair) political figure on what constitutes ‘safety’

        • “Crew alerting system is a different matter to the AOA”

          Yes, we know that. Try to keep up with the different topics on the forum.

          *****

          “The FAA shouldn’t be listening to a ( soon to retire Chair) political figure on what constitutes ‘safety’”

          The FAA should listen to what lawmakers think of the laws that they pass, and the issues that they seek to address.

          • I’m guessing the factually-challenged commenter with the supercilious tone
            will not be apologizing any time soon.
            The good thing is he’s giving us an update on Boeing’s financials in just a few days, as well as a list of retractions from the ABC / Boeing piece from late last month. “Stay tuned!”, as he pointedly said back then..

            Thanks for your factually-based comments, often including pertinent quotes and links for others’ easy reference.

  41. Please be respectfull of all poster.

    It improves attractiveness of the site for everyone.

Email Subscription

Click to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,878 other subscribers
Twitter Updates
Archives

Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved · Leeham News and Analysis

Sitemap · RSS Feed · Log in