Farnborough Air Show winds up with post-pandemic slow pace

By Scott Hamilton

July 22, 2022, © Leeham News: The Farnborough Air Show produced little in the way of headline news. But Boeing comes away with some momentum. Airbus announced a big order on July 1, well ahead of the show, from China, leaving show orders in high double digits.

Boeing announced orders and commitments for 278 737 MAXes, including 100 firm and 30 options from Delta Air Lines. This order was the first from Delta in 11 years, ending a long-running behind-the-scenes streak of sour relations between the companies.

The order, for the 737-10 MAX, finally fulfills Boeing’s goal of getting the -10 into Delta. Boeing had counted on Delta being a launch customer of the airplane in 2017. As reported in my book, Air Wars, The Global Combat Between Airbus and  Boeing, the bake-off between the MAX 10 and the Airbus A321neo came down in favor of the MAX 10. But CFM declined to grant Delta TechOps rights to perform maintenance, repair and overhaul for other airlines and lessors. Pratt & Whitney agreed, tipping the order to Airbus.

Also during the competition, Boeing was engaged in a trade complaint over Bombardier’s sale of the C Series to Delta. Boeing alleged Bombardier engaged in price-dumping, contrary to trade laws. Boeing won the trade complaint and a tariff of 292% was assessed on each C Series imported from Canada. However, the final review found no harm to Boeing, which hadn’t competed for the order, a required element to impose the tariff. Many observers thought Boeing’s timing concurrent with the MAX-neo campaign affected the decision. But as reported in Air Wars, Delta officials said this wasn’t a factor.

Final tallies

The final order and commitment tallies give Boeing a clear win. In addition to the important Delta order, Boeing won orders for the MAX from All Nippon Airways, Aviation Capital Group and Qatar Airways. Airbus firmed up a previous commitment from easyJet. It also received a follow-on order from Delta for more A220s (nee C Series).

Embraer announced welcome orders for 41 E-195 E2s, including a follow-on order from Porter Airlines. ATR announced orders and commitments for 21 turboprops.

Slow show

This was the first Farnborough Air Show since 2018. The 2020 show, along with the 2021 Paris Air Show, was canceled due to the COVID pandemic.

Little in the way of hard news was expected beyond the orders and commitments, which totaled 436 from Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, and ATR. The total was well below historical numbers, but this, too, was expected.

Airbus’ July 1 announcement for an order for 292 A320neo family airplanes from China could just as easily been held for the air show, but it wasn’t.

120 Comments on “Farnborough Air Show winds up with post-pandemic slow pace

  1. It still strikes ma as interesting that Airbus announced the 292-plane Chinese order
    just before Farnborough.

    • Agreed. No factual idea what that was about. You would think China would want to rub it in.

      Best I can come up with is Airbus did not want to flaunt it as a shift to all Airbus is a political grenade.

      It is possible there is a Boeing order in the works, granted that is wild speculation. MAX has met the Chinese requirements, all 3 of the Government controlled airlines has done test flights. MAX can fly into China.

      Another aspect lurking in the background is the CVR/FDR from the -800 and the grenade that is for China domestic politically. There is some wink wink and nod nod going on there as the NTSB has not released in Iota on even the download status, state of the black (orange) boxes let alone what they contain if they are downloaded (not even, its beyond too damaged to get anything which I think would be a first)

        • AA claim they’ll be receiving new Boeing 787s in just a few days.

          We’ll see how it goes.

          • From earnings call transcript:

            AMR CFO:
            -> We will have two coming in, I think, in early August.

            The first two will come earlier, and we don’t have any of them built into the schedule until November time frame. So if those do slip from August a little bit, we have put in almost a two-month pad in those coming in. But we don’t think it will impact the fourth quarter a lot. If they slip a lot further, where the impact is going to be into 2023, not a lot into 2022.

  2. Which are the additional 21 orders for the E195-E2? Thought it was “just” 20 for Porter.

    • There was an order for E175 from AK Airlines for Horizon.

      I don’t see a category for E1 types though.

      • All E175 orders-deliveries are still the E1. The E2 version seems to be paused indefinitely

      • Must be this:
        – 20 E2 for Porter
        – 8+13 options E1 for Horizon

        This would give the 41.

        • The AK’s order of E1 will split over four years for delivery from 2023!!

    • 30 Firm, easy enough to look up.

      Vietjet is harder as its a mish mash of so called orders and transfers to the Thai end and is not new orders (not sure if commitment is the same as a signed order, those LOI, LOA etc is a minefield of definitions.)

      • The problem is Vietjet currently operates an all AB fleet. The initial order (of about 100 or so) from Vietjet was announced in 2016!

        • You should read the details. Vietjet is establishing a Thai subsidiary that will run MAX.

          And as you often fail to read what has been written, I am neither agree nor am I disagreeing with what VietJet is doing or thinks it can do and if its going to have success or fail.

          Those are the facts.

          I did clearly state that Boeing and China was wildly speculative take.
          It also has plausibility if China air traffic recovers (I don’t see them keeping Covid out much longer, BA 5 is more contagious than the previous Omonicrons.

          But Vietjet looks to have firm orders though the timing of delivery is going to be adjustable.

          • Spend more time to think deeper and look deeper.

            Less typing.

          • > ..And as you often fail to read what has been written, I am neither agree nor am I disagreeing with what VietJet is doing or thinks it can do and if its going to have success or fail.

            Those are the facts. <

            Oh. 😉

          • Pedro:

            I count on you fore the deep insight and factual analysis!

            Yes I missed that (or did not look). Kind of like playing whack a mole with who is doing what. Very good spot. I am shocked. Maybe my missives are a good incentive plan for you? In will endeavor to keep helping you!

            How many of those offshoot affiliates are in Thailand?

            Clearly Vietjet would shift the Thai fleet to all MAX (and yes that assumes this sees fruition). I don’t know Vietjet to speak off other than the passing references. So I will leave to others who follow that neck of the woods for any good analysis.

            I am naturally skeptical of that sort of order, kicking down the runway the orders that has shades of Air Asia. Flip to that is MAX was delayed as well as Covid and how much flying into China that it can do now?

            Also clearly its nuts trying to plan ahead with so much changing daily. Now we have Monkeypox on the loose and while it does not look to be the magnitude of Covid I am not putting any money down either.

            “The Thai venture currently flies 16 A320/321 delivered between 2014 and *2021*
            July 23, 2022

            Spend more time to think deeper and look deeper.”

            “Less typing.” Never! (grin) I fully concur I am less into the airline structures and routes and layouts than the tech end of the systems. AP is clearly tops in that regard as well as others.

  3. I was surprised that some orders taken for granted were not announced by Airbus: A220 for Jet Airways, A350 for Air India, A330neo for Malaysia and A321neo for Condor. Could it be that there were problems with these orders, or were they simply not ready in time to be announced at the air show?

    • Yup. This was very strange. I suppose that all these leaks, including LOTs, were intended to make some price pressure on other competitors.
      Seems like nothing is solid and some surprises are still possible.

      • The LOT information was confirmed by Scott. It seems that in addition to the A220, the Company also intends to place an order for the A320neo family. But the other companies I mentioned seem uncertain. I think that surprises can occur with Indian companies.

        • For the LOT, the A320 over MAX, maybe. But for the A220 over E2, I wouldn’t count on that.

    • @ Ricardo Braz
      An order isn’t an order ’til it’s an order.

      That having been said, the Malaysia order seems to be close to completion:

      As regards Air India, the new owners (Tata sons) are probably trying to milk the best possible deal that they can get — perhaps even a combi-deal with Vistara (which they own together with SIA). Although nothing’s certain, the deal does appear to be leaning toward Airbus (at least where widebodies are concerned):

    • AB, unlike BA, is in no rush to meet an artificial “deadline”.

    • Tata group is a $300+ billion company and losing few billions with Air India in future is still gonna be just a pocket change for them, do remember they were the original founders of Air India and so it’s a sentimental acquisition as well. It’s their pride and they will make it work, having 4 airlines under them (down to 3 with Air India express and Air Asia India merger) shows their seriousness in the business. Tata is also Airbus partner to manufacture military airplanes for India and they are also a big time supplier of Boeing, having recently courted by Boeing as the supplier if the year when there’s a huge order in waiting. Tata will keep both happy by spliiting the orders. I am suspecting the orders will be announced soon when Govt of India approves their new CEO designate and also likely to coincide around India independence day in August.

      • Excellent. Now let’s wait and see if the other planned orders will be carried out: Lot (A220 and A320/321neo); Air India (A350 and perhaps A320/321neo), Jet Airways (A220), ALC (orders for the A320neo family), Turkish Airlines (A220 for subsidiary), Malaysia Airlines (A330neo).

        • One perceptive commenter pointed out that in case of a real downturn, many of
          Boeing’s orders are at risk of cancellation
          with no penalty to the buyer, because
          of Boeing’s ongoing delivery delays.

          It’s an interesting point, I think.

  4. Are Airshows really needed anymore? Its expensive (especially if you have a Chalet) With global connectively, the importance of meetings at airshows are a thing of past. Fewer and fewer companies and tighter budgets might shrink the footprint down to not make it feasible As for new commercial aircraft launches…its the 2030 timeframe Boeing is investing in upgrading the 737 wing lines, do you really think they would updating the track systems and putting new hardware on the wing machines if they were going to phase 737 out in the next 7-10 years?

    • Planes often continue in production for some time after its ‘ new replacement’ is introduced and goes into service.

      the A330 is an example, re-engined and updated it soldiers on in low rate production. The 767 is another example but thats military and freighter only
      I can imagine the 737 doing so many years after a larger single aisle is ( if?) in production. It would still sell well I imagine for the less than blue chip airlines or major players with large fleets. Its all down to the numbers and the competition

      • Duke:

        Have to keep in mind that the latest Boeing looks more like a small 767 (that to be darned NMA) than a direct A321.

        How that all morphs over competition wise of course is hugely speculative. To me it looks like a market in between (ergo NMA) than a real A321 competitor which the -10 may just be Boeing’s answer.

        That leaves the -7/8/9 with no replacement in sight. More or less the three are even with the A320.

        As long as Airbus does not do the A220-500 and maybe even if they do, the -8/9 are still competitive with normal seating.

        And that also gets into what Delta proposes to do is retain the cattle class in the -10 but put in more lay flat seats to capture the revenue of higher fares (if its there).

        And what does for Delta does not do the same for Alaska Airlines. No -10 at least so far.

        And that brings into the picture the Pilot issue. AK Airlines has cut flights back to ensure they have pilots to fly them (quasi strike as the pilots are not taking AK up on the spare hours they have as a negotiating tactic)

        Its going to be 5 years before you see the academies turning pilots out in numbers let alone is assessment (have not seen) is it enough.

        So, an answer to that is move to larger aircraft and fewer flights.

        I am somewhat puzzled by Delta and its 45 of the A220-100. I don’t think they have any more on order but low pax count and it still takes two full paid pilots.

        So much in motion as to make your head spin.

        • Hello TransWorld,

          Re: “And what does for Delta does not do the same for Alaska Airlines. No -10 at least so far.”

          See the excerpt below from the 3-2-22 Alaska Airlines press release at the link after the excerpt.

          “SEATTLE, March 2, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Alaska Airlines announced plans today to broaden our mainline fleet by adjusting our current 737-9 aircraft order with Boeing to include the bigger 737-10 and longer-range 737-8, which are all part of the 737 MAX family of planes. These additional 737 models will enhance Alaska’s ability to meet specific market requirements with optimal aircraft size and capability.”

          “Prior to today’s announcement, Alaska’s contractual 737 order featured 145 firm orders and options for 737-9 aircraft for delivery between 2021-2026. There are currently 14 737-9s in Alaska’s fleet. Of the remaining 131 aircraft, 79 are firm orders and 52 are options. We now envision a mix of 70 737-9s, 60 737-10s and 15 737-8s for the 145 planes.”


          • AP:

            Thank you, I missed that.

            Where is our spreadsheet when we need it?

        • Airbus will do the A220-500, it’s not a matter of “if”, it’s a matter of “when”.

          Have you seen the reports that Airbus is looking for another engine option for the A220? That’s likely an incentive for the existing engine guys to ramp up production and/or an incentive for another manufacturer to offer an alternative.

          Airbus A320 backlog is big enough, they have room in the next few years to introduce the A220-500 and concentrate A320 production predominantly on A321 variants. Airbus have multiple lines, they have some flexibility.

          I would expect a -500 announcement not long after A220 rate stabilises around 14.

          Boeing is intending to offer the MAX for how many years … the next 10 to 20 maybe even 30 … it’s going to be going against the A220-500 at some point, my guess is within the next 5 and certainly 10 years. Boeing is not going to be working on a new NSA aircraft in how many years … they have to do the NMA/NBA first.

      • Why both BA/AB stopped producing the 737NG/A320ceo once the production of the new one phased in? 🙄

        • Just a new version of the same plane . Not a different model is it

          • That argument negates your comment above regarding “Planes often continue in production for some time…”

          • If it’s not economical to maintain production of the old version, why it makes sense to split production into building two competing models???

          • No it doesnt .
            Replacement aircraft are usually pitched for the next size up

            767 ‘replaced’ by 787- but still in production
            A330 replaced by A350- but still in production
            777-300ER replaced by 777- wont continue as it could be considered a variant ( like the 747-400 was)

            We can see how the ‘standard’ 737 has grown over the years, so that the 737-7 is now a niche model but was once the standard size for airlines

        • The manufactorers managed to extract a higher price for the newer more economic variants. Makes no sense to block delivery slots for the older variant with less margin if the demand is there for the new one.
          The 767 is a different case as it is a dedicated production line. There’s no overlap with 787 production. So unless you cannibalize 787 sales, you can continue 767 production as long as it makes some profit.

    • Air shows like travel and conferences broaden the mind because you see things and meet people you never will on professional social media. You can see the equipment and touch and feel it. It ignites passion and you might just have a beer or fine wine with a new friend. Can’t see them going away

    • That is funny. Good thing I was not drinking something, I hate snorting tea out my nose!

  5. Bjorn Fehrm said, on March 13, 2017:

    “Re the MAX 9 short field (or improved field performance really, not stellar today) the introduction of the trailing link gear has some structural consequences. As the wheels are no longer vertical to the strut, each touchdown introduces a nose down tipping moment to the gear attachments in the wing. So you need a re-stressed wing which brings weight, which is a loss of passengers for normal airfields. Not sure the customers want that.”

    I’m fairly sure that applies to the MAX-10 (which seems to have been renamed 737-10), as well. Thanks to Uwe for mentioning it in the first place.

    • The cantilever from the trailing-link landing gear introduces a torque that must be dissipated
      though the structure, which must therefore be heavier, is my interpretation.

    • Hello Bill 7,

      The quote you cite above from Mr. Fehrm’s 3-13-17 post was in response to the following question from a reader of the post.

      “Do you believe it is possible to have a 737-9 Short Field with the 737-10 Gear ?”.

      Mr. Ferhrm was expressing his opinion that he was not sure if there would be much customer interest in retrofitting the MAX 10 landing gear design to the MAX 9 to reduce takeoff lengths for the MAX 9, because the extra weight that would have to be added to accommodate the MAX 10 gear would mean that fewer passengers could be carried when shorter field performance was not needed. For a MAX 9 customer who is satisfied with the current field performance of the MAX 9, there would be a weight penalty that would be of no benefit to them.


      • That may have been the context for that piece of text, but it doesn’t change the physics at play. Non-perpendicularity produces a moment/torque upon touchdown, and that has to be absorbed by a reinforced wing. This applies regardless of model — and, thus, also to the MAX -10.

      • Hi Robert

        Scott shared the following about runway performance of the MAX, it’s quite possible that led to lost orders to BA and/or customers were forced to split their NB fleet:

        -> “But we’re hearing from airlines that runway performance may be worse than the 737NG. The airplane is heavier but the wing is the same and the engine thrust is still somewhat of a mystery. CFM International, maker of the LEAP-1B that will power the MAX, lists thrust on its website of 20,000-28,000 lbs without identifying the sub-types and thrust to which the engines will be applied.

        These thrust ratings are similar to those now on the NG, rather than being increased to compensate for the increased weight.

        One airline tells us that runway performance for the -8 MAX and -9 MAX is longer than the -800 and -900. (The airline is not considering the -7 MAX and doesn’t have the -700.) This, the airline tells us, makes the airplanes problematic at some airports it serves.

        This illustrates the dilemma Boeing and CFM have with the physically-constrained 737. CFM could build any engine it wants that would get the job done. It has, after all, two LEAP engines in development for the COMAC C919 and the Airbus A320neo. But the 737 presents special challenges and CFM is constrained unless Boeing lifts the entire airplane with new main gear. But this would mean a new wing box and associated structural changes, adding significantly to the cost. And Boeing won’t to this.

        BA might still insist their MAXs are in the “sweet spots” of the market, but apparently the “niche models” seller has *taken over* the market.

        FT: Airbus climbs past Boeing in single-aisle market share
        -> US group has fallen behind its European rival, as questions persist over the quality of its engineering

          • And yet, when we make the same argument about Bjorn’s analysis of the MAX-10, you adhere to that analysis despite its age.

            Very relevant:
            “One airline tells us that runway performance for the -8 MAX and -9 MAX is longer than the -800 and -900. (The airline is not considering the -7 MAX and doesn’t have the -700.) This, the airline tells us, makes the airplanes problematic at some airports it serves.”

            Present tense!

          • Nothing new has come along has it, as Max 10 hasnt reached service.
            Clearly a lot more information about the earlier maxs and especially engine thrust, hint the Leap-1B was far more than just a refanned leap -1A
            Anyway Bjorn has experience in computer model simulations , where these ‘worries’ from 2012 were just casual speculation

          • Bjorn didn’t have an actual MTOW when he wrote that article — he had to make assumptions (which turned out to be incorrect).


            “these ‘worries’ from 2012 were just casual speculation”

            When an airline says “that runway performance for the -8 MAX and -9 MAX is longer than the -800 and -900″, that’s not a “worry” — it’s an observation. Airlines have their own numerical models — and they have access to Boeing modeling when they’re in sales negotiations.

          • @DoU

            You can’t refute that the runway performance of the MAX is inferior than the 737NG! It was a concern for airline that was flying the 737NG.

        • They didnt even know the thrust level for the leap-1B, so how could they ‘say’ the runway performance of a plane that was still 3-4 years away from flying was worse. Boeing probbaly didnt fully know themselves at that stage – but like Bjorn had their own computer simulations.
          Runway takeoff performance isnt soley due to thrust levels for a heavier plane . ( getting to a higher speed earlier is the result required- when the wing configuration is the same).
          We know they added FBW spoilers for the landing distance improvements , so Im assuming the takeoff was Ok with the various other changes they made ( like nose gear is 8 in longer so improves AOA on takeoff )
          Im not a pilot but all the details are in the 737 Max Airport planning guide ( temperature, altitude and actual TOW)rather than 10 yr old whataboutisms

          For the A321LR an actual buyer has expressed surprise the planes his airline bought ‘dont have the promoted range’ when in service.
          A full weight A321 TO would need a very long distance .

          Theres no evidence that the Max needs more runway , other that concerns 10 years ago before full details became available
          The evidence currently from in service airlines shows ‘no complaints’

          • Yeah BA’s sales campaign gave out no numbers!! 😂

            In public records, BA has stated that not even the MAX 8 is suitable for hot and high airports. This has been repeated ad nauseam.

  6. Yes an air show where the Boeing boys and gals are all back slapping and enjoying fine wine and steak dinners post show with bringing home the bacon. Meanwhile IAM rank and file in St Louis prepare to strike for a modest pay increase.
    An air show where lots of mad max 10’s were sold yet it’s future is shrouded in what ifs. An air show where a major manufacturer asked its customers to do its bidding with the government because the manufacturer can’t manage a program for compliance to the regulations. An air show where the customers said, seriously we could just go with the mad max 9 if the 10 won’t make it.
    Am I the only one just stunned with all this pandemonium?
    Dave Pritchard is right about these major air shows, maybe that’s why Airbus just decided to take a back seat and let their competitor look foolish. Airbus is designing, producing and delivering on their promises for world class airplanes…. All FBW by the way, space and commercial services.
    Nothing Boeing accomplished this past week was innovative…. Just orders for airplane programs in trouble.
    Many of you have commented being excited the 787 will be delivered soon….. a program 20 years old now. I’ll believe it when I see it.

      • How many signing ceremonies the Vietjet’s *repeat* *firm commitment* have???

        • Agreed with that.

          Trump card you keep pulling out over and over!

          I am not impressed and while its an opinion, I don’t see Vietjet being any more successful with its buying both Airbus (first) and Boeing as a winning strategy.

          Lion tried it, Norwegian tried it and as I recall Lion created a lease arm for the A320s.

          It seems large number of Asian carriers are chasing the same market with their franchise operations. What might work for one not for more let alone (seems like 4-6 fighting over Thai ops)

  7. What happens to Delta’s 737-10 MAX order for 100 aircraft if the aircraft doesn’t get certified? Do they get converted into B737-9 or is the order cancelled?

    • Hello William,

      Re: “What happens to Delta’s 737-10 MAX order for 100 aircraft if the aircraft doesn’t get certified?”

      See the excerpt below form the 7-18-22 Reuters article at the link after the excerpt.

      “Delta said in the event of a delay in certification “the agreement has adequate protection in place, including allowing Delta to shift to another model of the MAX family if necessary.”

      Delta had extensive discussions with Boeing before it agreed to the deal. “It took us a long time getting here,” Delta senior vice president Mahendra Nair said, saying it had options if the MAX 10 does not move forward. “This is really the airplane that we would want and we would hope that Boeing can get the extension that they need for the certification.”


      See also the following excerpt from a 7-18-22 Delta press release at the link after the excerpt.

      “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. ”


  8. Zacks: “Will 777-9-Led Abnormal Costs Hurt Boeing (BA) in Q2 Earnings?”

    “On the cost front, delivery delays concerning the 787 performance issue are likely to have had an impact on BCA’s operating profit, thereby hurting its quarterly earnings. Also, the production pause for the 777-9 program is projected to result in approximately $1.5 billion of abnormal costs beginning in the second quarter, which in turn must have weighed on this unit’s bottom line.”

    The analyst consensus for next Wednesday’s Q2 earnings from BA is now a loss of 26 cents per share.

    All of this determines the cash that BA will (or won’t) have available for certification processes and/or new programs.


    • Well, all we can do is opine, so here’s mine: yes, I think the A220 will eventually
      be a money-maker for Airbus, as well as being a nifty piece in market-relationship to the other guys- and a neat, up-to-date airplane.

    • Getting to rate 14/mo and continued cost-cutting in the supply base is the plan to profits by 2025.

      • Spirit has moved assembly of some parts to Morocco to save money (or the Morocco plant was opened to save money and this adds to it).

        You have to guess its all part of the process of Airbus ramping up production and trade off with the Spirit contracts negotiation.

        Airbus can also offer offsets on the A350 supply.

        • Spirit inherited the plant in Morocco from Shorts Bros. Morocco has been making aerospace parts for years, and it supplies parts for all Airbus models — a testament to the quality that it produces. Contrast that with the quality that BA is getting out of Charleston, for example.

          • >.. quality that BA is getting out of Charleston, for example. <

            "Proudly™ made in Charleston;
            then re-made in Everett; then.. "

            We'll see how it goes. I'm quite interested in the flow of American Airlines / Boeing 787 orders.

          • We do it right because we don’t it twice. Painful but true. You have the few pulling the chestnuts out of the fire of the many.

            I am as well. Keep in mind Everett has at least 6 they are working on (no idea which 6/ for who)

            Charleston: The gift that keeps on giving to Everett!

            Time for a slow walk on the fix and not save Boeing bacon again!

            Long term, now fast they turn them out and how long that extends the Everett 787 work. Looks like there is a career in that for the Machinists.

            Open question as well is Boeing going to pay attention to where you do an advanced tech aircraft? (if ever)

            Airbus clearly has done a good job with the A320 and A220 series in all places Alabama. Neither South Carolina nor Alabama any place I wold want to be (been through there, ungh)

      • Airbus seems to be strangely uncommitted. No news on the mk2 /500 properly productionised version. 14/month seems to be not enough for scale (or the available market) and too much to not be part of their long term plans. Some parts to be made in Turkey

        • First, Airbus might want to use the A220-500 decision as a bargaining chip for contract renegotioations with suppliers. Would be bad timing to spill their guts just yet.
          Second, ramping up both the 737 and A320 production is currently bottlenecked by engine supply unable to keep pace. It probably wouldnt be helping the situation to ramp up demand of another variant of the same engine thats already in short supply.
          And third, Airbus is probably waiting for Boeings to commit to its next move first.

    • Airbus reportedly renegotiated some supplier contracts for a 40 percent discount. Seemed like Bombardier got ripped off

      • Rip off – maybe. Depends on how you weight risk. You have to keep in mind, investing in production of components for Bombardiers moonshot into a new market segment was a risk. The product could have turned out to be a dud (which it didnt). And the manufactorer could run out of money on the way (which it did).
        Airbus on the other hand can now work with a proven product and they can assure them their pockets are deep enough to carry it through until the program is profitable. It turned from a high risk program into a low risk one. And suppliers already had the time to progress through the learning curve and optimizing production costs on the way.

      • Look at BA’s fake # program accounting and watch how it lower its B787 cost

    • I don’t do twitter, but that sounds like the Rocketdyne site, maybe.

        • That’s how it’s done here: hand off your Toxic Waste Site to some obscure
          entity willing to call it a “Conservation Easement’; do a little PR work;
          and voila!, problem is “solved”.

          • The *real* greenwashing!

            -> Companies, including Boeing, Chevron and Atlantic Richfield, are using conservation easements – intended to preserve open, green space – to reduce cleanup responsibilities on highly contaminated industrial sites. They say they’re preserving land for wildlife and recreation, but really they’re leaving more pollution in the ground than they would have otherwise.

          • Corporate America at its best.

            Seems I remember something about Poland and fracking and also being coal supplier?

            Not trying to deflect, just amazed at how it all is on one hand the image and the other hand the reality.

            Strange world.

        • You probably noticed the cozy, “just folks”, soft-toned and green-savvy photos in your provided link. PR gets more effective every day..

          When a group of “folk” in suits are all smiling at the same time, something is probably amiss. 😉

    • > Boeing donated it to a conservation trust <

      The notion of being able to "donate" a liability is an interesting one.


  9. The C919 has now completed all its certification steps: all that remains is the issuance of an airworthiness certificate by the CAAC.


    Also on Reuters (paywall):


    It will be interesting to see how quickly production is ramped up. Even more interesting will be the speed at which western parts are replaced by alternatives.

    • That would be 90% of the planes systems. Good luck with making their own systems ‘ from scratch’

      • Probably closer to 10 %.
        It’s like chipping away at a block of marble: small pieces all add up to produce the final sculpture.

        Despite all sorts of blockades by the US, SMIC in China is producing semiconductors at the 7 nm node — without having access to EUV technology. They’re doing it using ArF multiple exposures. Clever people.

        • It’s a great mystery to me, why COMAC is not able to start at the finish line.. 😉

          Same applies to Airbus and the A220.

        • From the Register:
          -> Chip world watcher Dylan Patel noted another implication for SMIC’s 7nm capabilities. He said the development means China is now further ahead than the US or Europe in having 7nm contract chip manufacturing capabilities since American chipmaker Intel has yet to make its 7nm process available to foundry customers.

        • Chips are only small portions of a planes systems
          ‘According to a report by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, a think tank based in Washington, DC, about 60% of the C919 parts are supplied by American companies.’
          We are talking entire systems from the engines, to the myriad cockpit systems, to APU, air conditiong , hydraulics, electrical etc

          ‘COMAC this week selected Parker Aerospace to supply the fuel, inerting and hydraulic systems for C919 as part of joint venture with Avic Systems, and also selected Honeywell to supply 131-9(C9C) APU and associated equipment. It signed an LOI with MOOG to co-develop the high lift system (flap/slat actuation, pilot interfaces, electronic controls, power drive units, wing tip brakes, gearboxes and miscellaneous components).’

          the 10% of ‘not western design’ is laughable

          • Of the 60%, how much is made in China or made of components from China?? 🤔

          • @DoU
            You missed the point (again).
            The semiconductor industry involves the most advanced technology on the planet. Seeing as the Chinese are mastering it very well, it won’t be too much of an obstacle for them to replace the remaining western systems on their planes, will it?

            Did you see their new aircraft carrier? Cutting edge — and, yet, it’s just their third.

          • Semi conductors are child’s play compared to an entire aircraft and its service life of 25 years plus

            One has 2.3 million parts ( 787) the other is ….. cough 1.
            Any way , in both commercial and military sphere Chinas has taken the ‘upgraded copy’ route to save decades of development time.

            They even learnt off the US how to do it for a simple military aircraft the Mig 21 , which in the exact copy/license version the J-7 become the JF-17 thanks to Grumman assistance to make the nose intake to side intakes. Plus some further development , to make a nice ultra cheap fighter , which is still a Mig 21 at heart

          • @DoU
            Looks like you’ve never been in a semiconductor fab: the technology involved makes an airplane look like a LEGO set.

            As regards your quotes: throw the APU, flaps and some cockpit systems onto a pile beside a C919 and see how small that pile is.

    • Comac currently has the monthly production capacity of 4 C919 a month In the future (e.g 10 years), maybe they will be a 12 a month Let’s remember, in the early 1990’s 737 and A320 were about 20 aircraft a month each.

      • At what monthly rate will the MAX-7 be produced, if it ever gets certified? Maybe 3 per month?

        It makes up only a small fraction of the total MAX backlog.

  10. The article below from eight months ago provides addiotional context and infomation on the 737 MAX’s safety issues that tie in well
    with the ABC/Boeing 737MAX article from June of this year. The comments from Joe Jacobsen and from Gilles Primeau are especially noteworthy here, I think.

    ‘737 Max: Boeing refutes new safety concerns’: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59420570

    • The well known anti Boeing campaigner , who was behind the ABC Australia story, seems to be the originator of this version too.
      Mt brother is in contact with journalists in a different field , its surprisingly easy to send an email and get a story published as a result. You have to be banging the right drum and few questions are asked.
      The Air Brussels Max delivery flight is mentioned , yet it flew the full non stop the next day , hardly a manufacturing problem. Its was highly likely a pilot problem as they got their balance calcs wrong for a full fuel load but no payload and apparent in the climb out to cruising altitude

      • Are you serious?? 🤣 Why there are so many BA critics if BA follows the rules and regulations properly without cutting corners???

Leave a Reply

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