Pontifications: BOC Aviation sees widebody recovery next year

By Scott Hamilton

Sept. 12, 2022, © Leeham News: Widebody aircraft demand cratered during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s still depressed.

But the chief executive officer of lessor BOC Aviation sees recovery in the works.

“We’re beginning to see quite a big pickup in demand for widebody aircraft,” Robert Martin told LNA in an interview late last month. “Not now but starting next year. What’s prompting that is people are beginning to realize that China will probably open in the fourth quarter this year for international traffic. Just to give you some statistics, if you go back to 2019, China outbound was more than 70 million passengers. Last year was 1.5 million, and so the amount of uplift is quite full.”

Resuming deliveries

Boeing resumed deliveries of the 787 in August, completing about a half-dozen by the end of the month. There were 120 787s in inventory when the Federal Aviation Administration authorized Boeing to resume deliveries. Boeing suspended deliveries in October 2020, when small flaws in production were discovered. (A couple of 787s were delivered in May 2021.) It’s taken this long for Boeing to understand the scope of flaws, design a fix and obtain FAA approval.

Boeing consolidated production of the 787s from two assembly lines, one in Everett (WA) and the other in Charleston (SC), to one. Everett’s production line was closed. During the delivery suspension, production in Charleston was reduced to 0.5 aircraft per month. Boeing plans to ramp this rate up to 5/mo over time. The plant can accommodate a production rate of 12/mo, though returning to this level is unlikely. The Everett line is busy with reworking the inventory aircraft fixing the flaws.

BOC Aviation had 22 787s scheduled for delivery through August last year. Four had been delivered before Boeing suspended deliveries. It canceled three orders during the pause. It took delivery of three of the six 787s delivered last month. Five more are due for delivery by year-end.

“Finally, we’re back,” Martin said.

Shifting orders

It probably will take Boeing through 2024 to clear the 787 inventory. Some of this time will accommodate lessors who lost lessees during the delivery pause. These lessors must remarket the airplanes and reconfigure them to new lessee standards. Obtaining new interiors and in-flight entertainment systems could take time.

“I think what you’re going to find is that since a lot of the customers placed their original orders, their requirements have changed. We’re going to find some customers who don’t want as many as they originally ordered. Some will want more as markets open up, both next year. I think we’re going to see a big moving round of that order book, particularly on the ones that were on the ground at the moment,” Martin said.


92 Comments on “Pontifications: BOC Aviation sees widebody recovery next year

  1. Planespotters is currently showing 4 787 deliveries in August and 2 787 deliveries in September (so far). One (Westjet) appears to be (relatively) new-build, whereas the rest are from old inventory.

    Of these 6 planes, 5 are shown as “parked”, and only one (KLM) is listed as “active”; all three for American Airlines have been moved to Victorville.

    What’s going on? If demand is currently high, then why aren’t these planes being used to generate revenue a.s.a.p?


    • I believe the American airplanes required some interior re-config before the entered into service. Delivery doesn’t always mean the airline can place it into service immediately.

        • AMR doesn’t plan revenue service from newly delivered 787 until Nov. or so. Why, you may ask?? Being burned so many times.

        • Your friend Dherin has an explanation:


          “At the time, I had no indication of the reason why those were not in there; but since the aircraft were ferried to Victorville, where Boeing carries out work on jets, I assumed that there was some sort of cabin outfitting going on. That or some accounting complexity, because these jets initially were on order by Boeing Capital Corporation and later on transferred to BOC Aviation for delivery to American Airlines.

          Boeing confirmed the former is the case and provided further detail on the absence of the aircraft in the delivery tally to The Aerospace Forum. Our data shows that one aircraft was handed over on the 10th of August and the other one five days later. Both aircraft are undergoing post-delivery work in Victorville which made it impossible for Boeing to count the deliveries per the company’s accounting guidelines.”

          • Thanks @Frank.

            Wonder why BCC (Boeing Capital) ordered the 87(s) in the first place? (How many? Disclosed in SEC filings?) To fill a handful empty slots as placeholders?? Speculative order???

    • From the Seattle Times, regarding the 787s at Victorville:

      “That’s not counting two long-stored 787s that were “contractually delivered” to American Airlines in August. Those planes flew to Victorville, California, where Boeing will perform interior modifications including of the in-flight entertainment systems.

      “Only after that work is complete, which Boeing says will be in the coming weeks, will the manufacturer get the revenue for those planes and officially count them as delivered.”


      • Thanks @Bryce.

        All those fanfare … first 787 delivery (six in total and *”four in a month”* @TW) all for nought?? 🙄

        A major airframer has likely evolved into a “show” business.😀

        • Yes, it transpires that most of those 787s (5 out of 6 so far,) weren’t “delivered” at all — they were merely “displaced” to a new location. Meanwhile, zero revenue and continuing refurb costs.

          And all to clear up hangar space for the next batch of “to be re-worked” frames from inventory…and that re-work is time-consuming.

          Expect this to drag on for a looonnnggg time.

      • Latest:
        -> Boeing’s net orders for the year stand at 388 and deliveries at 277 planes. That trails the 637 net orders and 380 deliveries rival Airbus has reported.

          • Hint: “recently delivered”.
            The 787 discussion above is also about recently delivered frames.

          • @Dude:

            How many A330/350 parked immediately just after delivery like the 87s referred to above? 🙄

          • The American Airline parking has been answered repeatedly above.

            They had pre planned work to be done from the original delivery certification . Plane and simple. Sheese.

            You can note that the 787 was the most flown aircraft during the heart of the pandemic. It is fuel efficient, carries a lot of freight and the most flexible aircraft (wide body).

          • @TW

            Any idea how much it would cost airlines/lessors for inspections/fixes of those manufacturing defects? Will BA step forward and foot the bill? If not, how many lawsuits??
            Any chance (quite a number of) those jets would be parked permanently because of the cost of fixing those defects??

            “They had pre planned work to be done from the original delivery certification . Plane and simple. Sheese.”

            Why BA didn’t do all the work proper before 87’s “fake” delivery in August? All those fanfare, in nought?? Don’t you felt as if being tricked?? Those bold claim about four 87s delivery in a month from you! Oops, merely a Potemkin village after the truth came out!!

          • @ Pedro
            You order a new plane, and you’re eventually offered a 3-year-old plane that has undergone major rework?
            No thanks — unless there’s a serious discount involved.

          • Now things are just getting silly.

            Boeing will pay compensation where the airlines ask for it but its also true that the airlines may well have been happy to delay delivery due to the Covid pandemic pax drop.

            Some may have cancelled. I am not seeing it but its possible.

            Boeing takes care of all the issues and corrections that the FAA mandates.

            Of course Boeing employees will have been taking the 787s out and hottrodding around with them and wearing them out. For those worn out 787’s Boeing can offer a 10 year warranty!

            I can only assume people are not familiar with equipment and the fact it ages very little when its not being used.

            Yes there will be things that need to be brought into compliance. If they have not done them, fluid changes in particular. I have brought engines back on line that have sat for many years with no issues. Yea yea I know, its not the same. Except Boeing has a lot of history in storing aircraft as well as bringing them back into service, its done all the time (as do the airlines and air freight).

            As for the 4 a month, I said I threw that out. Jon O may be right in the 4 now and a slowdown. He is outstanding in his work. I don’t know he has as much insight into Charleston, more than happy to see how it goes.

            The real point is, Boeing and the FAA have a process that ensures that when complied with, Boeing can deliver 787’s again. Its worth noting that 1000 or so are flying and you don’t hear issues with them (well those RR engines but that is maybe in the past)

          • @TW

            ” Its worth noting that 1000 or so are flying and you don’t hear issues with them”

            Repeated ad nauseam what’s the reality here. No doubt D Gates’s words worth more to listen than yours.
            Can’t drill information you refused to accept into your head!! Lol.

          • @TW

            “Its worth noting that 1000 or so are flying and you don’t hear issues with them”

            The FAA has yet to decide/announce how/when the various deficiencies in the in-service 787 fleet are to be addressed.

            That’s going to be an interesting process — and, also, an expensive one.

          • Many A330neo and A350 were delivered long time ago but have very low number of cycles. Why?

    • Bryce:

      Dang, you sound like I did when I was a kid. Why why why (we can add Delilah and get into a Tom Jones beat? Your mission is to contact those two operations and ask them for an explanation. Good luck.

      The short and obvious answer is they can’t use them or don’t need them. We may or may not get a reason some day.

      The reality is everyone is juggling deliveries and what their traffic is as well as pilots and staffing shortages along with how an economy is affecting any given operation.

      Alaska Airlines after a really bad stretch cut flight numbers to balance out what they had pilot wise they could count on.

      You could ask why they did not settle with the pilots, and there will be reason be they good or even wrong in that but the bottom line is, fewer flights.

      • I am most curious to see how many of the 787 fixed come out of Everett.

        Nice bonus for the 787 guys there extending their careers.

        As Charleston up it would make sense to send all the rest that need a fix to Everett

        • ” … guys there extending their careers.

          Two years or so is a good supplement but deadening nonetheless.

        • Some airlines might demand that their Charleston built 787’s be sent to Everett for checks and repairs before taking delivery. (Qatar?)

      • @ TW
        It’s a perfectly valid question, and getting into a convoluted tantrum doesn’t answer it.
        One doesn’t expect deferrals such as this in a region that’s supposed to be re-normalizing toward nominal traffic growth.
        If you can’t grasp the topic, there’s always the possibility of simply not commenting.

        • Bryce:

          I felt some humor was needed. Sure its convoluted. But you answered your own question with the China routes and situation (or very high likely).

          I will of course not say what the situation is, but we are seeing reports of the impacts of China economy and the ups and downs. A business is going to be cautious and kick the airplanes down the runway until they think they have some longer trend to go by.

          I am into the technical area and don’t follow American airlines any more than others (AK is an exception) so, shrug.

          Now, if you think there is a nefarious aspect to the two airlines then go ahead and put it forth.

          Or do in depth research and answer the questions you raised.

          I did a lot of training and at a point, the trainee was required to answer their own questions. It was part of the growth process. You pointed them in the right direction and if they could not figure it out, well on a number of occasions it was recommended that they pursue a different career.

          One guy was clearly a cooking machine, he loved that stuff. He got frustrated with mechanics and threw things. Last I knew he was cooking and happy.

  2. I see a considerable mismatch between the expectations of BOC and those of Boeing & Airbus analysts in the story above and the lived reality of people and business. The big bounce in traffic we have all observed is in my opinion, a predictable post lockdown response and is entirely ephemeral. The global macro picture to which the wide body market in particular is most sensitive is the direst I have seen in my entire life and fills me with foreboding.

    I have a vivid memory from childhood in the seventies of constructing an airfix model – a Hercules by candle light as the rolling power cuts swept through the country (I am in the UK). The news reports were of three day weeks and strikes and even a child couldn’t help but notice “something was going on”.

    My local pub I have just learnt, (opened in 1776) is only to open Friday, Saturday and Sunday as they can’t afford to remain open a full week any longer as their enegy bill is now ten times higher than last year (also – they can’t find staff) and next year will close from January until Easter – at best. At the other end of the scale a major chlorine factory I know of that uses as much energy as an entire city is on notice to close at 24 hours notice. I also see shipping rates collapsing.

    Meanwhile, our “government” by way of alleviation has committed to in-debt the country to an amount that dwarfs what they needed when they closed the country for two whole years in the scamdemic and print yet more money to pay for it. And that is just for this coming winter. The next one? And the next one? And the ones after that? We are at the early stages of what is to come and under such circumstance a long haul is not going to be a choice for most.

    In another throwback to the seventies, it seems the French and Dutch governments are attempting to construct an EU “flag carrier” with the acquisition of ITA and this new entity will only buy Airbus.

    The full order books of the big two I would suggest, have been due solely to the free money, printed without limit since the GFC, accelerated these last two years and looking for a “big-ticket” home. The forecasts here, do not acknowledge that since the end of 2019 the world has profoundly changed. The cyclical nature of this industry is about to show itself once again and once again many are on the wrong side of the trade.

    • There certainly is an economic downturn on the cards, and not just in Europe: in the US — which already has contracting GDP — the price of natural gas has tripled, and rent prices have soared. Analysts are referring to a “K-shaped recovery”, producing a further bifurcation between the “haves” and the “have nots”. The “haves” will probably keep flying, but the “have nots” probably won’t. This is bound to have a significant effect on load factors.

      I also don’t believe that aviation in China will be picking up any time soon: China has different problems to the EU/US, but they’re just as detrimenral for consumers.

      • I think we can all agree the reality is that we are in a period of uncertainty and businesses will pull in or hold pat until they see the longer term trend improve or even pull back.

        Flip is that if you have parked an older aircraft and have a newer one coming on, you may elect to bring on the new one.

        With aircraft you get into that complex area of maint, when a D check is due, what the current run status of the engines (are they worn out and need an overhaul.)

        Equally you get a 5 year warranty on a new aircraft and that is a huge savings.

        So you have to look at the overall picture and you will get some idea of where its going.

        On the individual aspect of an airline, they may have specific drivers that are not part of the big trend. It may or may not mesh in with the big trend but it can be for different reasons if they do.

        I am not making any predictions of course. I am seeing some possible splits in where regions may not follow the same pattern. But equally, its how the whole world is moving for Boeing and Airbus as no single region drives the whole show.

        • If/when revenue stops coming in — due to declining load factors — then many airlines may/will decide to defer/cancel orders, and keep flying their current frames for longer.

          Of late, my e-mail is getting bombarded by all sorts of flight special offers, from various airlines: that wouln’t be happening if bookings were high.

          • I am not disagreeing. But a business does not just react to what is happening now.

            They also look ahead and as my financial guy always tells me, they don’t like uncertainty.

            So they will be looking at the factors that affect their business in planning future expansion or not.

            Clearly the best indicator is now as well as what that trend has been the last X number of months. That gets your attention and you may indeed need to make sudden changes.

            But its also longer term outlooks and that same outlook has a we just don’t know (uncertainty) or it looks not good.

          • @ TW
            They can look ahead as much as they want: if they don’t have enough money, they can’t pay for new planes.

        • If you are familiar with Michael Burry and his big short you will know where I’m coming from here.

    • Keeping in mind two x 787 were delivered to American but due to the pre planned changes are not technically allowed to be listed as such.

      MAX production seems to have stabilized in the high 20 a month for now.

      More orders for 767F and 4 of the KC-46A for Isreali’s

      A bit of a short look at the 777X by Av week and continued tweaking of the aerodynamics. It is interesting how much on going refining goes on and what it can add to efficiency wise. 1/2% here and there and you can get some real benefit.

        • Bryce:

          That is a classic case of wait and we will know the facts!

          That is in the fog of accounting tactics as close to facts as we get of course.

          • We don’t have to wait: we know the turnover required to cover fixed costs, and we know that deliveries at this pace are not going to achieve such turnover.

          • Then why do we get new items like, X company made a profit unexpectedly?

            If you can predict that like no one else can then you should be rich from playing the market.

            My finance guy eats lives and breaths that stuff. He has written programs for it. He is doing fine, but he sure is not rich.

          • @ TW
            Unexpected profits can come from higher turnover or lower costs. In the case of BA, we know the costs, and we get a monthly update on deliveries, which gives us a hold on turnover. The only surprises at BA are downside.

            You can find analyst estimates for Q3 on sites such as Nasdaq, Barrons, etc — no rocket science involved.

      • Imagine those Xs already built, a replay of 787’s Terrible Teen? From bad dream to more nightmares?? Another couple billions to write off? When will such a waste stop???

    • 3-6 km of high-speed track finished per day, on just one line taken as an example.

      And then there are people who don’t believe that China will be able to rapidly produce C919s once COMAC has a non-western engine (such as the PD-14)…

      • The Russian won’t be able to produce PD-14 at the needed rate, and they will never allow the Chinese to produce those engines in Chinaland. Jet engine is the last thing the Chinese has not mastered yet. And the Chinese will have to, and they will, pay the price to do it themselves.
        I reckon they will need 30 more years.

          • Laying track is not a high tech operation. The US did it in our Civil War and WWI was an astonishing track laying operation for small trains at the front.

            In algebra, A is not B. Trying to substitute one activity from another is pure illogic. The US makes millions of cars a year, that does not mean Boeing can flip a switch and make thousands of airframes a year.

            And yes, I admire the rail network that China is building. I would ask at what environmental and people price?

            People keep assuming that GE will not deliver the Leap engines and I have yet to see that become fact. C919 produced clearly have engines on them.

            That aside, Russia cannot flip a switch and make copious numbers of PD-14 engines either (nor would they for China, ak, we will sell you Mc-21.

          • @ TW

            We’re not talking about “laying track”: track for high-speed trains is a whole different ballgame to low-speed track.

            There is a complete lack of high-speed track/trains in the US, so it’s not surprising that you don’t sufficiently appreciate this.

            Russia is a major industrial power, with vast resources: it can flip lots of switches. So can China.

          • @TW

            Where is HSR in U.S.? Any bet how long it’ll take from start to finish? At what cost?? Time for a humble pie at tea time???

          • Bryce:

            Actually once you figure out the parameters, laying high speed track is nothing more than following the recipe.

            Then its a matter of money, supply and materials. In the US and I am sure the EU, permitting is a major factor.

            I am also sure the EU follows the US practice of bidding, how much money do we allocate to what and where.

            We see a lot of that in AK. Our main roads over time are re-built, brought up to modern specifications of width and straightened (most of our roads originally followed Moose Paths and were winding and twisty)

            Each section has a priority (which is the worst one). Over time we wind up with a new road, but we don’t get it all new at one go. We can have windy twisty stuff in between improved sections.

            If Permitting and money are not issues and its all new infrastructure , you can start at A and go to B very fast.

            We built (yes I worked on it) an oil pipeline through the worst of terrain and weather that is 750 miles long in roughly 4 years.

            Permitting had been done, money was not an object (at any given time they had hundreds of people in any given section doing nothing while things were setup, but when they got it all in place, they went to town with no lost time).

            Putting pipe in Permafrost conditions is every bit as challenging as high speed track laying (pipe is welded in -40 deg conditions)

            Equally they started laying pipe from 20 camps up and down the pipeline corridor. A road was put in on the North half as there were no roads North of the Yukon River.

            And that was just the pipeline, an oilfield infrastructure was built at the same time (yes I worked up in Prudhoe as well). Modules were built in Seattle and barged up and around the coast during the short thaw opening.

            So yea, I know a bit about that stuff. I was there.

          • @ TW

            “Actually once you figure out the parameters, laying high speed track is nothing more than following the recipe.”

            Same applies to producing turbofans.

          • @TW

            How long it takes U.S. to figure out the parameters?
            Do you know how many tunnels and bridges are built for this line? Furthermore, that’s NOT the only line it’s building ATM; far from it – just a tiny piece of the whole network, and it’s evolving.

            Does U.S. have the capability to build its own HSR? Where’s the money come from? It’s *Broke*!!

            BTW, before your never-ending fiction writing, time for reality-check for others who are as delusional:

            AK is being called out among the top five states with the worst crumbling infrastructure.

            -> These 5 crumbling states have the worst infrastructure in America

            In a state with brutal climate extremes and frequent earthquakes, the *roads and bridges in Alaska are among the worst in the nation*. The state’s remoteness means it probably never will be a logistics hub. 2019 Infrastructure score: 
            128 out of 350 points (Top States grade: D-)
            US population within 500 miles: 639,966
            Average commute to work: 18.8 minutes (U.S. Average: 26.4 minutes) Bridges in poor condition: 9.7%
            Roads in unacceptable condition: 29%
            20-year water-system needs: $986.5 million


          • Bryce:

            “Same applies to producing turbofans.”

            Clearly not true, too many recipes with too high tech involved. Russia has been doing it (copy) since post WWII.

            China keeps plugging away and they have to buy the good stuff from someone else. Its a steep learning curve and WWII era stuff does not cut it.

            Infrastructure is different. Yes there is some high tech stuff (welding pipe in our case). The people that did it were right out of the movie Deliverance. The only thing they could do was weld, but they were super welders with very few failed welds. The tech behind the welding equipment? Not a clue.

            So, there was a template for each type of soil conditions, follow the recipe as for digging out, what grade pad material, what went over the top of it. The US supplied the WWII war effort with non tech people. Break it down to the simplest step, teach someone to do that step, pass it onto the next person.

            Caveat is you have to know what you are doing and jet engines are so high tech in both materials and treatment of those which cannot be reverse engineered, its a very tough field.

            That is both the reality and obvious when you talk about China buying all the PD-14 engines they want.

            China will make modern turbines some day. But they tried to buy an engine maker in Ukraine to get the tech process ala IP to short cut the process.

            Otherwise you have to built the tech foundation, do the research and develop the materials science to make items that do what your design calls for. Its a long an hard patch and the US/EU Japan have been on it since WWII and that is 70+ years of a foundation built. Despite that, they still get it wrong sometimes. RR and the Trent 1000 and Safran and their failed Silvercrest engine.

          • @ TW
            Keep flattering yourself: if the US is doing it, it must be high-tech…whereas if others are doing it, then it can’t be anything difficult….right?
            That certainly holds for lithography and hypersonic missiles, doesn’t it? 😉

            The Sino-Russian axis will be producing their own turbofans with relatively little effort — all that was needed was enough incentive, and there’s now plenty of that.

          • @TW
            You keep writing as if only the USA is capable of building reliable high bypass turbo fan engines, forgetting that the USA was handed all IP on jet engine technologies by Europe starting with the UK (yes RR and other engine manufacturers of the period), and essentially stolen from Germany in the 1940s and 1950s.

            The first high bypass turbo fan engines eminate from the UK (use Google search or Wikipedia to get the full history).

            Now in an earller posts you keep harping on about the RR Trent engines.
            1. Warmed over RB211. Well using your criteria then all the current GE large turbo fans are warmed over versions the TF39 (engine that went in the C5 Galaxy airlifter). The CF 6 is derived from this engine and it in turn gave birth the GE90 which has led to the GP7000 series and the GE9X

            2. GE and PW large turbofans are more fuel efficient and economically better to operste than the RR Trent offerings. In looking for information on this I cannot find anything objective on this. What I find is GE press releases and advertising making the claims which then get repeated by the USA press. On Airliners.net where I find 2 discussion threads, the commentators seem to disagree and point out that first one needs to specify which iteration of engine models are being compared (so say Trent 900 vs. GP7000 series on A380, which PIP versions are you comparing). Another thing that comes through on the forums is that generally RR engines have longer on wing life (fewer maintenance cycles) and thus makes them cheaper to operate as far as maintenance is concerned (though RR are more expensive on a per maintenance cycle because they have fewer cycles than their competitors, they end up being cheaper with regards to maintenance).

            By the way, both of the competing engines on the A380 had uncontained engine failures, RR early in the program (Qantas) and GP later in the program (Air France over Icwland).

            3. Finally on issue of the Trent 1000, yes RR screwed up but hey, they took full responsibility and fixed the problem of corrosion and short-lived fan blades etc. They have fully compensated customers, taken the full hit on the books, sold assets, raised new capital and done all the right things to shore up their balance sheet, something our beloved Boeing is refusing to do on its long list of problem programs.

            Now we also know that the competing GE90 series has also had similar blade problems. (Pitting)

            Please can you tone down on the jingoism that permeates a lot of your posts. By the way I am a USA citizen and always root for USA but that does not mean we need to knock others to make America look good, that approach is MAGA and MAGA if pursued will lead to America’s downfall.

            Let’s have discourse that is informative and less about who’s got the biggest “you know what.”

            Hope you have recovered from you bout of Covid. Stay safe. Sorry about long post but you do go on a bit yourself.

      • Ahem, the MAX is certified to fly in China, China is not letting them fly.

        While the orders are one aspect, the already delivered MAX is a different matter. Those could be released to fly if China needs them and it would not affect any trade issues.

        That said, China is pedaling as fast as they can on the C919. Making aircraft is not the same thing as cranking out transistor radios (some of you probably do not remember those – substitute smart phones in that case)

        Also keeping in mind that internal China certification is not the same as International Certification. Its ironic to bash Boeing for internal certification no matter how right and not China.

        CAC and Comac are both owned by , report to and adhere to the Chinese government.

        • The MAX is not yet certified to fly in China: go back and read the 3 conditions for re-cert, particularly condition # 3.

        • “Ahem, the MAX is certified to fly in China, China is not letting them fly.”


          The C919 will be certified to fly around the world, some western states are not letting them fly???

          • CAC laid out the conditions. All condition have been met. Flights have been conducted in China confirming it.

            Airlines can fly the MAX into China.

          • @TW

            Condition # 3 has not been met — go back and read it again.

          • “CAC laid out the conditions. All condition have been met. Flights have been conducted in China confirming it.

            Airlines can fly the MAX into China.”

            Ahem. Source?? Fiction =/= reality! Lol.

          • BA CFO West confirms:
            “Chinese regulators have not re-certified the MAX.”

            Nonetheless our poster here will regurgitate the same fiction that says otherwise again and again. 🤭

      • Oh, to be a fly on the wall when he discusses increasing trade with Vlad…including aviation-related trade.

    • It truly would be interesting though the pilot shortage remains an issue and how you deal with that when you need pilots for your 150 million dollar 787 and your 40 million dollar E2

      Maybe United can hire Horizon?

  3. As expected:
    “Boeing Could Lower its FY Forecast Soon, Warns BofA After Disappointing 737 Max Deliveries”

    “We maintain our full year delivery forecast of 382 MAX aircraft unchanged, which is still short of management’s low 400s target. If Boeing plans to achieve this target it would imply 42/month for the rest of the year. However, we believe even our 382 estimate may prove optimistic as it would imply 38/month after averaging 29/month YTD,” the analyst said in a client note.

    “Despite sticking to his prior estimates, the analyst argues Boeing’s Q3 deliveries will likely be closer to 80-85 MAXs.

    “We believe Boeing could lower its full year forecast, possibly as soon as management’s next public appearance,” the analyst warned”


  4. P&W engine delivery outlook:

    “The aerospace supply chain is struggling with acute labor shortages, hurting Airbus and rival Boeing Co’s efforts to ramp up jet production to cater to a surge in travel. Engine makers, in particular, have also been hobbled by a shortage of structural castings.

    “Hayes said he sees Boeing 737 production at about 31 jets a month by the end of the year and 787 at about two a month. Raytheon is a major parts supplier to both programs.

    “We think 737s will be back somewhere around 42 to 48 and 787 back to probably 7 a month” in 2025, Hayes projected.

    “Hayes also differed with Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury on 2025 production rates.

    “If you take a look at the projections for Airbus, we think that Airbus by 2025 will be at rate 65. And Guil might say rate 75, but we think rate 65 is doable.” Hayes said.”


    • ““We think 737s will be back somewhere around 42 to 48 and 787 back to probably 7 a month” in 2025, Hayes projected.”

      This the new normal going forward for the 737 Take a past projected rates of 65 for 737 (pre covid)less the 20 plus China 737 deliveries a month….gets you into the mid 40 range

  5. Poor Ryanair…
    WizzAir is taking a further 75 A321 neos — adding to the 53 that it already has in service, with many more already on order. These allow Wizz to carry 20% more passengers per slot that Ryanair’s MAX-8200s. O’Leary doesn’t have MAX-10s to be able to keep up.

    “Chief Executive Officer Jozsef Varadi said the new order puts Wizz on track to become a 500-aircraft group by the end of the decade as it expands west to challenge network airlines and rival discounters like Ryanair.”

    Ryanair currently has just under 300 aircraft in its fleet.


    • Update:
      In addition to the aforementioned “regular” A321 neos, Wizz is also taking an additional 27 A321 XLRs.

      • Nice try Bryce with your clickbait intro’s..
        If you did a little more research you’d realize they were just confirming purchase rights .for the neo order..
        I so knew
        you’d be all over that !!!
        Would expect nothing less..

        • Learn to read: I said “taking” not “ordering”.

          Still have nothing substantive to say?

          • As if you ever do . I’ll remember that next time an airline plans to exercise options, and add purchase rights for an oder!!
            See if you give that front page news as well!!

          • @TC
            You’re the only one talking about an “order”…still can’t grasp the meaning of the word “taking”?

  6. Interesting:
    “U.S. FAA not committing to timeline to approve Boeing 737 MAX 7, 10”

    “WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) – The acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration on Thursday said the agency is not committing to a timeline to approve the Boeing 737 MAX 7 or MAX 10.

    “Boeing faces a late December deadline set by Congress to win certification of the two variants of the MAX before a new safety standard on cockpit alerts takes effect. Asked if it was likely the FAA would certify the MAX 7 before the end of the year, Nolen said: “I am not going to commit to a timeline. … We are working through that as purposefully as we can and we will get it done when we get it done.””


    • That is a Yawn. The FAA has stated it will work the process through and simply is not committing to anything.

      Reality is that the -7 will probably get put through the process and the -10 goes into 2023.

      And then we get to see what happens.

      • For some, it’s a yawn.
        For orhers, it’s due diligence to prevent misleading impressions from taking root, e.g. among investors.

    • Well I don’t! Surely “purchase rights” were not previously regarded as a firm order but were what we used to call “options” – so this is a new order? Someone please explain what the differences are!

  7. More very bad PR for BA:
    “Documentary about Boeing MAX 737 Disaster Premieres on Amazon Prime”

    “The tragic story of the Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 Boeing 737 MAX crash is told through the perspective of Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Dominic Gates, the victims’ families and their attorneys with added insight from former Boeing workers turned whistle-blowers.”


    The official trailer is here (including a very brief shot of Scott at a presscon):


Leave a Reply

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