By Bjorn Fehrm
October 28, 2022, © Leeham News: Airbus presented its results for the first nine months of 2022 today. Airbus’ problem is how to fulfill demand as the supply chain is still recovering from COVID.
The deterioration of supply chain performance has stopped, according to Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, but not improved. Performance is now steady but at a lower level than Airbus needs. The planned rate increases in single aisle and widebody are unchanged, but in addition to planned increases in single aisle, discussions have started with the supplier base on how to increase production of widebodies as demand has picked up.
Airbus delivered 437 commercial aircraft in the first nine months, compared with 424 last year. Guidance for the year is unchanged at 700 deliveries and €5.5bn EBIT, except for Free Cash Flow, which will increase to €4.5bn due to a strong dollar.
Revenue for 9M2022 was €38.1bn (€35.2bn 9M2021), operating profit €3.5bn (called EBIT adjusted, -€3.4bn 9M2021), and net profit was €3.1bn (€2.95bn).
Free cash flow for 9M2022 was €2.9bn (€2.3bn), and the net cash position end of 9M2021 was €8.0bn (€7.7bn 2021.12).
Guidance for 2022 is now:
Of the 437 (424) delivered aircraft, 340 (341) was A320/A321, 34 (34) A220, 42 (36) A350, 21 (11) A330.
Market demand for single aisle is strong, and with A321s at over 50% of the A320 backlog, all FALs are upgraded to produce A321s.
The monthly delivery rate for the A320 family is 50 right now, increasing to 65 by early 2024 (was mid 2023) and to 75 by 2025. Airbus glider inventory is now single digit as engine suppliers deliver according to a downward revised plan.
The entry into service of the A321XLR is now 2Q2024 from “early 2024” before.
In addition to strong A321 demand, where A3221XLR is the star, according to Faury, the widebody side sees increased demand. The number of widebody sales campaigns are above expectations, and Airbus sounds out the supply chain for future rate increases above the present ones (A330 from two to three right now, A350 from five to six in early 2023).
The helicopter increased revenue by 9.1% to €4.5bn (€4.1bn) and EBIT by 22% to €0.38bn (€0.3bn).
Revenues increased 10% to €7.6bn (€6.9bn). Due to international sanctions, EBIT sank 19% to €0.2bn (€0.3bn).
Seven A440M were delivered in 9M2022.
Looks very good from Airbus. I wonder what the breakout by type is for the A330s, noting the increase in its production rate.
Doing the math, I see something around 581 deliveries not 700. Granted the 3rd quarter could be a wild one for deliveries.
A320 series comps out at 37 a month (which is in line with data I had from Av Week and listed a while back)
The rate of 50 for the A320 series would be quite a jump from an average of 37.
Airbus A321/A320 so far in October:
Total: 45 (all new off the line), with 3 days to go in the month.
23 MAXs so far in October: 11 whitetails and 12 new off the line.
Thanks for the correct information on 320/321 deliveries.
“You can look it up.”
Well, here is a 2nd source of data and with the same wondering I have.
@TW seems to have forgotten dat AB traditionally backloads its deliveries, with significant increases in Q4.
“Airbus maintains its guidance for 700 deliveries for the full year, which means that – like previous years -, 2022 will be backloaded again with many deliveries scheduled in the final weeks of the year.”
Everyone old enough in the industry should know that, it’s nothing unique to AB.
I meant delivery skewed towards the y.e.
Thus those who kept ignoring facts would only be off the mark widely, as proven time after time here.
It’s been airframers’ little dirty secret for years if not decades.
Bloomberg November 13, 2018
-> Boeing stock drops as 737 deliveries lag
“Boeing will need to deliver 72 of its single-aisle workhorse in November and again in December to reach its planned build rate, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst George Ferguson said in a report to clients Tuesday. Boeing shipped just 43 last month.”
And Airbus claims 40 for the Covid period but the data says otherwise.
As Av Week noted, Airbus claims production at the wing join (from memory) and that is not the same as delivered which is the correct data point. From the WSJ
“Airbus at the outset of the pandemic cut its output of A320 family jets from 63 a month to 40. ”
It latter goes on to note that parts are arriving late, so you have aircraft that are having to wait for the travel work to get done. That is aside from the engines. Airbus can play all the word games it wants but the numbers are the cold hard reality.
And its not a matter of not liking Airbus, I continue to be impressed with their management of the enterprise vs Boeing flops.
That does not mean facts are not facts vs the spin.
But of course with some, its a one way street.
No links, as usual.
Here’s one for you, from April 2020:
“Airbus AIR.PA has asked A320 parts suppliers to slow their deliveries to its factories by 40% to a rate compatible with production of **36** jets a month in the near term, one source said.”
And the final result for 2020 was 446, which corresponds to ** 37.16 ** per month.
> That does not mean facts are not facts vs the spin. <
Good to know- thank you. Do you have any links, to back up your
so far unsupported assertions above?
No worries. In January 2023 we’ll know who’s spewing nonsense here.
No wonder alt-reality is accepted as fact.
> Airbus can play all the word games it wants but the numbers are the cold hard reality. <
For clarity's sake, TW: which of Airbus's numbers are you claiming are incorrect? Also, please provide sources for said inaccuracies. Thanks so much!
Actual Deliveries A320fam:
years total /month
2018 626 52.2
2019 642 53.5
2020 446 37.2
2021 483 40.3
2022 340 37.7 ( 9 month through Sept. 30 )
maybe you made a computing error?
Only twelve new-production 737MAXs delivered this month?
I wonder what the net profit margin is on the delivered white-tail MAXs.
In Q3, over a dozen MAX 7 were produced but had to be kept in inventory. BA may have optimistically been producing MAX 10 for awhile. Didn’t Scott report in Sept, BA talked of the MAX 7 to be certified the following month (i. e. October) and Calhoun still said the MAX 10 wouldbe certified before the y.e. deadline??
From Dominic Gates
-> Ahead of Boeing’s investor conference on Wed., three MAX 7s parked lakeside at the Renton plant
13 completed MAX 7s are parked around the factory
Certification delayed until at least next year, so no deliveries
-> Some of those stored -7s had already rolled out in April/May timeframe. Some already got painted all white and flown out to Moses Lake.
-> Part of Boeing’s ploy: Build it and they will come…around. Absolutely sickening.
Proof that you don’t follow delivery close/long enough!
Simple maths: 437 + 50 + 50 + 50 (monthly NB rate) + eliminate most gliders on hand + WB = ???
It will be interesting to see at the end of 2022 if Airbus has delivered around 581 aircraft, as my good friend TW predicts, or closer to 700, per Airbus.
I am leaning toward the latter number.
The productions lines are generally steady with only small variations for each month
With the backloading its merely getting the paperwork and funding done so the customer takes actual delivery. These would be out the assembly line door planes who might have issues with interiors , or other details or mostly lease financing arranged
You cant ‘backload’ a production line to get from under 600 to 700 in the last few months of the year.
What’s your point, DoU? In particular: do you think Airbus will deliver closer
to esteemed commenter Trans’s claim of 581 aircraft, or their own of around 700?
Thanks in advance for your reply, and fully appreciate you sagacity and erudition.
Im betting that Airbus makes its predictions. Theres absolutely no reason they would be less than honest
The numbers for the 9 months both this year and last year are given ‘Of the 437 (424) delivered aircraft, 340 (341) was A320/A321, 34 (34) A220, 42 (36) A350, 21 (11) A330.’
So they are slightly ahead of last years 9 month number 437 to 424
So you ask , what was the 12 months total for 2021 ?
611, so on current trends they will be about 20 more than last year when the last quarter ends.
Thats 630 or so.
End of todays lesson in hard numbers , not rubbery PR
And what was AB’s A320/321 line rate at the end of 2021?
And what is that line rate at the end of this year?
And they’re also ramping up the line rate for other models, aren’t they?
Our geniuses can never have followed the aviation industry closely. I heard one who boasted he read hundreds of articles about the industry. Haha.
I’m old enough to remember this, back in 2018:
-> BCA NB delivery: Oct 43; Nov 61; drum roll please …..
Dec 69: **well ahead of monthly production rate of 52 at the time**.
In the first three quarters, BCA delivered 407 NB. For 2018, Q1 to Q3 delivery: 70%; Q4: **30%**
Those who insisted to think in a linear way and perform simple maths would be off by a whopping 39 jets or so or just under seven percent of annual delivery #!!
AB is also steadily reducing its — already low — debt.
Currently debt is €14.5B, down from €17.2B in Q2, €18.4B in Q1, and from €22.6B in Q3 2020. Gross cash is €22.5B.
Over at BA, debt is $57.2B (steady), and gross cash is $13B.
This seems to suggest that Airbus has got a huge development advantage. If its about €10billion (or $) per whole new aircraft from concept to first delivery, Airbus has several of those in hand compared to Boeing…
OK that’s a naive view that assumes the debt has to be paid off, Boeing seem to be in the territory where that might never have to happen
Airbus also announced a delay in certifying the 321XLR until 4Q 2024….
Not 4Q: it’s 2Q
“The entry into service of the A321XLR is now 2Q2024 from “early 2024” before.”
As BA flags the risk of MAX 10 EIS slipping into 2024 in its filing, what’s the possibility that the XLR can get ahead??
Told you it was going to be increasing time till certification done.
Whats the bet by this time next year it will be 4Q2024 or even ‘early 2025 ?
Friend Duke, do you have any current thoughts on Boing737MAX™7 and™MAX10
My impression is that Boing is way more dependent on those certifications than AB are on the A321XLR’s..
A nine-month total delay as opposed to a 5-year delay for the 777X — I know which one I’d prefer 😏
That’s *if* the Boing 777X is ever certified at all..
It still seems possible.
The new A350 config must surely be eroding the 777x’s chances…
Pity though, at 9 across the A350 is OK.
Regarding the A321XLR:
“CEO Guillaume Faury said that the new EIS-date for the XLR is the result of getting a better understanding of the program’s schedule and certification requirements. He stressed that the discussion on the RCT “is not about modification. It is about defining the requirements of this new RCT and the XLR as a whole, as the XLR is not just about the RCT, it is a whole new plane in many dimensions. We are able now to have a very precise schedule, having all the parameters stabilized in the three prototypes in flight going to certification and entry into service. That’s why we give Q2 2024 as an indication for entry into service.””
Whole new plane ?
And the reason last year was …..
If its really a ‘whole new plane’ , then 2025 might be optimistic
“let them eat [dogshit] 737MAXs…”
Dukie: in your estimation, which company- Airbus, or Boeing- is presently in need of a whole new plane?
Thanks in advance for your generous answer.
Thats what the CEO called it , really he means certification wise as its the same old A321 really with some beefed up undercarriage for the weight and such.
But its very clever thinking for a 200 seater , sort of a ‘reverse scope plane’ for the US carriers where they are up against some hard limits rather than artificial ones for the 75 seater type
That’s not “what the CEO called it” — go back and read the quote again.
I confess that I did not understand DoU’s (word-salad?) reply to my question.
Read again: Faury said “whole new plane ** in many dimensions ** ”
Wing, for example.
The basic wing persists.
Changes are in the High Lift layout.
( with some run off into cruise profile shaping?)
Regarding the certification requirements, Airbus have explained themselves on their website in september:
Philippe Pupin, who leads the flight test engineering team for the A321XLR programme, and who was one of the crew members aboard the first flight of MSN11000 in June 2022, explains the rationale for the flight testing phase:
“In order to become a long-range aircraft, the A321XLR needs to carry more fuel, which means increasing the A321’s maximum take-off weight. In turn this requires uprated landing gear and braking systems. However, since we are keeping the engine thrust unchanged, we have made some aerodynamic changes to retain our desired take-off performance. This has driven the physical modifications to the high-lift system – the slats and flaps – as well as reprogramming of the flight control system, all of which needs to be flight-tested and certified.”
“In terms of flight hours of testing the -XLR programme stands somewhere in between a brand new aircraft and a derivative. So we have to ‘re-test’ virtually everything regarding aircraft design and flight physics,” he adds.
With the A321XLR, Airbus has also taken the opportunity to infuse some recent developments to the overall flight control system design – which was hitherto based on the original architecture for the A321 designed in the early 1990s. The aim is to enhance flight control design commonality across all programmes – and further fulfils Airbus’ unified Fly-By-Wire architecture implementation.
Clearly AB has a better understanding of what it faces in certification process than its competitor.
“Safran upholds target of 2.000 CFM LEAPs next year”
“In its Q3 results presentation, Safran reported the delivery of 347 LEAPs in Q3, in line with what GE said earlier this week. In the first six months, 465 LEAPs were delivered, so this brings the number to 812 this year to date. But the original plan for this year is to deliver 1.200 LEAPs to Airbus (A320neo family), Boeing (MAX), and COMAC (C919). “
Im gladd pnwGeek aroundd it make me smile
We will see how it goes, Friend.
According to ultra-sagacious commenter Dukie AB
will deliver only 630 planes this year.
thanks, we’ll see how it goes
The BA back office is incensed by the fact that the competitor appears to be going from strength to strength, while it itself remains endlessly mired down (in a marsh of its own making).
Like Mandy Rice-Davies’s “he would say that, wouldn’t he..” ?
Based on the CEO own words
‘The deterioration of supply chain performance has stopped, according to Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, but not improved.’
So based on how far ahead they are at month 9 compared to last year, and the deliveries last year of 614.
Elementary my dear Watson
The CEO hasn’t said the supply chain delays arent lower than last year.
On the other hand, it would seem that CFM is prioritizing AB above BA, since the former is now churning out new A321s/A320s at rate 50, whereas BA appears to be stuck at about rate 15.
The A321/A320 also has PW, of course.
Plus: AB made gliders, which are now getting engines, and can be delivered soon.
They are completely different engine cores , in many ways they only share the same nomenclature.
Surely you knew it wasnt just a matter of a different front fan size?
Yes, I did know that.
Nobody suggested that the ones BA wasn’t taking, could just be sent off to AB (your reading skills are letting you down again).
But, seeing as they come from the same manufacturer, that manufacturer can just make more of one than of another, can’t it?
No they cant just ‘make more of one than the other’ . Its not chocolates and as the overwhelming differences mean they come from different suppliers, production facilities and assembly lines.
Airbus has kept production fairly high, while Boeings Max production went cold for some time.
Still Leap cant keep up with Boeings lower demand. ( they cant shift
units over to their Leap A facilities either )
Here you go — you see, CFM can selectively ramp up production of the LEAP 1A 😏
But it is not “just taking parts from a different tray” easy.
> On the other hand, it would seem that CFM is prioritizing AB above BA <
Makes sense, no? The former a high-volume, steady and reliable customer; the other testy, low-volume, "sloppy" on paying..
AB is better prepared for what’s coming I believe. They sacrificed a bit extra cash to increase parts holding to smooth out the supply chain hiccups. While we know the other is caught flat-footed. The Emperor has no clothes, don’t you know??
One CEO has a clear target to achieve and is working on it; while the CEO of its competitor appeared to be very busy running around with his hair on fire.
-> Airbus SE Chief Executive Officer Guillaume Faury reaffirmed the company’s production targets even as supply-chain constraints limit its ability to deliver jetliners on schedule.
“Based on the visibility we have now from the supply chain we think it’s manageable, but I will not tell you that it’s easy,”
“We don’t know exactly when the position of the supply chain will have normalized,” he said. “We have indications that things are starting to go better, but we are in a ramp up, so **it’s not just fulfilling the needs of today**. It becomes more and more difficult every day.”
From and by Steve Trimble at Avation Week Network via LinkedIn.
Boeing gambled on fixed-price development contracts from the Defense Department and NASA, and is paying the price. I researched all of the reach-forward losses reported by Boeing’s defense and space business since 2014. Over an eight-year period, BDS has reported more than $11.45 billion in reach-forward losses across the five biggest fixed-priced development programs (KC-46, Commercial Crew, VC-25B, T-7 and MQ-25). About $4.43 billion, or nearly 40%, of the charges have come in the last three quarters. The KC-46 is the biggest loser, accounting for $6.55 billion (57%) of all the charges. The T-7 also hurts. Its charges include $936 million in forward-losses on the 346 production aircraft in the Air Force program of record. Boeing still hasn’t delivered a T-7 yet and has already written off an average of $2.7 million for each of the 346 aircraft yet to be ordered.
That company is limping along the edge of an abyss, and nobody is doing anything about it…
TBTF- for now at least.
Strange that your financial expertise ….is ignored by everyone.
CFO -“Operating cash flow [for 3Q] was $3.2 billion and free cash flow was $2.9 billion, both up pretty significantly versus both prior year and prior quarter”
of course Airbus with its hundreds of deliveries was soooo much better
“Free Cash Flow of €4.5bn (was €3.5bn).”
Well not so very much better. ( exchange rate is roughly equal).
But you stick to your scripts of ‘edge of the abyss’, so much better creating a new persona that you werent before
Unlike at BA, income at AB is used to pay off debt each quarter. Accordingly, AB has gross cash of €22B, and net cash of €8B.
BA has gross cash of $13B, and net “cash” of MINUS $44B (i.e. debt, not cash).
BA has also had 5 consecutive quarters of losses. AB doesn’t have that problem.
Moreover, in comments on another article, Frank and I pointed out that the source of BA’s positive cashflow in Q3 was purely one-offs, e.g. tax refunds and deposit payments. BA admits that clearly in the notes to the balance sheet.
Looks like Duke needs a crash course in financing 😏
Don’t forget those “non-cash” charges would become continuous cash drain in coming quarters if not years (given BA’s lack of forward visibility of costs I say two years max.)
The chickens are coming home to roost.
“free cash flow is the cash left over after a company pays for its operating expenses (OpEx) and capital expenditures (CapEx)…… more free cash flow a company has, the better it is placed to pay down debt ‘”
For Airbus and Boeing its before debt repayments. They can utilise it for that of course but its still part of FCF .
Like I said you have your own bubble of financial misinformation
We know that Boeing has had serious financial problems, but no longer.
Please explain why the 437 aircraft AB delivered in 9 months didnt give them say ‘a five times more FCF’ than Boeing ?
You cant , but its time to cherry pick old information from previous years I imagine
AB is making a profit under its competitor which relied on “tax refund” to inflate its FCF.
May be our resident self-proclaimed finance “guru” can explain how a profitable company can claim tax refund
“Please explain why the 437 aircraft AB delivered in 9 months didnt give them say ‘a five times more FCF’ than Boeing ?”
BA had positive cashflow in Q3, but not in several preceding quarters.
AB, on the other hand, has had positive cashflow in a whole succession of quarters. That’s how AB has been able to pay off debt at a flogging pace (see link 1). BA, on the other hand, is stuck at a debt figure of $57.2B (see link 2).
Any other issues I can help you with?
I suspect you may be confusing “cash flow” and “cash on hand”…
One would imagine that a quick inspection of AB and BA stock charts would have been enough to dispel the notion that BA is in recovery mode. Investors don’t like bad balance sheets, bad earnings, and bad prospects…but it seems that some commenters think otherwise 😉
BA stock: down 30.8% YTD, down 45.05% last 5 years.
AB stock: down 5.3% YTD, up 26.2% last 5 years.
Here you go: you should have done your homework better.
The first link shows BA free cashflow per quarter, going back several years. Note that only 2 quarters have been positive since Sep. 2020, i.e. 2022-Q3 and 2021-Q4. In every other quarter in that period, cashflow was NEGATIVE.
Now, here’s the equivalent chart for AB. Notice the positive cashflow in that past 7 quarters (actually, 8 quarters, because 2022-Q3 isn’t yet in the data)?
If we add up the past 8 quarters, we get the following resultant cashflow:
BA: MINUS $9.511B
AB: PLUS $10.398B
That’s $20B of a difference in just 2 years!
We are talking about this Boeing financial report not previous one or previous years.
Please explain why , this year, Airbus has such poor free cashflow ( as defined by experts not wannabees) considering they have the massive delivery advantage ?
Around 430 single ailse and 21 A330sand 42 A350s should be rolling in the dough but they are ‘merely’ twice as much as Boeing(roughly)
As for tax refunds $176 mill for Boeing and 76 mill Euros for Airbus.
Some one is throwing around terms again without checking. I suppose the clown car horn isn’t working so financial buffoons just babble away
Your question has already been answered: BA had a “fluke” positive cashflow in Q3 because of a tax refund and “fortuitous timing” of receipts (using BA’s own wording). Without those, it would have had negative cashflow.
For this year, Airbus has had very good cashflow — despite its higher R&D spending than BA, and the current inflation issues. You can see that from the links I posted.
But, by all means, do continue to deny reality if it soothes you.
Luckily for Duke, LNA has now (this morning) written an explanatory article on BA’s “smoke and mirrors” cashflow figure.
No doubt he’ll now denounce that article as rubbish.
-> The tax refund was $1.5bn
It’s from BA’s 10Q. Not whatever number our finance “guru” pretended to be.
According to Scott:
“During the first nine months of 2022, net cash provided by operating activities was $0.1 billion.”
Oops. It looks dismal, isn’t it??
-> “Boeing is uniquely vulnerable to labor and other costs,” says Richard Aboulafia, managing director at AeroDynamic Advisory. “The pandemic-related jetliner downturn and the 737 MAX shutdown hit commercial revenue hard, leaving these [up-front] money-losing defense contracts to stand alone, and they’re now costing the company dearly.”
Digging itself a bigger and bigger financial hole
Free cash flow is increasing and now almost half that of Airbus, despite their overwelhming delivery volume advantage .
A total lie that the financial hole is getting bigger, when it’s quite the reverse they have turned the corner.
Airbus helicopter s was in hole a while back too as a major type had it’s certification pulled for quite a while. Sound familiar. Then there is the bribery scandal and the payouts in return for non prosecution. But we are getting distracted , this is about both companies 9 months results.
Let’s not go cherry picking into a different lemon orchard
“Free cash flow is increasing and now almost half that of Airbus”
That’s the lie here.
BA’s FCF was a fluke, due to one-offs.
The development of T-7 would show the future for BCA??
> Pedro said, on October 28, 2022:
No worries. In January 2023 we’ll know who’s spewing nonsense here. <
Indeed. Let's compare notes on AB v BA aircraft paid deliveries
A321neo/A320neo deliveries for October are now up to 52.
That’s an additional 7 in just 24 hours.
Good Job Airbus, v The Gang that Can’t Shoot Straight.
“We’ll leapfrog ’em in FY 2047!”
Considering that there were 65 days left(28 October)in the year when AB indicated 700 deliveries, it makes no sense that they would announce as much to ultimately under deliver.
Putting yourself in management’s shoes, play it safe announce a number you can deliver, or exceed . Parlay that into the competitor continuing to miss their numbers quarter by quarter, and who’s your daddy.
Didn’t understand the discussion above about the definition of delivery, if it is the same as that used for last year seems like just obfuscation from that commenter.
They have quarterly numbers so by 3rd quarter ( Sept) they had the announced numbers.
Its the way it works, stick with the wishful thinking right up till the end when the estimate is changed at the last minute.
Same goes for the A321XLR certification , why keep announcing delays you might ask when they could go for a later date and deliver early ?
You’re evidently so used to the way in which BA operates, that you think the whole industry works in the same way…
This is the second XLR delay announced, won’t be the last
Hahaha so it’s only bad when Boeing does it
Remember the delays for the new A330neo and the A350-1000 etc.
Great planes btw. So maybe worth waiting for
“This is the second XLR delay announced”
Well, at least it’s a delay in months…not years.
It originally was 2021 to 22.
So we ARE into years , unless you have a different calendar and arithmetic for cultural reasons or just because you can . Wish you well in those endevours
The “it’s” refers to the second announced delay — not to cumulative delay.
Oh oh…this is not good news for BA:
“LOT Polish Airlines Requests Judge To Declare It A Crime Victim In Boeing 737 MAX Case”
“On Friday, October 28th, LOT Polish Airlines asked a US judge to declare it a crime victim as a part of the Boeing 737 MAX criminal case. If the judge approves and declares the airline a victim, the European carrier would likely be eligible for significant compensation from Boeing. The airline argues that the 20-month grounding of the MAX caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. All airlines whose 737 MAX aircraft were grounded would be entitled to millions in additional compensation if LOT’s request is approved.”
More Theatre, I think. We’re living in rather unusual™ times.
I’d be interested in sometime commenter Uwe’s recent thoughts.
My own steady question now is: what’s happening beneath this or that glossy, PR-friendly surface? Events of significance seem to
go unreported, if you know what I mean.. what I mean, what I Idi Amin:
They only have 5 Max 8 models plus lots of Embraers and a few 737NG.
Lawyers braggadocio I would think
The plea deal meant the airlines got many $ billions more than the ‘real’ crash victims
It doesn’t matter how many MAXs they have: the operative word is “crime”, as in last week’s Texas ruling.
Criminal damages are higher than civil damages. The “crime” does not depend on the number of MAXs at an airline.
The judge hasn’t ruled those killed in the crash ARE crime victims just that potentially they might be if they can prove a link between the two crashes and Boeing’s conspiracy to mislead FAA
The lawyer for families gives his discussion and explanation
. “Judge O’Connor explained that, with sufficient evidence, the families might be able to show that they were directly and proximately harmed by Boeing’s conspiracy to defraud the FAA. ”
Note the ‘might’
Oct 21 (Reuters) – “A U.S. judge in Texas ruled on Friday that people killed in two Boeing (BA.N) 737 MAX crashes are legally considered “crime victims,” a designation that will determine what remedies should be imposed.”
The damages that may or may not ensue from that are separate to the status conferred by the ruling.
I have a LAWYER ( and former Federal Judge and current law professor) for the families telling us in considerable detail, even he makes the ‘might be’ point
Note his connection to the case
‘In December 2021, I filed a motion alleging that the Justice Department violated its CVRA obligations to fifteen families whose family members were killed in the two crashes. I argued that because of that violation, the DPA was illegally concluded.”
The “might be” relates to the coming damages claims.
There’s no “might be” relating to the culpability ruling from the Texas judge.
Trials often bifurcate culpability and liability into 2 different procedures.
Not a single comments on A 220 !!! Why
are they closing the line !!
Is Faury still in charge of this line???
The only data I can find is about expanding Mirabel to allow a doubling in A220 production.
“The entry into service of the A321XLR is now 2Q2024 from “early 2024” before.”
Text book example of “drip, drip, drip” strategy of releasing bad news to customers.
Should we assume 2Q2024 now means June 30th, 2024?
Yes the original date was ‘2021 to 2022’ when first announced .
Sure there’s Covid but certification time periods have been growing for everyone as the authorities try to find their own way