United orders 100 Boeing 787s, 100 Boeing 737s, defers Airbus A350 again

Dec. 13, 2022, © Leeham News: United Airlines today announced a massive order for 100 Boeing 787s and 100 Boeing 737 MAXes. Sub-types weren’t announced. Neither were the engine types for the 787s, which are powered by either GE Aerospace’s GEnx or Rolls-Royce Trent 1000.

An order for 45 Airbus A350s was deferred again, this time to at least 2030. Deliveries were to begin in 2027. The order had been deferred at least twice previously. Reuters reported “United CEO Scott Kirby told reporters ‘the right time for 350 versus (787) conversation is when we’re replacing the bulk of the 777s, which really doesn’t begin to the end of the decade.’” Most observers believe this order will be canceled eventually.

Related articles

At least one more big airline order, Air India, is expected before the end of the year.

More information

United filed an 8-K (an unscheduled material event) with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The document, which includes UAL’s press release, contains details about the 787 and 737 transactions and a passing reference to the A350. United anointed itself as the USA’s Flag Carrier.

Boeing stock was up $5.55 (3%) in pre-market trading to $186.27. United’s stock was up 1.83% to $44.24 in pre-market trading.

359 Comments on “United orders 100 Boeing 787s, 100 Boeing 737s, defers Airbus A350 again

    • Anyone notice there were 100 OPTIONS for the 787? That spikes the A350 order.

      Also of note was replacing 767s and OLDER (yes I am shouting) 777.

  1. I read somewhere that UAL is also ordering 321XLRs to replace the 757s they have?
    Or is that old news?

  2. Scott, unless I missed it in your Leeham News, when will a “GENX II” be developed/announced? Isn’t it about time for one, or do the PIPs obviate the need for one? Thanks for all you do, and Merry Christmas!

    • That’ GENX 787 update is long overdue…
      Just because your the market share leader… doesn’t mean you rest on your laurels…
      Complacency is never a good thing in the aviation market.!!
      Perhaps go to CMC’s borrowed from the leap and 9X programs…
      Addictive manufactured TaAL in the LPT as well.!!

    • Merry Christmas indeed!

      Is GE in danger of finding that RR are offering Ultrafan on 787 all of a sudden?

      Certainly I can’t see Boeing standing in the way of such an RR development, if RR are also offering the same basic engine on everything Airbus is marketing, if Ultrafan is anywhere near half-way good. It kinda feels that GE have got to do something pretty good

      • Ultra Fan is 10 years out. They are not even playing with prototypes, they are using a Demonstrator using other Trent/XWB engine parts to drive it.

        Is GE looking at options to improve the GenX? Sure they are. The actually quietly upgraded the original GenX that fell short of commitments and have exceeded the SFC now with no advertised PIP (as I recall there were two GE PIPs then it went quiet)

        Regardless GE will have future improvements in test and may insert them as time goes by. That would be the goal is insert so it does not require a new architecture (aka Trent Ten all new engine).

        GE needs to make money on its investments in the GENx, the LEAP and GEN9X

        Any of the development form the LEAP and the GEN9X that can be inserted into a GenX will be considered.

        Leeham would know a lot more about the contractual details and when and why an engine mfg upgrades. GE may be paying off past debit when they did not meet spec on SFC.

        • Most likely is GE working on GE9X solutions into the GEnX and maybe even the CF6-80C2 to keep the 767F alive, but they are costly so driving cost reductions and productivity improvements on the current GEnX is probably top priority. When RR decides to offer the Ultrafan onto the 787-10 and A350-1000 it will get GE working and design a less complex competitor with the aim to be cheaper to build and maintain.

    • The $17B figure is commensurate with (for example):
      – The current “standard” market price of $125M for a 787-9 (58% discount).
      – $45M (average) per MAX, which would represent a 65% discount on a MAX-10 / 63% discount on a MAX-8.

      Very meager margins for BA.

      A SEC filing by SW revealed that it got about 65% discount on its MAX-7s, leaving essentially no margin for BA.

      • Can BA sell aircraft at a loss to pad its numbers before the y.e.??

        OTOH not that long ago UA expects to begin operating the MAX 10 in *early 2023*!!! 🤣

        • I don’t think it’s a loss — but it certainly isn’t much of a profit.
          They may be hoping that seemingly-impressive order numbers will cause the stock price to further increase, thus allowing them to raise new equity according to the plan that LNA recently alluded to; needless to say, such a plan won’t go down well with stock holders, if it materializes.

          Even if other analysts are fooled, Bloomberg seems to be more in-touch with pricing realities.

          • Currently BA can only sustain new-built 87 at less than two a mth, unit cost must have skyrocketed.

          • LNA recently alluded to a plan to raise new equity? Where was this allusion?
            Presumably raising new equity would require dilution of existing stock. The idea that current management would approve any measures that dilutes current equity is…a complete fantasy. This management is all about boosting value of existing stock.
            If it was suggested Boeing may issue new equity to fund a development program….well then, someone is confusing this management with one which wants to design new planes. It doesn’t. It wants to extract as much cash as possible from investments made long ago.
            This is called “unlocking value”.

          • @John

            If memory serves, Scott – who has access to this kind of info, mentioned a ‘quiet’ meeting in NY with the c-suite boys and investors.

            Apparently, BA wanted to raise some $30 billion with an equity offering at around the $350 share price. The money walked.

            Smart guys.

            (I wonder if they laughed as they said ‘No thanks’)

          • $350 a share? Sounds like trying to sell a dollar for $2. Not a serious proposal.

          • John:

            They were serious. Boeing management is well grounded.

            The MAX was grounded, the 777X is grounded the 787 was grounded.

        • Airlines are well aware of the pickle that BA is in, and they can continue to exploit that to get very attractive pricing.
          On the other hand, low-margin sales don’t help BA get out of its debt-driven pickle.
          So, we have a self-perpetuating pickle.

          • If BA gets 10% down at signing, that’s $1.7 billion they’ll have in cash to keep the wolves from the door. We’ll see what kinda margins Q4 brings

          • @ Frank
            BA has about $5B of short term debt coming due for repayment within ca. 6 months. One-off cash flow items such as order deposits and tax refunds will come in handy for that purpose 😏

          • @Bryce

            Yah, I just had a look at that, as I posted a reply to Williams down below.

            Technically, I think that STD is everything under a year, but since the end of 2021, until Q3/22 – it has gone up from

            Short-term debt & current portion of long-term debt 5,431 1,296

            and Long-term debt 51,788 56,806

            So those bonds that they borrowed are coming due and they’re going to have to pay them out. Plus another $600+ million in interest expense.

            What a mess.

          • @ Frank
            That STD of $5.4B was already on the books at the end of Q2 (now 6 months ago) — so it’s got to be paid back within the next 6 months.
            That’ll make a fine hole in cash reserves.

          • @Bryce

            I think it rolls. As stuff comes due, within the 1 year time frame, it get’s paid off and new debt from LTD falls into the current 12 month period.

            This was STD & LTD at the end of Q4/21


            Total: 58,102

            Nine months later:


            Total: 57,219

            So over nine months they decreased the overall debt by $883 million. Which is good.

            But really, we have no details, so who knows?

            Interestingly – ‘Other’ LT Liabilities did this:

            Other long-term liabilities 2,250 1,750

            Up by half a billion, over the same period. And this also happened:

            Total liabilities 155,193 153,398

            So all liabilities increased by ~$1.8 billion over the past 9 months.

            So much is opaque, who knows what the real numbers are…

          • @ Frank
            The increase in total liabilities is probably due to receipt of deposits — which, as you previously noted, are not booked as revenue until delivery occurs, but in the meantime are parked as liabilities because they’ll have to be refunded in the case of a penalty-free cancellation.

            LTD vs STD: Debt certainly does roll from LTD to STD as it enters the “due in one year” category. I had previously noted the $883M debt repayment to which you refer, but the coming $5.4B payoff is 6 times bigger! Repaying that from the Q2 b/s would have eaten more than half of cash on hand! Luckily for BA, they’ve managed to fatten the b/s in the meantime with deposit payments / tax repayments.

            Don’t forget accounts payable, by the way: another $9B, versus about $2B in accounts receivable the last time I looked. That’s a lot of money that also needs to be paid, but isn’t on the LTD/STD screen.

          • @Bryce

            IIRC the increase on deposits was from one quarter to the next, as they trumpeted an increase in cash. From the beginning of the year to the emd of Q3/22 it is:

            Advances and progress billings 53,177 52,980

            $197 million. Pocket change BA loses in the cracks of the chesterfield.

            As for the rest of it, yah – it’s a mess.

            You gotta wonder, the people who work in accounting who can read these statements and get peeks behind the curtain…what their mentality must be like? Keep the CV up to date and be on the lookout for other opportunities. I know corporations try to ‘golden handcuff’ their people with stock options and the like…but still.

        • It is a revenue game over decades, note that selling price is index’ed up for future year deliveries. Spare parts and proprietary repair prices can easily be adjusted upwards over the years but within some limits. Hence future years delivery price increases, PIP packages and future operating costs are uncertain.

        • @Matthew

          By ditching higher paid jobs in the U.S. and hiring more in India and Brazil, may be that’s the only way BA sees to increase profit.

    • -> “There is no doubt this order needed to happen, but elevated leverage is a substantial headwind going forward,” Jefferies analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu said in a note.

      -> “United is loading up on Boeing’s largest narrowbody model, taking another 80 Max 10 aircraft even though the timing of the jet’s market debut is in question. That carries risk for the airline, since that plane has yet to receive federal certification and it is nearing a Dec. 27 deadline that could force Boeing to redesign the safety alerting system. […]

      • Your point is a good one: too much is being inferred regarding this sale.
        BCA’s next inclusive financial report would be solider as a source of evidence, I think.

      • @ bentwing

        That’s right, it’s actually the other way around: Bloomberg estimates are based on recent Boeing discounts 😏

  3. The A350 orders are not cancelled.

    “Laderman stated the A350 deliveries are not scheduled to start until 2030, and added the Airbus widebody was a “really great option” as a 777 replacement.

    The 100 new 787s will replace the 767s and some of the 777s, he confirmed. ”

    Maybe because replacing 777-200ER’s by 787 on the Pacific doesn’t make much sense, capability wise.

    • Feels like UA is keeping the 350 order alive as a baton to hit B with if/when they need B to be flexible: do this or we will activate the AB order.
      Scott, I am curious to know what pound of flesh from UA the folks at AB would have required to play along. Or would they be delighted to remain a burr in the saddle? Any ideas?

      • Bingo.

        As I state previously, there is not such things as a single airline model that works and the assumption is default to the good old days of big aircraft and one big pax load.

        That may or may not work and it may or may not be true depending on how an Airline chooses to operate.

        Delta has one set of assessments as two of its large hubs are Atlanta (main one actually) and Seattle.

        United nearest Hub to Seattle is SFO. You have to dig deeply into cities they serve and the routes and what agreements are in those routes.

        • ” … two of its large hubs are Atlanta (main one actually) and Seattle.”

          • Yes Atlanta.

            Seattle is developing and probably less a hub than a opening into the Asian routes. Its a huge Delta ambition do access Asia and compete with AK Airlines.

          • I don’t count them but Atlanta is the original home base for Delta.

            Though the point also is you can dispatch now from Dallas or Boston or……… and reach Asia.

  4. In a future world where electric powered Blended Wing Bodied Aircraft will be the norm…
    There will be Airbus , showing Uniteds’ a350 order still in the books deferred again to about 2050.!!!

    • Along with the Vietjet MAX order — which keeps getting postponed, re-affirmed, postponed, re-affirmed,… 😉

      • Sorry Bryce, where does VietJet appear anywhere in this article? Maybe you should post that on a Leeham article about VietJet instead of derailing the discussion? Fanboying over a company you don’t work for, or that doesn’t even know you exist, is very embarassing. The fact of the matter is that this is focusing on United, the 787 orders, and the once-again deferred A350 order that will just be kicked down the road until converted or cancelled.

        With that in mind, does anybody even know why United keeps the A350 on order when United could convert them to XLRs and save an early production slot?

        • @Mountain: The personalizing of your comment violates Reader Comment rules. Avoid this in the future.


        • @ MountainMiner
          “Maybe you should post that on a Leeham article about VietJet instead of derailing the discussion?”

          You didn’t notice that my comment was a retort to @TC’s message, which related to the act of keeping sliding orders on the books?
          You didn’t pick up on that?

          And, now, to bat your ball back into your corner: the article above isn’t about XLRs, so why did you bring that subject up?

          • I will apologize to you, Bryce, for being personal, and resorting to ad hominem attacks. However, strawman arguments are strawman arguments. This article definitively only relates to the 787 order, and also references the A350 order directly as that was a speculative part of the rumor leading up to todays announcement. The 767 and 777-200LR replacement competition is now over with this order, but I would like to know what the theories are with United: what do they intend to do with a now 12 year old Airbus order that has deliveries pushed out to 2027(!). Leave further wide-body match ups to a new competition; or have them for potential 757 replacements? Seems fairly related to the discussion at hand.

        • @MountainMiner,

          I bet Kirby is waiting to used said deposits on future XRL orders.

          Or the discounted A350 agreed upon is too good to let go.

          • The history of deferred orders says its dead and done.

            Ref Delta and the long standing 787 order they inherited from NW and then used as a bargaining chip to get great deals on A330NEO and A350.

            And per MountainMiner, we don’t know if they are negotiating a shift to A321 future orders or even support for the A319/320 they have in service (parts and support) or in regards to the incoming A321 fleet (support for now those would be under parts Warranty for non wear items) and we hear about it in June of 2023 when the dust has settled, Airbus has a bit A350 order so Airbus is not embarrassed.

            Deferred orders are fair item of discussion as the history of them has relevance to what the fate of the A350 orders here.

      • The reality is that if all companies ran per Wall Street they would all be gone or they would be bankrupt and starting over again.

        Mortgaging your future is a fatal thing.

  5. What is today’s monthly production rate for 787? How many built and not delivered? Can SC (built in 2009) really be counted for building up 787 rates with now about 600 in backlog…at 5 a month it will take 10 years

    • Planespotters is currently showing about 2 new 787s p/m from the line.
      In addition, about 4 parked 787s p/m are being removed from inventory.

      • Delivery was 6 x 787 for November.

        As noted prior, it will take 6 months to establish what the sustainable rate is for the fixed group of 120 (well prior to the fixed ones starting delivery) as well as the two a month off the line.

        That to is a moving target as Boeing starts to work to 5 a month but how soon has more to do with supply chain than anything.

    • David Pritchard:

      Currently I believe its two a month that basically is keeping the build experience capability up (yes you can argue how good that is)

      There is an announced move to 5 x 787 a month (forget how soon)

      There are 120 to be delivered but unless some of those are abandoned, they are all committed to airlines (who are suddenly scrambling for any aircraft). Some of those have been delivered.

      Boeing failure had a silver lining for Airlines that were taking 787 as they did not need them (though the ones that had them flew them heavily during the heart of Covid as they were the most economical long haul used to maintain routes and people)

      There was a contention that Boeing would deliver 4 x 787 and then it all would come to a stop, that did not happen, they continue to deliver but have to see how many over the last 4 months.

      • Repeat of the info, it was 6 x 787 delivered in November

        I believe that is in customers hands vs the wings attached!

  6. UA uses some of its widebodies on domestic runs, I hope this continues with the 787

  7. First, congratulations to Boeing and UAL.

    But as other commenters noted, very little profit to pay the bills and fund the massive retirement obligations.

    I noted the stock price is up this morning but no P/E negative earnings per share.
    See folks, the C suite Boeing executives are all back slapping and sipping champagne with the huge year end bonus’s coming their way.

    Noting will ever change at Boeing…. Nothing.

    • Mh, interesting point: targets at BA may be based on new sales rather than realized revenue/earnings.
      That would explain a lot.

    • @Airdoc,

      I get you used to work for Boeing and its not the same company before the merger but you just described 95% of corporate management. And corporate management across Europe too.

      • That does have some relevance.

        I did not work for FedEx but I saw the knee jerk stuff that went on from an up close and all to personal view (yea, being a sub contractor sucks)

        Suddenly project got cancelled, just to start up again and in one case, a building went through 4 or 5 phases of build out. It cost they 6x what it would have cost to do just the basic build out and not use the rooms.

        Suddenly you could not even buy a $50 part without prior approval. We learned to stockpile stuff to get us through the panics.

        And a patch to a system became a Normalization of Deviation. And yes it bit them more than once, cost lots of money and local facility impact. Never changed the behaviour.

        One dept manager tried to kill an entity that was returning huge return just because he wanted it all under his office window in Memphis. Did he get slapped down, no, they just kept letting him undermine the operation to where it did not do as good.

        In the end what saved it was he retired. But the damage was done and they limped along. They at times spend money into the 10s of millions to upgrade it (behind the scenes stuff in motion) and we limped along on a failing erratic system saving it over and over and over again.

        Then when they did invest money (after the bad guy was gone) it had so many strings attached that that too was hosed up. In one case we had to cut an emergency contract to fix a pumping system that we told them had to be fixed (once disturbed they could not get it to seal up again and I am gleefully pointing out that you have pumps unsupported hanging out in mid air and what do you think is going to happen with those thin flanges? Of course they are going to warp. Thicker flanges or support it. I think that only cost 50k.

        Ok, the point? Its not that Corporations make money or not, you look at the parts and its how are they not always loosing money?

        There is a field of study there. Its a matter of how messed up they are (Boeing being the worst ) or how less messed up (FedEx/Honeywell/Johnson Controls) and …… shrug.

        You can see major trends, try to spot the less major ones and how much mistakes cost a company that get brushed under the carpet?

        A huge one for FedEx was its focus on the A380 and then the shift to the 777 but ignored the 727 fleet obsolescence. The put big bucks into what they called the MD-10 (glass cockpit conversion to match the MD-11) and now are dumping them.

        And I know for a fact Fred Smith focuses on aircraft, I saw some of the detail knowledge he had when he came through Anchorage. Werid.

  8. I hope some of you in the comment section are this active on pricing and margins when Airbus sells a A220 because that is a straight up loss with every unit they sell. But wo actually cares? I love that aircraft regardless and want to see more sold and in service.

    If the margins are small, so? Personally as an avgeek I really don’t care and most people also don’t care, I just like to see the planes come into service and I like to see new models with better efficiency and productivity, the more the merrier.

    If Boeing is happy with the margin then who is a keyboard warrior to complain about it?

    Picking at margins is really just a sad excuse to look for something to undermine what is a very good day for United and Boeing, an even at that it’s extremely useless because you’re not even privy to the workings of the deal and neither is Bloomberg.

    Congrats to United and Boeing

    • @nnaeto

      You are more eloquent than I.

      After the sale services contract on this many 787s is bank for Boeing too. After these 787s are paid for they will be producing revenue for Boeing.

      Airbus and Boeing generate nice revenues from such services.

      • Nnaeto:

        The issue is not aircraft now, its what Boeing future is?

        If there is no investment now and product being developed and then delivered, there is NO aircraft from Boeing in the future.

        Airbus has worked out a model of jobs along with making money.

        Boeing has given up its future with all he profits going to pay stock buy backs and dividends (and now paying for its mistakes)

        You won’t see future aircraft out of Airbus if Boeing goes down, they would have no reason to do so. You would see what we see with Boeing MO, derivatives at best (maybe A320 new wing).

        So yes its relevant if you want to see new aircraft because unless money is made then your new aircraft will not appear and the A220 series is a one off that is not going to be repeated.

    • @ Nnaeto

      I have no doubt that AB also has thin margins on some of its sales.
      However, AB also has more financial buffers to absorb such instances — whereas BA is financially on its knees.

      BA has to pay $650M per quarter on loan interest — every single quarter. That’s why BCA made a large operating loss in Q3, despite 112 deliveries. Thin margins are therefore a luxury that BA simply can’t afford.

    • Tell me which of the two major airframers is in a more precarious financial position? Which one is draining cash left right and centre?? Which one is continuing to invest R&D for the future, and which one just scrapped the long-awaited MOM new aircraft program because it “can’t” afford to???

    • ‘If Boeing is happy with the margin then who is a keyboard warrior to complain about it?’

      Well. I guess that’s one way to look at it.

      Another would be that since pricing and margins aren’t disclosed on individual deals, so for those of us who invest in such corporations and have little to go on – it’s highly relevant.

      Do you know where we do eventually find out (in general terms) how much airlines paid for these aircraft? When BA releases it 10-Q and has to do things like this:

      “During the fourth quarter of 2021, we determined that estimated costs to complete the 787 program plus costs already included in 787 inventory
      exceeded estimated revenues from the program. The resulting reach-forward loss of $3,460 was recorded as a reduction to deferred production

      and then this:

      “BCA loss from operations was $1,744 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 compared with $2,021 million in the same period in

      and this:

      “Abnormal production costs for the nine months ended September 30, 2022
      were $1,326 million including $925 million related to the 787 program, $213 million related to the 777X program and $188 million related to 737
      MAX. Abnormal production costs for the three months ended September 30, 2022 were $441 million, including $330 million related to the 787 program and $111 million related to the 777X program. Abnormal production costs for the three months ended September 30, 2021 were $601 million, including $418 million related to 737 MAX and $183 million related to the 787 program.”

      Do you think Boeing is happy with its margins?

      9 months of 2022: -10.5%
      2021: -33.2%
      2020: -85.7%
      2019: -20.6%
      2018 (best year ever): 13.6%

      • Its also the economy and where that puts the US in regards to aero space which is a lucrative career if you don’t loose it as well as Made in the US equipment that goes into an aircraft (Airbus has significant US contribution to its builds)

        I would rather live in a modern prosperous country. I have been to those areas that are not and its a horrible thing to see.

          • I believe that the situations of Embraer and Mitubishi are relatively different.
            While the Japanese company froze its project due to economic and project difficulties, the Brazilian one froze due to the fact that it considered that the current technologies available had not yet evolved enough to cause any impact on the market.
            So much so that it informed that it is still working with potential engine suppliers in the search for new solutions.
            In addition, no one officially “embarked” with Embraer on its project. It was only disclosed that Embraer only had letters of intent for more than 250 units, that is, without any confirmation. It can also be noted that the project had not even been approved to have its development continued.

          • MF

            The technologies thing was just an excuse to accept reality.

            Embraer looked at the market, what it would cost to build the TP and found that ATR was so close that no one was going to buy a short range TP.

            Airlines are moving to jet fleets even for the TP role (many mainline airlines fly some incredibly short routes with 737 class aircraft)

            The way you read the statements is “There Never is going to be a market for a TP again and only a massive state (China) subsidized program would try.

        • First the high paying jobs went overseas, BA is recruiting heavily in India and Brazil to “counter” its brain drain; unionized jobs were gone replaced by lower wage earners in the South. It’s a matter of time, it’s a matter of time … til they’re ALL gone. Oops.

      • @Frank,

        They may not be happy with the margins but they will be happy with the money made over the life those frames.

        Fellow Boeing stockholder, what was they suppose to do in this mega negotiation ?

        • ” … money made over the life those frames.”
          How?? 🤔
          Easier said than done?

        • @Williams

          I think you have it exactly 180 degrees.

          Boeing is happy to have the cash NOW, but will eat the loss in the long run.

          They had to write off $3.5 billion with another $2 billion to clear out the 787 inventory.

          This is a really important point, from their latest 10-Q:


          “At September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787 program: deferred production costs of $11,868 and $11,693, $1,946 and $1,907 of supplier advances, and $1,795 and $1,815 of unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs. At September 30, 2022, $9,015 of 787 deferred production costs, unamortized tooling and other nonrecurring costs are expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that have firm orders and $4,648 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders. We expensed abnormal production costs of $925 during the nine months ended September 30, 2022.”

          Let me highlight this:

          ***$4,648 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders.***

          These 100 jets ordered from UA are just a portion of what BA estimates will be needed to cover ~$4.6 billion sitting in the DPB.

          They are also estimating that the 412 aircraft under firm orders in the backlog will generate enough of a margin to cover ~$9 billion.

          Boeing has had a history of under pricing, in both commercial and military – taking the cash and returning it to investors, effectively kicking the can down the road. Now they need to borrow money to keep the lights on.

          What were they supposed to do, you ask?

          They are so far behind the 8 ball now, I guess they have to play the game until the end. Hope that you’re not the one left standing when the music stops.

        • “They may not be happy with the margins but they will be happy with the money made over the life those frames.”

          They’ll be very unhappy with the costs — yet to come — of inspecting/repairing the in-service fleet of 1200 787s for fuselage gaps. The FAA hasn’t yet published details of this, but we know it’s in the pipeline.

          • @Bryce and Pedro

            IIRC (and it has been awhile since I had this conversation with my BA insider) there is a line number on the 787 production, where they started using a machine which measured the gaps incorrectly. Something to do with software and readings. Apparently, before that, everything was performed as it should be.

            If it turned out that BA had to fix each and every Dreamliner out there, at 5 months a pop – I think it would be Ch 11, given the current fiscal shape they are in.

          • @ Frank
            I read an article a few months ago in which it was asserted that BA did not have sufficiently detailed production data per frame to allow such a “cutoff” point to be determined. I’ll go look for it and post it when I find it…

          • @Bryce

            I stand corrected:

            The FAA memo, which lists safety conditions affecting airplanes currently in service worldwide, states that these tiny gap defects are thought to be present in more than 1,000 Dreamliners. These are not considered an immediate safety concern but could cause premature aging of the airframe.

          • My understanding is: FAA is collecting data and each and every one of those has to be inspected (for “x” months) during heavy maintenance. That’s why I wonder how much (say 80%) BA will be on the hook for. Another source of cost/cash drain in future most here never think of.

        • @Williams

          On BA stock.

          Prior to 2019, Boeing was approaching dividend aristocrat territory. You bought it, you held onto it, you collected dividends and knew it would go up.

          Now…people are trading it more. Buy. Hope for some good news. Get out and take your profits. The b/s is a mess.

          • And before I get censured by the powers that be – when I say b/s, I mean balance sheet. Not bovine scatology.


          • @ Frank, it made me money, I am happy. I just have less stock now.

          • @Williams

            That’s the whole thing. Now you’ve got to keep an eye on it. It’s something that makes you money because you bought low and sold high. It’s not a keeper…

  9. I don’t expect Airbus to discount these A350s. Why?

    Reality is UA’s A350 2027 slots will be offered to Delta, ANA, Korean, AF and all A350 operating 777-9 customers (CX, BA, SQ, EK). Flying into ORD, LAX, SFO and IAH..

    Unless United changes their mind again and wants them earlier.

    • keesje:

      It just depends on the current build and demand.

      United defers and the slots also get kicked down the road (no you can’t pull it back and want A350s in 2024). Maybe there is a gap in 2025 and we can give you some. Maybe not.

  10. Last year, when UA made a big order announcement, there’s a big fuzz about the rush of delivery:
    “40 are expected next year [2022], 138 in 2023”

    Reality check:
    Q2 2022
    United Airlines has revealed in its quarterly financial report that Boeing has deferred deliveries of *seven United B737 MAX* and *three of its B787-10s( from 2022 to 2023.

    Q3 2022
    During its Q3 2022 financial update, the carrier also indicated that “Boeing notified United that *three Boeing 787* aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2022 and *15 Boeing 737 MAX* aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2023, all as shown in the table above, are now expected to deliver in 2023 and 2024, respectively

    • That answers a question on the 787. Deliveries are roughly 4 a month right now.

      That is a moving data point as they may be ramping up from the fixed aircraft as well as new built (2 a month right now) and we don’t know if that number of fixed is going to improve per month without more data points.

      We may be able to see it increasing, but I would guess its 6 months at best before we see a steadier state of the fix as they go up the learning curve.

      Keeping in mind Boeing is also doing fixes in Everett. They could fly them all to Everett and concentrate on bring up the build rate in Charleston to rate 5. It would maximize use of available space and resources.

      • Note that should read, To Be Fixed.

        That was 120.

        China may decide it wants theirs as well with the economy opening up.

        And it may suddenly decide it wants MAX if it really opens up full steam.

        • One wonders when BA will announce that NTU Chinese 787s are being re-allocated to other customers…

          • I wonder when rampant speculative spiral out comments cease and its backed by some factual information?

            The MAX is a clear aspect of we know where its at now, but that could change on a dime.

            Will it? I am not Xi and no idea what adjustments he may or may not make. I can list the range. We are seeing a massive adjustment taking place in China right now that two weeks ago was not going to happen.

            Unless China says its not going to take 787s, factually you can only say they will and that they could change their mind.

            It all depends on if they need them and how they view the commitments to the 787 vs what Xi is both thinking and then doing.

            Factually right now to date there has been no comments from China they will not take the 787 orders.

          • Latest I saw was about 115 x 787 in the to be fixed category.

            The Av Week article got odd at the end as it referenced aspects that seemed to be a mix of production and fixing the built ones.

    • I will have to read the article when I get time to get to library. I am looking forward to it.

    • Great article I am sure United Airlines read the article before signing the contract (lowering the price) Anyway, if you took this article and substituted out Boeing name and put in Comac, this board would be lighting up include SH This program was launched in April 2004 and Boeing still can’t get production right

      • > This program was launched in April 2004 and Boeing still can’t get production right <


        As an aside- wasn't one commenter here recently saying that China was not taking delivery of Boeing 787s because of "economics" (i.e., they can't afford them) ?
        Somehow I don't think that's the issue- though I'm rampantly speculating.

          • I guess its hard to keep up with definitions

            At this point China like the interdependently owned airlines were happy to defer 787 as the traffic was down (but as the most economical choice, the ones delivered were fully employed)

            So far China is inside its obligation with 787 so Boeing is not going to sell them as long as those obligations are met (payments and contract). The MAXs had gone well outside that window, so Boeing is selling them. China can get in line if they want more.

            So, to put it simply, this is an apple to a persimmon comparisons.

            Could that change? Yep, on a dime.

            Two weeks ago China was locked down, now Chinese New year is looming and air traffic is already going through the roof.

            So MAX flying in China (sitting there) let alone orders could revert on a dime as well.

          • Who’s paying penalties to whom remains to be seen … 🤣

          • Once a contract is cancelled, penalties stop.

            The cancellation can be a notification by the buyer or it can be cancelled by not taking the product or refusing payments or both. That appears to be what happened on the China MAX group.

            That said as I recall there are 64 MAX sitting in China. As traffic increases and they become short of aircraft, China can bring them back into service as they are cleared (that will be interesting).

            If the China economy goes into full tilt make up mode and they don’t have enough aircraft? That too will be interesting.

            The nice thing about being a dictator is you can turn things on a dime and fig leaf the reasoning (or just do it)

  11. Part of this move was to push regulators and help the Max 10 get certified. Also, this is Continental Airlines in action – blind pro-Boeing no matter what. The 737 is a pig with lipstick and why on earth would UA order this plane with outdated technology (they are refusing to correct)?

    Airbus should just cancel the A350 since it is never going to happen.

    • You need to look ahead with United Airlines aka Continental Airlines marketing strategy in 2065, We are still flying 100 year old 737 design aircraft (e.g 1965) and you don’t have to worry about fly by wire technology!

    • @Jose Marchena

      Yeah that makes sense. United’s CEO Kirby, who has the last say was at American when it bought Airbuses like a Black Friday sale has something against Airbus. Yeaaahhhh.

      Wonder how Kirby got the XLR order past those pesky pro Boeing people whoever these mysterious managers are.

    • Jose:

      Yep, I am a pig with Lipstick as well and I was vastly superior to the new wired but cell phone happy internet haunting generation!

      Older is not better. I can fix anything on the Pickup but the Passat is a nightmare to even get to anything.

      FYI, maint on a 737 is lower than an A320 series, its easier to trouble shoot and the parts are lower. All them thar whiz bang electronic things cost big bucks (and worse on airplanes) and you pull whole modules to fix a miner problem.

      Economics wise per fuel burn the A320NEO and the 737MAX are equal.

      The MAX has a slight per pax edge if you are full as it carries more (its longer)

      The MAX does not have to watch how it seats passengers if its not full.

      But you really have to be an Av Geek to know that and on the surface, well, its good to know the subject.

    • Only to make GE work a little harder for it. ANA and Air New Zealand both switched to GE after their stellar experience with the Trent 1000 on their first batch of airplanes. No way United orders RR.

      • > Only to make GE work a little harder for it. <

        That seems likely. Maybe RR will come up with something
        solid and durable, though.

        • Well they came up with one new engine and that did not get to SFC promises let alone the superior GE.

          I guess they could kludge a XWB on a 787 at RRs own expense and see how that works out.

          Or, RR has given up and the Ten is the end of the line and they will be happy with exclusives on A330NEO and the A350!

          • “Well they came up with one new engine and that did not get to SFC promises let alone the superior GE.”

            Haha source?? How recent is your data? 🤣🤣🤣

          • Pedro:

            As you do not follow it at all, my data is solid.

            But to put it in a nutshell, ANA and NZ is all you need to know.

            I am not going to bother digging into my archive to see if I kept the links, when facts are dismissed so cavalierly then its not worth my while to do that.

            But feel free to look for articles that disagree.

  12. Omen??
    -> Shares of United Airlines Holdings Inc. fell more than 6% in afternoon trading. United’s closest rivals also dropped but not as sharply. Boeing Co. fell less than 1%.

    • Phil LeBeau on CNBC said yesterday that the decline in airline stocks was due to a less-than-rosy outlook from JetBlue, which is seeing signs of softening demand (as one might expect in a recessionary environment).

      One wonders if we’ll start to get deferrals next year…

  13. Pedro

    …”Which one is continuing to invest R&D for the future, and which one just scrapped the long-awaited MOM new aircraft program because it “can’t” afford to???”….
    Boeing will test its Truss Braced Wing on an MD90 fuselage demonstrator, for the future…

    MOM does not exist.
    The A321XLR is a niche market with fairly poor sales (450 orders). The 757 had sold only 1000 orders in 24 years, the 767 1200 orders in 43 years…

    It makes sense that Boeing won’t launch anything until there’s a technological breakthrough of engines around 2035.

    Airbus which has poor A350-1000 sales should launch a real new Widebody 400 seater “because they can’t afford it “???

    • @Checklist

      The A321XLR & the A350-1000 are variants of the A321Neo and the A350 family, which have 4,600 & 919 orders.

      At a price of $~65 million (lists around $140 million) with a 10% margin and orders for 450 – Airbus will generate ~$3 billion in profit on those A321XLR orders. Enough to cover the capex on the variant. Anything else is gravy and has killed off the MoM/797.

      It took Boeing 10 years to reach the 450 order mark with the 757, the aircraft it replaces. The A321XLR was launched in June 2019.


      As an Airbus stakeholder, I concur wholeheartedly with your assessment. Boeing shouldn’t launch anything new until 2035. Gather as much cash as possible and begin stock buybacks & dividends as soon as possible to appease investors. Don’t listen to the airplane guys, let the MBA’s dictate the direction of the company.

      • @Frank

        I bet you do want Boeing to launch a NB replacement now with no next gen engines or vague idea of future emissions laws. Only to have Airbus counter with the right plane at the right time. Hey, its only 10-15 Billion in R&D thrown away.

        Some of us are old enough to have seen this played out before in the past. New aircraft, wrong market. It was called the Airbus A340.

        Boeing will have watch the A321 dominance from the sidelines but its cheaper than coming out with the wrong product.

        • @Williams

          Look at the financials.

          BA doesn’t have the money for a new program launch. They could borrow, but the risk is that their debt would get downgraded and become more costly. Especially with rising interest rates.

          The time for a new NB launch was lost. They also lost the chance to gobble up the C-Series program, which would also have given them a talent pool to draw on. Remember, they just lost almost 2000 of their most experienced plane guys. They could have been the guys with an Boeing/Canadair Series 500 (BC-500, after renaming) waiting in the wings to challenge the A320Neo.

          Any NB they roll out, even if it was 10% more efficient, could be hampered by Airbus using their dominant position to drop prices, take less of a margin – and hurt them.

          BUT IF…they were to roll something out, they’d have to do it as a 767 replacement (which Delta & United were both waiting on) and drive down on the 757 market, cutting into what Airbus is eating upwards with the A321XLR. 757 & 767 both sold ~1000 units each. 767 also has some good freighter sales.

          Notwithstanding what some others might think, there is also some market growth in there. The MoM niche has grown since the 80’s, the whole travelling world has.

          But perhaps they waited too long (could be intentional?) and the United order maybe the start. Other airlines will have to make do with what is currently on offer, even if the 787/A330Neo is too much aircraft and the A321XLR is not enough.

          Who knows, maybe airlines can be forced into these imperfect choices? In BA’s case however, IMO it won’t be a very profitable one. Airlines can read financial statements and know that BA is in a tough spot, needing sales and most importantly…cashola.

          Especially if the Max 7 & 10 don’t get waivers. Airlines will be asked to swap out orders for 8’s & 9’s. BA will eat it, there.

          But that’s the result of spending free cash on buybacks and dividends, while leaving the design cupboard bare. Now all those shares that BA bought back at $350, $375, $400+ are worth $175. Imagine if Boeing would have simply taken that money and put it into t-bills? Boring. Safe. Not sexy. Low risk. But they bet on themselves and lost.

          Airbus has learned from BA’s sticking their crank in the fan and have pledged to squirrel away 10 billion Euro’s, as a rainy day fund. That’s the kinda BoD I can get behind.


          ‘Some of us are old enough to have seen this played out before in the past. New aircraft, wrong market. It was called the Airbus A340.’

          Listen Junior, as a kid I flew on a BOAC VC-10 from the Caribbean, back in the day. Don’t talk about ‘some of us are old enough…’ Lol

          I think the A340 was just murdered by the 777, plain and simple. It was an aircraft on aircraft crime…

          • @Frank

            For a second I thought I read you flew on the Comet, but its the VC10. LOL. You got me beat by a couple of years.

          • @williams

            The Comet? That was for the rich (and risky) rich folks. We were just interlining on BOAC on the old man’s passes.

            If only I was old enough to understand how lucky I was and how I should have hung on to the BOAC pin and small metal model of the plane I got, along with my junior captain’s wings, on my visit up front.

            Those days are gone…sigh

  14. William and Nnaeto

    ….”After the sale services contract on this many 787s is bank for Boeing too. After these 787s are paid for they will be producing revenue for Boeing.

    Airbus and Boeing generate nice revenues from such services…”

    True, indeed, Boeing would have generated substantial money in service in 2018 before the MAX crash, and Covid tragedy.

    100 billion USD of which services were the largest share

    Good point Thank you!👍

    • > True, indeed, Boeing would have generated substantial money in service in 2018 before the MAX crash, and Covid tragedy. <

      More woulda, coulda, shoulda stuff.

      "Chance favors the prepared." BA still seems collectively oblivious (or something?) to me. Not a good sign. Meanwhile,
      the other guys quietly build a $10,000,000,000 rainy-day fund..

      • I wonder if that poster looked around how much revenue BGS had in recent years before the grandiose claim of “$100 billion”?? The post-truth crowd have arrived.

    • @Checklist

      I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, but your numbers are way off. In 2018, BA’s record year – the entire company had ~$101 billion in revenue:


      Commercial Airplanes $60,715
      Defense, Space & Security $23,195
      Global Services $17,018
      Boeing Capital $274

      Services were less than one third of what Commercial brought in. Boeing goes, as BCA goes.

      60% of revenues and 66% of margin.

  15. Wow what good stuff are you smoking?? 🙄

    Boeing scraps plan for services revenue to hit $50 billion this decade

    • 2017 BGS Revenue grew by 5.5 percent to *$14.6 billion*
      Revenue split in the Dallas-based services division is about *half military and half commercial services*

  16. Investing for the future?? Give me a break!

    -> And Calhoun said Boeing will not deliver to airlines its next all-new commercial jet until the middle of the 2030s, implying that no such plane will be launched for development until late this decade. *Anything sooner, he said, is “not going to happen*.”
    “*I don’t think we’re gonna even get to the drawing board this decade*,” he added.

    • “Anything sooner, he said, is “not going to happen.”
      I don’t think we’re gonna even get to the drawing board this decade,” he [Boeing CEO Calhoun] added.

      What’s curious to me- very curious, in fact- is that Mister Calhoun
      would go out of his way to point that out. Maybe there’s something going on that’s much bigger than even aging behemoth Boeing.

      • Bill7

        Once again, Boeing will test its Truss Braced Wing.

        Calhoun believes the product line is perfectly competitive. Nothing special there or what you are trying to make believe by ridiculous alarming mystifications


        • ‘ perfectly competitive’

          With who? Because market share tells a whole different story.

  17. @William Who’s this guy?
    -> “Gerry served as senior vice president of finance and treasurer for Continental Airlines from 2001 to 2010. Gerry joined Continental in 1988 as senior director legal affairs, finance and aircraft programs”

  18. Williams

    Thank you for sharing.

    Congrats to Boeing and United
    This impressive and historic order was heard throughout the aviation community 👍

  19. Bill7

    Once again, Boeing will test its Truss Braced Wing.

    Calhoun believes the product line is perfectly competitive. Nothing special there or what you are trying to make believe by ridiculous alarming mystifications


    • Checklist:

      Sadly I have to agree with Bill7 (wow). I would put it differently.

      The Universe will have come to an end and got cold before Calhoun lets Boeing build an aircraft.

      TBW does not require anything more than a GTF (assumes TBW works and people would buy it)

      Calhoun is just a gut and pillage kind of guy.

  20. Regarding the MAX-10 (and therefore relevant, since it’s in the United order, with a very “rosy” delivery date in 2024):

    “Boeing to keep pushing Congress to extend 737 MAX 10 deadline”

    “NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (Reuters) -Boeing Commercial Airplanes Chief Executive Stan Deal on Tuesday said the U.S. planemaker will continue to push Congress to pass legislation for the Boeing 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 to win certification even if a key Dec. 27 deadline passes.

    “”We’re still working obviously and hope something happens this year – got another shot early next,” Deal said on the sidelines of an event at its 787 final assembly plant. “We’re going to hope Congress does their part of this.”

    “United Airlines Chief Executive Scott Kirby, whose airline has ordered more than 100 MAX 10s, told reporters on Tuesday that he did not think lawmakers would act on the extension until next year.”


    Note the arrogance:
    >> “We’re going to hope Congress does their part of this.” <<
    Dear Stan: Congress wouldn't have to do "their part" if Boeing had done its part in the first place.

    • BA is “perfectly” fine. The problem is the regulators are “uncooperative”. 😂

      • Sadly the pontificators on this subject have never offered a reason why the current alert system on a 737 needs to be replaced.

        So, its easy to be a critic, give us some reasoning as to why the alert system in the 737 needs to be replaced.

        Equally why the NG, Classic and even the Jurassic should not be retrofitted.

        • Read the MITRE report — it was published months ago.

          5 crashes — reason enough?

        • Dominic Gates in the Seattle Times, 7 June 2022:

          “..The previously undisclosed March 2022 report is highly critical of how, during the MAX’s original certification, the safety agency exempted earlier MAX models from the latest standard for pilot-warning systems. On an airliner, the crew-alerting system provides the pilots a series of visual, audio and/or tactile warnings that something has gone wrong.

          The MAX 10’s crew-alerting system has been upgraded from the previous MAX models, but still falls short of complying with the current safety regulation. Boeing is likely to need that exemption extended to get the MAX 10 certified for passenger service.

          >> The independent report from the MITRE Corp., a federally funded research organization, concludes that exemption from the crew-alerting standard contributed to the two MAX crashes that killed 346 people <<, and also influenced Boeing to suppress information about the new flight control software on the MAX — known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS — that was the main cause of the crashes.

          “The exception granted by the FAA for pilot alerting on the 737 MAX was a critical link not only in the chain of events that led to the accidents, but also in Boeing’s decision to limit the disclosure of MCAS,” the report states.


          That commenter will make same the very claim next week, of course- despite being repeatedly presented with evidence on this forum.

          • From MITRE report for FAA on the Boeing 737MAX crashes, March 2022, sec 5.1, p. 36:

            “..MITRE completed a detailed review of the exceptions in the FAA’s internal documentation of the certification basis for the 737 MAX-8 in the context of the 737 MAX accident investigations and accident data in the FAA’s Lessons Learned reports. Our review aligned with the two interviewees cited above, in that we concluded the exception granted by the FAA for pilot alerting on the 737 MAX was a critical link not only in the chain of events that led to the accidents, but also in Boeing’s decision to limit the disclosure of MCAS..”

            Full report here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22051760-mitre-report-for-faa-march-2022

          • ALL:

            What you are doing is citing general statements and you are not getting into any specifics and the reports listed do not do so either.

            Frankly (pun intended) the reality is that a totally unsubstantiated imaginary world is built off EICAS being on the two MAX that crashed.

            I can do the same imaginary thing with those two flight having experienced co pilots (first officer in today’s flexion). And in fact the PIC on the Indonesian flight handed off the flight to the First Officer so he could think and the first officer made it worse so he took it back.

            As a Pilot I challenge anyone to tell me I am wrong that a low time First officer with very minimal flight experience let alone in type is an asset?

            The Ethiopian flight exceeded its speed by a lot, that also can be attested as an issue for a First Officer not being part of CRM. There is a reason the PNF is called PM.

            The reality is that the MAX had a fatal flaw in the software and while it could be overcome, it resulted in task overload as the way it acted was nothing like even the PIC had seen (or trained on)

            So, somehow the MAX is made with that fatal flaw and still has an EICAS?. What do you do with an EICAS? You look down, shift through the menus.

            Fist stop, the menus do not know about that fatal flaw. Right. oh, we just hit the water or ground. End of flight. Except its not a simulator its the real world and 345 people are dead.

            There are two ways that this could have been prevented.

            1. MCAS 1.0 was killed at inception and MCAS 2.0 was put in its place.

            2. MCAS 1.0 was LISTED and a training item in the simulator and practiced.

            And that is the bottom line. EICAS or a lack of it was not the issue. It was the fatal allowance of MCAS 1.0 into the aircraft and that is on Boeing and the FAA.

            A good crew might have overcome that (and in fact on a previous flight a very astute pilot assisting the PIC did overcome it)

            They should never have to, but if you actually read various bulletins, aircraft fly with fatal flaws all the time and the AHJ sometimes gives them years to fix them.

            And in fact on numerous occasions pilots have overcome worse issues (see the Astanair E-175) and made it.

            But that is not something they should have to deal with. But EICAS has nothing to do with it.

          • @ TW
            Why don’t you put all that into a letter and send it to Congress?
            In the meantime, I suspect that lawmakers will be more impressed by what more authoritative bodies have to say on the matter, such as the NTSB and MITRE : both those organizations identified EICAS as a contributing factor in the 2 MAX (and other) crashes.
            Lawmakers will also probably pay more attention to Sully and the AA pilots union — who refer to a cockpit “startling” system rather than “alerting” system on the 737.

            p.s. regarding the “low time first officer”: if he has a pilots license and a type rating, then the plane should be flyable for him — regardless of number of hours.

        • Funny. All of BA’s other aircraft they sell have EICAS, but not the Max. Do you know why? Cockpit commonality.

          To answer your question?

          Best said here:

          “Boeing needs to proceed with installing modern crew alerting systems on these aircraft to mitigate pilot startle-effect and confusion during complex, compound system malfunctions,” union President Capt. Edward Sicher told Reuters.

          Pilots Union Opposes MAX 10, 7 Certification Extension


        • “Equally why the NG, Classic and even the Jurassic should not be retrofitted.”


  21. Calhoun believes the product line is “perfectly” competitive.

    Calhoun & co also said BA would deliver 500 MAX in 2022. Oops.

    Calhoun & co. also said BA would clear its MAX inventory in two years after recertification. Oops.

    Why would anyone still listen to that person?? 🙄

  22. John Ostrower interviewed United’s COO and he stated Airbus offered the A330NEO, A350-900 and 1000 against the 787’s variants.

    • If that’s the case, then UA is going to replace some of it’s 777’s with 787’s – downsizing its fleet (which is kind of what we heard).

      It might work out OK for them, if they can continually fill a smaller jet on those routes where a 787 can match the range needed. The question remains as to whether they can make the 787 an efficient and effective 767 replacement. They don’t have any 777X’s on order to replace aircraft that need the long range. The only other game in town is the A350, once again deferred.

      They have 22 – 777ER’s which avg 5 years old. Maybe they plan to use all of those on the longest of routes, when needed – and make do with a bunch of 787’s everywhere else?

      Dump the ~125 767’s & 777-200’s in favour of the 787.

      It does make for a more simplified fleet. 787 pilots will cost them more than 767 pilots (from my understanding of pilot contracts) , but depending on capex and maintenance costs – it could work out.

      • @Frank

        UA executives tried to paint their order as a bet for “growth” – since there’s no new runway in many airports

          • Pedro:

            Thank you for the laugh.

            If you spread out your arrivals over a longer period of time, there are not constraints.

            Its only if you want to arrive at the same time with everyone else and then it matters not if you have an A380 or a Cessna in the pattern.

      • Hello Frank,

        Re:”They have 22 – 777ER’s which avg 5 years old. Maybe they plan to use all of those on the longest of routes, when needed – and make do with a bunch of 787’s everywhere else?”

        The 787-9 has the longest range of any aircraft currently in United’s fleet, and 787-8’s have longer range than 777-200’s and 777-200ER’s. The current 787-10 has more range than 777-200’s but less than 777-200ER’s; however, the upcoming 777-10ER will likely have more range than a 777-200ER. All 787 versions have longer range than 767’s, thus, United’s new 787’s, with the exception of any non ER 787-10’s that they order, will have longer range than all of the aircraft (767’s, 777-200’s and 777-200ER’s that they are replacing). Any non ER 787-10’s that United orders will have longer range than United’s 767’s and non ER 777-200’s. United’s wide bodies spend a lot more time flying US Domestic (including US to Hawaii) and trans-Atlantic flights than they do flying ultra long range trans-Pacific flights. A sub fleet of 20 aircraft could probably take care of all of United’s ultra long range trans-Pacific flights, and aircraft that are optimal for ultra long range Pacific flights would be much heavier and more expensive than what is needed for United’s much more numerous 2,000 to 4,000 mile wide body routes.

        Year’s before the pandemic, United had already switched their longest range flying from 777-200’s and 777-200ER’s, to 787’s and 777-300ER’s.

        Below are the ranges according to Wikipedia of the 767 and 777 models currently flown by United, and those of currently in production current generation wide body aircraft, listed from shortest to longest range.

        777-200: 5,240 nm = 6,026 sm
        767-400ER: 5,625 nm = 6,469 sm
        767-300ER: 5,980 nm = 6,877 sm
        787-10: 6,430 nm = 7,394 sm
        777-200ER: 7,065 nm = 8,125 sm
        A330-900: 7,200 nm = 8,280 sm
        787-8: 7,355 nm = 8,458 sm
        777-300ER: 7,370 nm = 8,475 sm
        787-9: 7,635 nm = 8,780 sm
        A350-900: 8,100 nm = 9,315 sm
        A330-800: 8,150 nm = 9,372 sm
        A350-100: 8,700 nm = 10,005 sm

        • Re: The following in my post above.

          “Year’s before the pandemic, United had already switched their longest range flying from 777-200’s and 777-200ER’s, to 787’s and 777-300ER’s.”

          On Tuesday 12-13-22 from 1:58 to 2:06 PM US Mountain Time I searched on Flight Aware for United Airlines wide body flights in progress. I found a total of 69 such flights, as follows.

          Type/ # of flights / Longest Estimated Flight Time (EFT)
          767-300ER: 10 flights / 7 hours 33 minutes
          767-400ER: 5 flights / 10 hours 28 minutes
          777-200 and 777-200 ER: 19 flights / 11 hours 29 minutes
          777-300ER: 8 flights / 14 hours 30 minutes
          787-8: 1 flight / 10 hours 15 minutes
          787-9: 22 flights / 16 hours 57 minutes
          787-10: 4 flights / 12 hours 0 minutes

          The number of flights with EFT of 12 hours or more for each type were as follows.
          767-300ER: 0 of 10 flights
          767-400ER: 0 of 5 flights
          777-200 and 777-200ER: 0 of 19 flights
          777-300ER: 2 of 8 flights
          787-8: 0 of 1 flights
          787-9: 12 of 22 flights
          787-10: 1 of 4 flights

          Straight line distance in statue miles for the flight with the longest EFT for each type were as follows.

          767-300ER – UAL 925 London Heathrow to Washington Dulles: 3,670 sm

          767-400ER – UAL 363 Newark to Honolulu: 4,950 sm

          777-200 & 777-200ER – UAL 195 Munich to San Francisco: 5,860 sm

          777-300ER – UAL 79 Newark to Tokyo Narita: 6,710 sm

          787-8 – UAL 525 Washington Dulles to Amman: 5,950 sm

          787-9 – Longest EFT: UAL 713 Delhi to Chicago O’Hare: 7,470 sm

          2nd longest EFT: UAL 29 San Francisco-Singapore: 8,430 sm

          7th longest EFT: UAL 60 San Francisco-Melbourne: 7,860 sm

          787-10 – UAL 32 Los Angeles to Tokyo Narita: 5,440 sm

          Straight line miles are from the Web Flyer mileage calculator at the link below.


          • UA’s 777 high density configuration has 10 seat abreast. How many seats across a row can be squeezed in a 787??

      • @ Frank

        Kirby is a smart cookie, I am sure they ran the numbers, and ran them again. AA did not want to loose him.

  23. With that number ordered, i don`t belive United will take a single A359.

    They have 37 B763, and 16 B764.
    That would be almost a double up in fleet with 100 B787, especially as the order is likley heavy on -9, which adds cappacity.
    Even if you calculte the B772 (19) to be replaces with -10s that`s still 25 more planes than before.

    Why would they take 100 options if they don`t have the intend on utilizing them?

    It leaves United with pretty much an all Boeing fleet and some A321neo and XLR.
    I don`t belive that United plasn with the A359 at all.

    • @ Sash

      Of course not, but until United cancels everyone plays nice and smiles.

      • The crises are different in each area of ​​the industry.

        your value judgment (attack on Boeing stock price apparently) does not make sense.

        Boeing sees the end of the tunnel with planned deliveries can return on stock price

        Delta is one airline among many others. There is more competition. When they come out of it they will naturally return to stocks price

        • And United if you read the tech back statements is setting itself up the future to they will be the leader in Airline profits down the line.

          Of course they all have a long way to go to beat South West!

  24. It’s all about execution, execution and execution

    -> United grounds 25 B777-200s due to missed inspections

    United Airlines has grounded twenty-five B777-200s and B777-200(ER)s in order to perform overdue wing leading edge inspections that were missed for reasons currently under investigation, the Wall Street Journal has reported …. All of the -200s and a substantial part of the -200(ER)s were grounded until recently due to safety concerns related to their Pratt & Whitney PW4000G engines.


  25. Hang on a minute!
    If it makes sense for Boeing to launch the NMA, it makes even more sense for Airbus to to do it. And the added benefit of no competition from Boeing.

    • Everyone doesn’t give a damn about the A400M, what matters to us is the spanking of 100,787 orders. It’s much more “glamorous” than a small handful of A400M that nobody cares about…

    • To keep this correct, there are two areas involved.

      Congress end is the EICAS.

      The other is EASA and FAA agreement on the third AOA and not sure on FAA on the CB.

      That flips into if the -7/10 are not made, does the agreement for third AOA and the CB still get implemented for the -8/9?.

      EASA did not mandate the EICAS, that was a US only move (and not needed as no LCA in the future is going to not have it as it was done with the 757/767 build)

      The 737 does have an alert system and as far as I am concerned its better, you don’t have to read some stupid screen that has been programed by a software engineer that does not understand how it needs to be presented. The bane of a controls guys existence.

      • Frank:

        Congress did not say no, it was not included in a defense bill nor should it have been.

        The issue is not big enough for a stand alone bill and its the end of the years and a lot of the fiscal stuff is more important.

        Either a stand alone or in an Aviation bill is the proper place and its going to be the next congress that decides/addresses that (or not)

      • Yes TransWorld, much to the chagrin of a handful of people here.
        The 737 MAX10 will be certified. All these ridiculous maneuvers will end soon

      • @ TW

        “That flips into if the -7/10 are not made, does the agreement for third AOA and the CB still get implemented for the -8/9?.”

        You do understand the word “retrofit”, presumably…

      • “The 737 does have an alert system and as far as I am concerned its better”

        OMG the “authority” has spoken 🤣🤣

      • @TW

        “That flips into if the -7/10 are not made, does the agreement for third AOA and the CB still get implemented for the -8/9?.”

        EASA did not mandate the EICAS, that was a US only move (and not needed as no LCA in the future is going to not have it as it was done with the 757/767 build)”

        If you watched the video, he states that as a condition of getting the Max returned to service in Europe, EASA tacked on an additional condition, that the the FAA had not required. Boeing had to develop those two major safety upgrades for the Max 10 & has to retro-fit them to the existing Max 8’s & 9’s in service.

        So it would seem that they have to do everything mandated in the US and add in a third AoA and cut out switch.

        • Frank:

          That is the big haullabaloo.

          So to be clear, the US mandate was EICAS and had nothing to do with the MAX crash nor EASA/Canada concerns.

          The EASA concern was the AOA. But the language was that it be developed on the -10 and then retrofited.

          If no -10? EASA can mandate it be so to the 8/9, but right now, no.

          The US provision is not in regards to the AOA, its the EICAS. The FAA concurred with EASA language in regards to the AOA.

          So the legislation in the US is to remove EICAS from the mandate which in turn makes the rest mute.

          Can that change? Yes

          But the two are getting mixed up and that is the reality of the split.

          The cutout of the stick shaker is an EASA thing and I don’t believe its any big deal.

          • Notwithstanding your one word assessment of the situation, IIRC when the Max was grounded, regulators from various jurisdictions got together and formed a task force, anointed with coming together and putting a plan in place for joint rules in re-certification.

            Remember that?

            So what I think is being said here, is that EASA wants everything that the FAA mandated, PLUS the stick shaker and 3rd AoA,

            But hey – I could be wrong. Why don’t you look around and see what you can find?



            Here we go:


            EASA participated in a Joint Operational Evaluation Board (JOEB) meeting convened by the FAA, also
            including Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) of Brazil and Transport Canada Civil Aviation
            (TCCA). This JOEB evaluated the procedural changes and the pilot training proposed by Boeing for
            the 737-8/-9 (MAX)

            You’re the techie guy, not me. You read the AD and tell me what it says. In easy to read, small syllable words, that a non-engineer can understand. Thanks

          • https://simpleflying.com/easa-mandate-737-max-retrofits/

            What exactly are the changes?

            As a condition for re-certifying the Boeing 737 MAX following two deadly crashes in 2019 and 2020, the EASA demanded that Boeing develop two key safety features for the Boeing 737 MAX 10 that could then be retrofitted to the MAX 8 and MAX 9.

            The first involves an additional angle of attack system, either a physical sensor or a “synthetic” sensor, that would come into play when the two existing AoA sensors offer disparate readings. It was a faulty AoA sensor that caused the MAX’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to activate on both crashes.

            Similar to the Airbus A320’s three-sensor design, the EASA wants the MAX to feature an additional AoA measuring system “that in some way matches that, but doesn’t necessarily have to be a third sensor.” This could be similar to the ‘Synthetic Airspeed’ system onboard the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which cross-checks AoA data with other inputs to prevent false readings.

            The second change would see a silencing switch for the “stick shaker”, a stall warning device. Investigators noted that stall warnings significantly distracted pilots during both MAX crashes. Unfortunately for Boeing, it would have to front the cost of implementing these two features into existing aircraft.

  26. Franck

    “With who? Because market share tells a whole different story.”..

    The market share tells that Airbus holds the single-aisle market and Boeing that of the widebody.

    This 100-order spanking of 787s kinda sticks, like spankings inflicted by Airbus with the A32Xneo family…
    But the MAX-10 will probably change history.

    So, you hope it won’t be certified


    • @Checklist

      BA had to write off $5.5 billion in losses on the 787 program.
      BA had to write off $6.5 billion in losses on the 777X program.
      BA had to write off over $1 billion on the 747-8 program.

      Those programs are not profitable. You do understand that, correct? They do not generate enough money, to cover what has been spent to make those aircraft. Those 100 orders to UA (which brings the backlog to 512) are still not enough to cover what has been spent on the program.

      With successes like that, who needs losses?

      BA desperately needs the Max 7 & 10 certified. Whether I like it or not, is immaterial.

      All you have to do is look at the financials, they tell the story. I couldn’t recommend enough to you, to enroll yourself in an accounting class so you might be able to understand what has happened to BA.

      The real ‘spanking’ to Boeing has not been dealt to them by Airbus, but by themselves. It’s all been self inflicted;

      The NB market would probably be a lot closer had BA not had two crashes. That alone cost them $20 billion+. Without the increased scrutiny, the 787 issues would not have been uncovered and the 777X certification wouldn’t have been stalled. They would still be self certifying aircraft.

      The financial engineers are still at the helm of the company, leaving me to believe it is business as usual, reinforced by the messages put out on investors day.

      I haven’t even touched Defense.

      Here is something for you to think about, regarding the situation BA is in:

      BCA has a backlog valued at $307 billion, as of Q3/22. I listed out the margin’s that they are currently making, but let’s say a couple of three things magically happen overnight:

      1) They are able to make, deliver and get paid for the ENTIRE backlog overnight. Cash on the barrel head.
      2) They magically fix all their production woes and get the margin that they received in their best year ever, 2018 – which was 13%.

      That would give them $39.9 billion in margin. Call it $40 billion. Boom.

      Problem is, they’ve got over $55 billion in debt.

      If you even added in all of the backlog for Defense and Services – and gave it the BCA margin (which is better than the actual Defense margin), they still only get $49.5 billion.

      That’s the big picture, which is made up of a bunch of small little pictures, like the losses on the 787/777X/747-8 et al.

          • Clearly a cherry picked balance sheet that is BCA not Boeing.

            But never be it said that facts got in the way of a quip.

          • “Clearly a cherry picked balance sheet that is BCA not Boeing.”

            Ooh lala. Another hot-air post. May I ask our self-appointed financial “guru” where he found the BCA’s B/S??

          • @Pedro, watch your replies. You’re overstepping Reader Comment rules.

            BCA’s revenues, expenses, R&D, debt, etc., is always in the financial reporting.


          • @Scott

            I believe I have gone thru BA’s SEC filing as least a few times.

            No. BA *never* separately discloses B/S items by divisions.

  27. Grubbie

    “Hang on a minute!
    If it makes sense for Boeing to launch the NMA, it makes even more sense for Airbus to to do it. And the added benefit of no competition from Boeing”…
    As I said several times, the Middle Of Market is a niche market. Boeing will not. 450 poor A321XLR orders, 1,000 757 orders in 25 years, 1,200 767 orders in 42 years… Airbus does not necessarily have the answer to everything. The 787s, 777’s(-X’s), and Freighters, have never been beaten by Airbus. Only the A320 made it against a 25 year old 737…

        • They just couldn’t close the NMA business case, hère IS the truth.

          Simply that this market is a niche market. They could have woken it up if it really was a widebody / twin aisle with the savings of a narrowbody.

          The other challenge was to put it together and sell it cheap. It’s a colossal challenge that you don’t even want to admit

          That’s why you laugh stupidly.
          We all know that is IMPOSSIBLE.

          Boeing didn’t do it because it’s unfeasible after 3 business case attempts to close.

          (End of 2018, early 2019 and June 2019 after the -XLR poor sales launchried)

          They include a Freighter in the plan from 2019 or the first failure to complete in 2018,
          That’s why the CEO D. Calhoun killed him in January 2020,
          after taking up his new duties

          [Edited as violation of Reader Comment rules] you claim night and day that they have no money. It’s ridiculous.

          A NMA would have been a mistake. Airbus understood this well after the error that is the A350-1000 (A340-600, and A380 early) against the 777-300ER. Even after the launch of the 777-X they no longer had the appetite to launch a real efficient CFRP -400 seater. Are they incapable?

          If i follow your reasoning then yes…

          They then ran behind the NMA hare taking the least risk with the -XLR. They certainly wanted to take 50-60% of Boeing’s NMA/797 market and kill it. They finally realized that the market is thin there (450 orders since its launch in 2018).

          The -XLR development is not a walk in the garden there are also engineering challenges to overcome. posturing for not much.

          In reality, one of Airbus’ biggest shortcomings is the lack of knowledge of the market compared to Boeing. They prefer to run after the good ideas of Boeing.

          This is why given the modifications of the -XLR and the few sales which will certainly have difficulty passing the 1000 order mark is, and will be difficult.

          • Just some points:

            ‘ -XLR poor sales’

            The XLR has sold in 3 years, what took the 757 10 years.


            ‘you claim night and day that they have no money’

            They have money – it’s just borrowed and costing over $2.5 billion a year in interest. They also have access to other loans, but risk being downgraded and that $2.5 billion goes up.


            ‘Airbus understood this well after the error that is the A350-1000’

            You keep going on about the -1000 being a failure with 140 firm orders. If that’s the case, what do you call the ENTIRE 777X line up, that has a total of 244 orders and an accounting block of 400 (I can provide the link to the BA financials) and has had to write off $6.5 billion already, without certification and a single delivery?

            A success?

            Also from the financials:

            “In April 2022, we decided to pause production of the 777X-9 during 2022 and 2023. We implemented the production pause during the second quarter of 2022, and it is expected to result in abnormal production costs of approximately $1.5 billion that are being expensed as incurred until 777X-9 production resumes.”

            So that’s $8 billion borrowed, spent and written off – on the 777X program.


            “450 orders since its launch in 2018”

            The A321XLR was officially launched at the Paris Air Show on 17 June 2019.


            ‘In reality, one of Airbus’ biggest shortcomings is the lack of knowledge of the market compared to Boeing.’

            Yah – that Boeing is really showing Airbus how to dominate the market, huh? Losing money on everything they produce, but they’re going to make it up on volume.


            ‘They prefer to run after the good ideas of Boeing.’

            Right. Like launching the A320Neo family after Boeing had launched the 737Max program, right? And launching the A330Ceo program (which made it the 3rd best selling WB of all time, after the 747 & 777) after Boeing launched the 787, right?

            BTW – those two programs? The A320Neo & the A330?


            The 737 Max & the 787? (throw in the 777X, as well)

            Not so much.

          • @ Frank
            I wouldn’t put much effort into that commenter if I were you: it declared in another LNA article — after a reprimand from Scott — that it was “just having fun” here.
            You’ll note in its message above that a portion was edited by Scott, for violation of reader rules — becoming somewhat of a pattern, it seems.

            Incidentally, I use the pronoun “it” because I’m not sure whether it’s an individual or a group — I have noticed two totally different writing styles in its comments, which manifest themselves in alternation.

          • Checklist:

            While I hate to see Boeing in distress, failure to come out with a competitive range product is an issue and they keep making the excuse.

            I don’t have the data that says which area of aircraft they should focus on but you can’t sit forever in one spot because there is always a new shiny tech down the runway and Boeing needs to do something.

            Sitting doing nothing leaves them squeezed between the A220 and the A321.

  28. I think you have to consider the thousands A321 ordered, regardless the versions, they can all fly 6 hours.

    Few airlines have decided to replace their 777-200ER’s with 787-9s or 787-10s. Probably United knows something all those (big, succesful) airlines don’t.

    Or it’s not such a good strategy & they change their minds again in two years.

  29. Keesje

    “Few airlines have decided to replace their 777-200ER’s with 787-9s or 787-10s. Probably United knows something all those (big, succesful) airlines don’t.”…
    Strange statement from you. Who are the ones who didn’t order a 787 to replace the 777-200ER? It’s unbelievable…

    Propose examples and give us proofs so that we can agree with you. What I observe is simply that the 787 has just flooded the market and it’s not going according to your statements. The 787 is so widespread that it becomes mandatory that it replaces the 777-200ER on one side and on the other


    “Or it’s not such a good strategy & they change their minds again in two years…”

    Illusions against denial and despair sometimes can be devastating.
    It remains a wishful thinking…

    • I really like the amateurism of the journalist.

      ” Thanks to a more modern design than the rival Boeing 737, the Airbus aircraft can accommodate an extra tank in the fuselage without losing capacity and thus providing an unbeatable advantage in terms of autonomy. ” Unquote

      (!)Integrating additional tanks has nothing to do with the “modernity” of an aircraft.

      Ridiculous to see so much phantasmagoria around an idea that was certainly an unknown market impact.
      450 -XLR’s sold is a mixed but relative success.

      This is an opportunity launched after the failure to close the business case of the rival NMA in 2019. Airbus does not have a real knowledge of the real needs of the market

      We have seen with the A380, the A340-500/-600, the A350-1000 . But also with the A340-200/-300, while 4-engines was Airbus’ priority before the twin-engine A330, according to Airbus’ own admission a few years ago.
      In other words, even for the A330, Airbus did not know that it would be successful, then we know the story…

      The -XLR IS an aircraft to watch closely.

      • Then why doesn’t BA simply extend the range of the MAX-10 by using the same trick of an integrated tank?
        Answer: that would add weight, and since the MTOW can’t be meaningfully increased (engine thrust!), adding fuel weight would necessitate carrying less payload in passengers/cargo (the MTOW difference between the regular A321 neo and the A321XLR is 6.5 tons — which corresponds in weight to 65 passengers).

  30. Lol.

    Because you don’t want to hear the message, you brand them BA haters?? 🤣

    -> CEO Dave Calhoun’s announcement at last week’s investor day that Boeing would not introduce a new jetliner until the mid 2030s marks a game-changing moment in the civil aviation industry. It could be the beginning of the end for BoeingBA +0.6% as a jetliner prime.

    The announcement was a significant departure from his comments at an investor conference last June that it would be a “couple of years” before a new jetliner was launched. The new time frame means that over 25 years will have lapsed between Boeing all-new jetliner launches, assuming that the new jet will be launched in 2030.

    So, there will be very little “tribal knowledge” transmitted between design teams involved in the last clean-sheet program and the next one. According to Calhoun, “And then there’ll be a moment in time where we’ll pull the rabbit out of the hat and introduce a new airplane sometime in the middle of next decade.” Who will be around at Boeing to make that rabbit happen? Talent retention will be a major challenge in general, as young engineers have just been told that this decade will involve nothing new.

    The new time frame also raises questions about his rationale that it’s not worth doing until the new jet can incorporate significant efficiency-enhancing technologies. There may be disruptive technologies coming in the future. But the most promising ones are effectively “platform neutral”; greater autonomy and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) are useful for any new jet. Propfans might or might not prove disruptive, but they were flight tested on jetliners in the 1980s, and while they might finally be ready for use in the 2030s, this slow road implies that their arrival won’t make everything else obsolete.

    Everything else, such as hybrid/electric or hydrogen propulsion, won’t be ready for large jetliner use in the 2030s, or even 2040s. Calhoun’s no new jet rationale, in short, looks like an excuse to not spend any money on creating new products. This decision may be related to a plan to simply break up the company, a possibility I outlined here. […]

    This brings us to today. For reasons I’ve outlined here, airlines want the largest, most capable single aisle they can buy, and Airbus’s A321neo is in the right place. The order book stands at an astonishing 4,525 jets, and the 3,689 jet order backlog is larger than the entire 737 MAX family backlog (3,500 jets).

    Yet the A321neo is way overdue for exactly this kind of trouncing by a new Boeing jet. The A321 airframe is 35 years old and could easily be beaten by something more capable. Many of those “firm” orders would likely defect, and new orders would all go to Boeing. Yet all Boeing has in this class is the 737 MAX 10, the last stop on the 737 line. It has garnered less than one-fifth of the A321neo’s orders. There isn’t even a clear path to MAX 10 certification, and Calhoun has threatened to cancel this variant if the U.S. government doesn’t grant it a certification deferral that allows it to maintain commonality with the rest of the MAX family.

    Airbus’ future has been greatly simplified by Calhoun’s latest announcement, which seems curiously oblivious to any possible competitor moves. All Airbus needs to do is continue ramping on the A321neo, and dominate the very strong middle market. Then, they will create the stretched A220-500, which will gravely damage the 737 MAX 8, Boeing’s best-selling jet. With this path, by the early 2030s, Airbus will likely hold 70% to 75% of the entire jetliner market.

    Airbus can also reinvent the A320 series with a new wing and engines; this will bring them to 80% of the market. With a diminished revenue base, and probably without the necessary talent, Boeing Commercial will not be able to create a new jet, and will simply fade away. […]


    • Your comment is wrong. Every paragraph is wrong.

      (Sorry 🙏)

      1) The 777-X was launched in 2013 only represents a 17 year differential. So they say ignorant journalists for 25 years. They’re sticking with the 787 launch. That doesn’t make sense given the depth of the 777-X changes. The 777-X is the equivalent of a brand new aircraft. On the other hand, on the Airbus side, it will really be 25 years between the launch of the A350 in 2006 and something around 2030.

      2) Why a “tribal knowledge?” because you read the journalists who blacken the paper? It is their job to do so. Boeing has a lot of projects that make engineers work. Truss Braced Wing will soon be mounted on an actual MD80 fuselage. The 777-200ER platform to test technologies and SAF each year. The studies are like at Airbus and Embraer for decarbonized has nothing to envy to Boeing.

      3) The 737MAX10 is a success. It is finally the real solution to extend a 737 fuselage despite a lack of ground clearance. If the idea had been discovered before we are not here to discuss it. Yes Boeing made a mistake in 2011 or even before not launching a 737 replacement, but it’s done. It is too early and at the same time too late to do so now. It is logical and normal for Calhoun to reassure his shareholders that it is time to put money on the table through cash flow. Why is this taboo?

      4.) Why dismantle what has been a big part of the US export for over 60 years?
      Isn’t this a similar scenario but more exaggerated than the journalists who blacken the picture?

      • “The 777-X is the equivalent of a brand new aircraft”

        Then why is BA trying to get it certified as a derivative?


        “The 737MAX10 is a success”

        Difficult to see how any product can be labelled a “success” when it has a legislative impediment to certification…

  31. The United order for the 787-8 might mean that an objective for this plane is finally being met: That the -8 is a replacement aircraft for the 767-300. If this is so, the -8 could be the NMA killer. United’s -8s could have certain attributes that even make this more clear.

    • I think the 787-8 should be. It is sufficient to cover a very thin M.O.M market. Why launch a risky and expensive new aircraft for such a small market?

      American Airlines and United did it

        • You can’t compare the two, apples and oranges.

          A single Aisle is vastly lower cost to operate over shorter distances than even a 787.

          Flip is a single aisle has a hard time reaching past 3500 miles unless you lave pax behind and add fuel tanks.

          and the A321XLR gamble is they can certify a fuel tank using the skin of the aircraft as the tank which has not been done.

          There can be reasons to use a 787 Transcon and it is being used so. Same for Japan though its an Island issue.

          None of it is pure this or that, offsetting factors play in and its a generality thing. Two 737s takes 4 pilots vs one 787-8.

          Some Airlines operate for flexibility of one aircraft single aisle (South West and AK Airlines) others run a very mixed fleet (United, Delta, American).

    • IIRC the 87-8 has a lot more Y seats than a comparable 763. It’s simply a much bigger plane, MTOW almost 100k higher.

      • Hello Pedro,

        Re:”IIRC the 87-8 has a lot more Y seats than a comparable 763. It’s simply a much bigger plane, MTOW almost 100k higher.”

        It is true that the 787-8 is a much heavier (and longer ranged) plane than a 767-300ER; however, if one wants something as close as possible to a 767-300ER, the next closest choice other than a 787-8 among current generation in production wide bodies is a 787-9 which whose OEW is 19,500 lbs heavier than the 787-8. The OEW’s of a A330-800 or A350-900, are 26,500 lbs and 49,500 lbs heavier than that of a 787-8, respectively.

        Below I have listed United’s current in service 767 models and Airbus and Boeing current generation widebodies in order of increasing operating empty weight (OEW). Higher empty weight = higher purchase price. OEW’s and range are according to Wikipedia. I chose to use OEW’s instead of MTOW, because if you chose to operate a plane at much less than its maximum range, you will be taking off at much less than MTOW.

        Type / OEW / Range
        767-300 ER: 198,400 lbs, 5,980 nm.
        767-400ER: 229,000 lbs, 5,625 nm.
        787-8: 264,500 lbs, 7,355 nm.
        787-9: 284,000 lbs, 7,635 nm.
        A330-800: 291,000 lbs, 8,150 nm.
        A330-900: 298,000 lbs, 7,200 nm.
        A350-900: 314,000 lbs, 8,100 nm.
        A350-1000: 342,000 lbs, 8,700 nm.

        What about an A321-XLR instead? See below for real world international/premium seating capacities actually used or announced by United or its competitors for real aircraft in the real world, not to be confused with seating capacities published by aircraft manufacturer sales departments.

        American A321-200 premium: 102
        Delta A321 neo premium: 148
        Delta 767-300ER: 211, 216, or 226
        United 767-300ER: 167, 199, or 214.
        Delta 767-400ER: 238
        United 767-400ER: 240
        American 787-8: 234
        United 787-8: 243
        United 787-9: 257
        Delta A330-900: 281
        American 787-9: 285
        United 787-10: 318
        Delta A350-900: 306 or 339

        If an airline is looking to down-gauge from 767 size aircraft, and operating into airports without slot constraints, an A321-XLR could be a good choice. If an airline is looking to up-gauge 40 or 100 passengers per flight from 767 size aircraft, or needs 8,000 nm range, then the 49,500 lb heavier empty weight of an A350 over a 787-8 could make sense and be worth the additional purchase price. If it is happy with the range and passenger capacities of 767-300ER’s that need to be replaced, then the 787-8 is the closest match, and least expensive to purchase, among the current generation widebodies.

        My impression from Jon Ostrowers recent interview with United’s management is that United is actually wanting to upgauge to some extent, and may be more likely to order 787-9’s and 787-10’s than 787-8’s.

        • Here is a link to Jon Ostrower’s interview with United’s management, conducted the week before United announced their new 787 order, that I referenced in my post above. An Air Current subscription is required to read the article. It is worth a read if you want too know what United management was thinking about many of the issues being discussed here, such as A321XLR’s vs. A330 neo’s vs. 787’s vs. A350’s as replacements for 757’s, 767’s and 777-200’s, United’s plans for its deferred A350 order, what mix of 787-8’s, 787-9’s and 787-10’s it might decide on, and what range capabilities it expects for the 787-10ER.


          • In a follow on Air Current article reporting on more of Jon Ostrower’s interview with United management, topics included the following.

            United’s interest, or lack thereof, in A220’s and E195-E2’s.

            United’s expectations regarding MAX-10 certification, and what it might do if the MAX-10 is canceled.

            The aircraft that Airbus and Being have not offered to United that it wishes they would launch and offer.

          • Yes, it crossed my mind that United could eventually get out from under the A350 order by picking up the A220-300. Both United and American are big on A319s. In a few years these aging planes will be up against 100s of Delta, Breeze and JetBlue A220s, and SW’s MAX7s. Kirby has shown he is very attuned to future planning in this industry.

          • @ SamW
            A conversion to the A220 won’t solve the RR problem: the A350 has RR engines whereas the A220 only has PW. Via the A350 order, UA also has a contract with RR — severance rather than conversion will cost money.

          • Hello SamW,

            Re: “Yes, it crossed my mind that United could eventually get out from under the A350 order by picking up the A220-300.”

            You are assuming that United management expressed an interest in, rather than a lack thereof, in acquiring A220’s in Jon Ostrower’s interview.

            I don’t want to quote from a copyrighted paywall interview; however; I will say that nothing in the interview contradicted the statements attributed to Scott Kirby in the excerpt below from a 6-29-21 Flight Global article titled: “United not ‘in the market’ for 100-seaters, says chief Kirby”. See the link after the excerpt for the full article.

            “United Airlines has no plans to acquire narrowbody aircraft in the 100-130-seat class – a category filled by jets like the Airbus A220 and Embraer E-Jet family.

            Scott Kirby, the carrier’s chief executive, is clear that larger narrowbody jets, not smaller, will anchor United’s future fleet. “We are not in the marketplace today for jets that seat 100 to 130 passengers,” he says.

            Instead, the airline on 29 June unveiled orders for a combined 270 Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies, including the largest variants of those single-aisles – the A321neo and 737 Max 10.”


          • Uh-huh. I’m also aware the deal United made to get new -700s for a song, somewhere in the 20 M range. Boeing did not want to lose another customer to the C-Series.

            But regional airlines are a conundrum. The RJ-200 is going away; pilot shortages, the scope clause on the Embraer, and in the case of Delta – they are using more of their smaller mainline jets on regional routes.

            Consequently, I was thinking United might have a change of heart at some point. But it would be a different strategy. And as pointed out, the RR engine contract.

        • @AP

          Tell me what you see here:
          763 113 Y
          788 158 Y

          How many routes can UA flood the market with 40% higher capacity without lowering the yield???

          Currently the legacy airlines held up the yield by restricting supply, but the food gate is going to open … and all hell breaks loose???

    • “I’d highly doubt Boeing Corporation sells many airplanes below cost.”

      -> [BA] expensed abnormal production costs of $925 m [787 program] during the nine months ended September 30, 2022.

      How many 787 were built in first three quarters of 2022? How many were delivered during the year?? What’s the chance BA can still make a profit from 787 program in the first nine months of the year???

    • @samW

      I think it will truly be a 767 replacement if Boeing decides to give the 787-8 a new wing to take some weight out when the 787 update arrives probably closer to 2030.

      • @Williams

        I am not an engineer and there are many in here who would know better than me. That said – I think that’s a really good idea.

        But would it require a new certification? Will a lighter wing support the weight of the engines? Is it worth the cost, once you start changing things, to maybe go whole hog and try and lighten up everywhere?

        • @ Frank

          One of the rumors swirling around when time comes for Boeing to re engine the 787. The 8 gets its own wing. Not cheap, but from a business standpoint makes the most sense and adds more sales to the 787 line.

          IMO by that time Airbus will announce the A330 replacement.

          • The 787-3, which was floated to customers early on, may have had a shorter wing. If that be the case, then much of the engineering may already be completed.

  32. Exactly 13 years today since the 787 performed its maiden flight — and not a penny profit has been made on the program.


    The program is not yet out of the woods: the FAA has yet to reveal how 1200 in-service 787s are to be subjected to checks/repairs for a whole list of potential manufacturing flaws. These will almost certainly be done during routine maintenance visits to the hangar — but the bill will still have to be footed by BA.


    Thin margins on sales, and higher unit production costs associated with low monthly line numbers, are further worsening the outlook.

    • @Bryce

      ‘and not a penny profit has been made on the program.’

      Yes. No. Maybe.

      I’m going to try and present this in the most giving manner, I can. Please understand that:

      1) You know I have an accounting background, but have never worked in a corp that uses program accounting.

      2) So much of what BA reports is opaque. Only a few know what the real deal is.

      Profits under program accounting, are essentially whatever the company says they are. I will give you some numbers;

      (in a nutshell)
      Boeing launches the 787. They estimate selling 1,000 units. They also estimate development costs. They estimate production costs. They estimate what it will sell for, giving them a margin. They break it down per unit.

      Let’s say they estimate a price of $140 million per aircraft. Normal production costs will average out to to $100 million per airframe. Development costs average out to $20 million per plane.

      Handshakes all around, we’re going to make $20 million each.

      So upfront they’ve spent $20 billion to make the thing. they get signed contracts, cash deposits, all that stuff. Delivery day for aircraft #1 comes.

      Even though they have spent $20 billion and have spent another $100 million in normal production costs to make that unit, they book a $20 million margin.

      On the books, it looks great. Doesn’t matter that you are actually $19,960,000,000.00 down. You made money.

      Now starts the interesting stuff.

      Let’s say that you run into a snag. I dunno – maybe suppliers don’t deliver on time and have problems. Maybe like an issue that delays the program, like a battery thingie. What do you do?

      Well – you throw any overages in Inventory and call it a Deferred Production Balance and say that over time, as we get more efficient in producing the thing, we’ll make more of a margin and reverse it out.

      They also moved a couple of jets out of inventory and into R&D

      “We will reclassify costs previously recorded for those aircraft from inventory to R&D expense, resulting in an estimated non cash charge of $2.5 billion or $2.21 per share in the third quarter,” said Boeing CFO James Bell during Thursday’s conference call with investors.

      In the meantime, you still book that profit. Because of company secrets and all that stuff, nobody on the outside knows what the real numbers are.

      Here’s how it plays into your point:

      I’m pretty sure, that even as the DPB was heading north of $26 billion on the 787 program, they were booking a profit on each delivery. Even though those 787’s in inventory have cost them money, they are booking a profit on them.

      They recently wrote off $3.5 billion in the DPB, with another $1.4 billion in abnormal production costs and another $2 billion to come, for a total of $6.9 billion.

      (For those who doubt the numbers)

      “During the fourth quarter of 2021, we recorded a loss of $3.5 billion on the program primarily due to the additional rework, as well as other actions required to resume 787 deliveries taking longer than expected. Cumulative abnormal costs recorded through September 30, 2022 total $1.4 billion and we continue to expect to incur approximately $2 billion of abnormal production costs on a cumulative basis with most being incurred by the end of 2023”

      The million dollar question:

      Have they booked more of a profit, over the years – then what they have written off (and have yet to write off) on the program?

      Common sense and my spidey accounting sense tell me no. Especially when interest expense is not part of the margin calculation and you know that those 787’s sitting there cost them about $10 billion to build and they don’t have the cash on hand.

      I could be off. My reasoning could be wrong. My understanding of how BA uses program accounting could be incorrect. They could be clouding all of this on purpose to hide the real story. We might only find out when the 787 ends production and the next guy has to fess up.

    • So something just struck me and it’s in reference to this quote:


      “We will reclassify costs previously recorded for those aircraft from inventory to R&D expense, resulting in an estimated non cash charge of $2.5 billion or $2.21 per share in the third quarter,” said Boeing CFO James Bell during Thursday’s conference call with investors.


      It’s not the only time BA has done that. That was in 2009. This is from 2018 financials:


      “In 2016, BCA recorded reach-forward losses of $1,258 million on the 747 program and reclassified $1,235 million of 787 flight test aircraft inventory costs to research and development. The reclassification of flight test aircraft costs was recorded in the second quarter of 2016 as a result of our determination that two 787 flight test aircraft were no longer commercially saleable.”


      So I guess they lump everything spent on developing the aircraft in R&D, never to be seen again in the margin calculation and the only thing to reduce is the DPB.

      Take your pick where to put it. Who knows how much this thing cost them…

      • @ Frank
        Note that I (astutely) referred above to “making” a profit — as opposed to “booking” a profit 😉

  33. If one was to read the comment section, one would get the feeling Boeing winning a major order of a 100 787s and Maxs from United going up against the A330NEO and A350 family was a bad thing.

    The CEO that made the decision came from another airline that placed one of the largest orders with Airbus. As a matter of fact, this pro Boeing blah blah blah United airlines bought a sizeable number of XRLs and will no doubt buy more.

    Just wanted to restate these simple facts that seemed to gotten lost in margins and other strawman arguments.

    Imagine the glee if Airbus had won.

    • Depends on how you define “bad”.
      – From a PR point of view: positive for BA (although the stock price didn’t budge much on the news).
      – From a balance sheet point of view: neutral to negative for BA, in view of almost certainly thin margins at a time when sizable income is needed to cover crippling interest payments.
      – For UA: good — they got a great price and relatively early slots.

      p.s. The “strawman” and “fanboy” syntax is jaded…

    • @Williams

      It’s not a bad thing – the critical question you have to ask is given that:

      1) BA is cash needy, 2) didn’t make a MoM aircraft to replace the aircraft that the 787’s are replacing, which the airline has to deal with, 3) current mgmt has shown a propensity for sacrificing the future for short term gains and 4) 787 production is not in the best of shape;

      How good a deal did United get?

      • @Frank

        I will agree with you United got an awesome deal. Southwest got an awesome Boeing deal, American got an awesome Airbus and Boeing deal, EasyJet got an awesome Airbus deal, Indigo got an awesome Airbus deal, Delta got an awesome Airbus and Boeing deal, the retired famed Airbus salesman Leahy gave awesome deals ( IMO, USAirways flip was his best). Why? Because there was more money to be made than not having the deal at all over the life of the air frames. No doubt Airbus and Boeing went into this deal knowing this.

        As an Airbus shareholder, you are not giddy over 7 year A320 family backlog, you are giddy over the revenue those thousands of frames will be providing Airbus the next 30 years. Same applies to Boeing.

        However, not all deals are good deals. Ryanair’s O’Leary is still waiting for his “awesome” deal from Boeing.

        • @Williams

          I try as much as possible to stay as close to the mean as I can. I don’t get too high on good news and don’t get too low on bad news.

          I am pleased with the market share of the A320Neo family, but I am concerned about getting production up to where they can move the aircraft.

          I am concerned with the A220 line. Mobile isn’t doing that great and the line could use more orders.

          The A330Neo line is, what it is. Not a ton of money spent there, to keep Boeing honest on 787 pricing. It’s nice to know that the A330Ceo was the 3rd best selling widebody, but that is now history.

          The A350 will be just fine.


          As far as pricing and deals go – the proof (and pretty much the only proof we have), is in the pudding. Airbus is stable financially and looking to build up a rainy day fund. Good, solid fundamentals.

          Flash, I don’t need. I hate style over substance. Steady improvement over time, built for the duration – is the name of the game.

          (Regular dividends we get from Banks are really good, too)

          • Frank:

            A220 is fine, I think they have 720 orders and if they bring out the A220-500?

            A320 can go by the wayside and all Airbus can do to keep up with A321 (I believe its 60% of production now and Airbus is scrambling to get all lines A321 worthy)

            Some has to do with Airbus lucky and better management and some with Boeing management stupidity.

  34. Franc,

    I agree. The amortization of a program should not be confused with the cash flow it generates. This is why I understand that the CEO of Boeing is saying that the money must be distributed to the shareholders. Part of me doesn’t like this method, the other part of me says I’m a hypocrite because that’s how business works today in all multinationals and industries. Why is it so taboo to postpone the launch of a new program around 2030 until a convenient time and that money must be returned to shareholders?

    The 737MAX is not the best for us, but the best for customer airlines. The 737 MAX has huge potential and more with the MAX-10 awaiting certification for 2024.

    The 787’s, 737MAX’s and 777-X’s and Freighters should generate liquidity on the table until at least 2035-2040. But I think a new aircraft will be launched around 2030 when Boeing recovers.

    Thanks for Your explanations

    • Thank you for your kind words.

      I live by a few simple rules:

      1) I walk my doggo twice a day; rain, shine, snow, freezing cold – we go out two times for ~45 minutes.

      2) I always help old folks, when I can.

      3) Live life in moderation.

      Calhoun and the c-suite boys seem to have thrown out the whole #3 thing about moderation. They returned excessive amounts of money, which we all can see, Boeing needed.

      The cynical thinkers among us would postulate that he had a vested interest in driving up the share price, but that is the system which was changed by Reagan to allow this to occur. Before that, share buybacks were illegal.


      Taboo? No.

      The even more cynical of us would say that BA spent the money that should have been spent on a follow on to the 757/767, on buybacks.

      Sure, your BA stock went up and up…if you sold out around the top ($440 I think) you made a killing. Good for you. But look at what shape the company is in. It’s a mess and despite the brave face and all the positive spin – it may not recover.

      Why do you think there is over $55 billion in debt on the books? It’s not just the Max. It’s the 787 and the 777X program, as well. Defense programs.

      Everything was left to rot, while every cent was squeezed to get the maximum out of it.


      On a new aircraft:

      I think that the UA order signals a changing in mindset. Airlines are not waiting any longer and this is the first domino to go. The 797 should have been in service by now, replacing all the old 767’s and getting carriers who flew the 757 to up size. And yes, even though, as you mentioned, the market was about 1000/1000 back in the day, I think the market has grown (look at the growth in every segment), but the opportunity was missed.

      We can speculate and debate as to why that happened, until the cows come home (the decision not to launch).


      On liquidity:

      Here’s where you have to be careful. Just because you have liquidity, doesn’t mean you are profitable. Boeing get’s all kinds of money from airlines, $53 billion, currently. It doesn’t mean they make money. I just spoke to someone here, who is very well connected. I was told that BA will not make a dime on the UA order. You may dispute that and that’s fine.

      But look at the history of what Boeing has reported in the past few years. It doesn’t bode well.


      On the Max:

      ‘The 737MAX is not the best for us, but the best for customer airlines.’

      What evidence do you have to support that statement? What is the barometer? Well – in a two horse race, it would be the other guy, yes? Sales?

      I’ll leave that one there.


      ‘The 737 MAX has huge potential and more with the MAX-10 awaiting certification for 2024.’

      What huge potential are you referring to? Is the Max 10 certification a certainty?

      If so many customers are gagging to get their hands on a Max, why are there still 270 sitting in inventory (remember, only half are for China) at the end of Q3?


      I’m not trying to be mean, but as someone who would look at spending money on buying stock in BA, these are all (in my mind) legitimate concerns I have. I know I am not alone. I read similar comments on investors website, as well.

      I don’t know if you work for BA, in some of your sentences you make it seem like you do. It’s good to show pride in where you work and tough to take criticism.

      I hope it works out for you.

      • “I just spoke to someone here, who is very well connected. I was told that BA will not make a dime on the UA order.”

        No surprise there — Bloomberg already effectively told us that.

        • “I just spoke to someone here, who is very well connected. I was told that BA will not make a dime on the UA order.”
          Believe me, I saw a man dressed in red on his sled with big bags full of gifts and saying: “Ho-ho-go”!…

          • And you hoped fervently that he was on his way to BA?

            Alas…no gifts for that company 🤕

    • As a side note about the stock price:

      So if you got out near the top and made out like a bandit, good for you, as I said.

      How about the people, who believed that BA was in good hands, was making every aircraft to the best of their abilities and mgmt was good stewards of the company – deciding to stay in and keep there investment there?

      Believing it was safe, because Boeing said so.

      Employees? Retirees? Old folks retirement fund?

      Muilenberg walked away with what….$60 million? All the GE guys before him, who set the company on that course and got paid out?

      Yah, you’re right. It is the system that is set up to allow people like that to take advantage. But by the same token, saying everything is gonna be fine now….when it isn’t – enables them.

      Sorry. Rant over.

      • @ Frank

        The thing is those same employees, retires and retirement funds made out like a bandits during those good years too.

        As much as many want to bang on GE’s Welch, GE was dominant in all the markets it competed in when he was CEO.

        A company can be a cash ATM for its shareholders (the ones that own the company) and dominate its market with capable and excellent products. It comes back to the product.

        • @Williams

          “The thing is those same employees, retires and retirement funds made out like a bandits during those good years too.”

          And what of the people who put their faith (and kept their faith) in BA when it was near it’s zenith, believing what they were told? The people who didn’t cash out, but took BA’s word that “The Max is safe”, “It’s foreign pilots” & “It’ll be back in 2 weeks”

          Somebody had to lose, in order for someone else to win…


          “As much as many want to bang on GE’s Welch, GE was dominant in all the markets it competed in when he was CEO.”

          Using slash and burn tactics. Squeeze every last drop of blood from employees, suppliers and the assets. Get out when the cupboard is bare and leave the next guy to deal with it.

          Sound familiar?


          “A company can be a cash ATM for its shareholders (the ones that own the company) and dominate its market with capable and excellent products. It comes back to the product.”

          Yes, but in the commercial aircraft business, creating safe and competitive products requires, as we discussed above and you ballparked in the $10-15 billion range, massive capital investments.

          Did BA do that? Or did they spend all the investment capital on buybacks & dividends, leaving the cupboard bare?

          (Rhetorical question)

      • Hello Bryce,

        Re:”The A321 XLR costs 43% less, carries 14% fewer passengers, but has only 60% of the range.”

        What seating capacities are you using to calculate a 14% seating capacity difference between an A321XLR and a 787-8? When comparing seating capacities in like configurations (international vs. international or domestic vs. domestic) at the same airline or similar airlines, I find that seating capacities being used by real airlines in the real world on 787-8’s are 58% to 229% larger than those being used on A321’s or A321XLR’s.

        ANA operates both A321’s and 787-8’s in domestic configurations.
        ANA A321 and A321 neo in domestic configuration: 194 seats
        787-8 domestic: 335 seats
        787-8 domestic / A321 domestic = 335/194 =1.73, a difference of 73%

        American operates both A321-200’s and 787-8’s in premium/international configuration.
        A321-200 premium/international: 102 seats
        787-8 premium/international: 234 seats
        787-8 premium / A321-200 premium = 234 / 102 seats = 2.29, a difference of 229%.

        If I instead compare American’s 787-8 international seating of 234 seats to US Big 3 competitor Delta’s announced 148 seat configuration for their premium A321 neo’s, I get the following.
        Delta A321 neo premium: 148 seats
        American 787-8 premium: 234 seats
        American 787-8 premium / Delta A321 neo premium = 234 / 148 = 1.58, a difference of 58%.

        Delta seating capacities on its domestic A321’s (191) and A321 neos (194) are similar to those used by ANA for its A321’s (194).

        In similar seating configurations at the same airline, a 787 has 58% or more seating capacity than an A321XLR. That makes an A321XLR a poor choice for a 767 replacement at a network airline that has slot constrained hubs. An A321 or 737-10 does have significantly more seating capacity than A319’s, A320’s , 737-700’s, and 737-800’s, so an A321 or 737-10 could be an excellent choice for replacing these aircraft for a network carrier that has slot constrained hubs. An A321XLR could also be a gauge neutral replacement for 757-200’s. This subject came up in Jon Ostrower’s interview with United management that I have referenced elsewhere in this thread.

        • Hello AP_Robert,

          I used the seating numbers from the comparative link that I posted for @DP (242/206). That site may, in turn, have based its numbers on the OEM websites, which indicate — for a typical two-class layout — 248 for a 787-8 and 170-210 for an A321neo.

          I agree with you that this comparison is — of course — very dependent on the airline/route in question.

          As as general remark: you need to be careful talking about “less than X” versus “more than Y” when dealing with fractions/percentages. For example, taking your ANA figures of 335/194:
          – the A321 carries (335-194)/335 = 42% less than the 787-8, but
          – the 787-8 carries (335-194)/194 = 73% more than the A321
          (the reference for comparison gets put in the denominator).

          If I take a Qatar 787-8 (254 seats) versus an Aer Lingus TATL A321LR (184 seats), we get:
          – A321LR carries 27.5% less than the B787-8;
          – B787-8 carries 38% more than A321LR.
          Both of these aircraft are used on 8-hour longhaul flights from DUB.

  35. FG: Water leak that affected 787 electronics prompts FAA call for inspections

    -> “Water leak that affected 787 electronics prompts FAA call for inspections. The US Federal Aviation Administration intends to require that airlines inspect Boeing 787s for water leaks after several such incidents, including one involving water leaking into a jet’s electronics bay.

  36. “As much as many want to bang on GE’s Welch, GE was dominant in all the markets it competed in when he was CEO.”

    -> “Welch believed that the responsibility of a corporation was to deliver predictable and generous returns to its shareholders. In pursuit of this goal, he exploited a loophole in the regulatory architecture of corporate finance. Companies that made things—companies such as G.E.—had long been permitted to lend money to their customers. They could behave like banks, in other words, but they weren’t really banks. Banks were encumbered by all kinds of regulations that had the effect of limiting their profit margins. The markets considered them risky, so they paid dearly to raise capital. But blue-chip G.E. had none of those burdens, which meant that, when it
    came to making money, Welch’s non-bank bank could put real banks to shame. He then used the proceeds from G.E. Capital to acquire hundreds of companies. […]

    When Immelt took over from Welch, he addressed a gathering of top G.E. managers in Boca Raton. “Only time will tell if Jack is the best business leader ever, but I know he is one of the greatest human beings I have ever met,” Immelt said. But by that point the Welch legend was so huge that such blandishments seemed obligatory.

    What Immelt quickly discovered was that Welch had handed him a mess: a company built out of pieces that had no logical connection. Once the global financial crisis arrived, *the elaborate game that Welch had been playing with G.E. Capital collapsed*. Wall Street woke up to the fact that a non-bank was every bit as risky as a real bank, and the company never quite recovered. Immelt was eventually forced out, in disgrace.”

    Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker

  37. FG: “United Airlines’ chief executive is warning that Boeing and broader US industry will suffer if the US Congress fails to exempt Boeing’s 737 Max 10 from a new cockpit-alert-system”


    Relatively shallow argument, since many/most -10s/7s will just convert to -9s/8s — particularly when BA has more spectacular discounts on offer.

    • …”since many/most -10s/7s will just convert to -9s/8s — particularly when BA has more spectacular discounts on offer…”
      you know that wishful thinking has no argumentative value …

      • (1) Many -10 orders were just conversions from original orders for -9s.
        (2) Most -7s were ordered by SW, which also flies the -8. What other BA choice does the airline have?
        (3) BA has already probed customers on the subject of converting from -10 to -9 and from -7 to -8: LNA reported on it months ago.

        • “(1) Many -10 orders were just conversions from original orders for -9s.”

          Unlike -10, -9 brings no value compared to -8. And that doesn’t matter whether the airlines convert or not. In truth it is quite relevant to convert -9 to -10 …

          • The -9 will bring plenty of value when spiced up with a mouthwatering discount 😏

        • Doesn’t Delta’s “plan B” of no MAX 10 is more MAX 9?? What sorta “broader” industry suffering?? Big words but empty hot air, right?

          • And Qatar Airways has a similar Plan B.
            Many/most airlines that ordered the -10 would probably be more willing to take a -9 than to switch to an A321neo — so the business stays with the original OEM.

            And does anyone really believe that SW would jump ship to the A220 rather than switching to the MAX-8?

    • Yes it will impact American industry as the -10 is important to Boeing right now to have a competitor for the A321.

      Backing up the facts is the EICAS has zero relevancy to any of the discussion on the MAX let alone the NG, the so called Classics and the Jurassics (I love that one, stole it from Peter Leme (Sp?)

      But then Airbus is trying to put a bomb under the rear seats of the A321XLR but lets not let that dissuade us from a relevant discussion.

      Once you get the details such as United having 100 787 options, yea then you can draw a good valid conclusion, The A350 is toast as far as a United Order goes and the Lady just has not sung the final notes.

      • > EICAS has zero relevancy to any of the discussion on the MAX <

        Let's see- should one believe: MITRE's report for the FAA on the causes of the two consecutive all-fatalites crashes of Boeing 737MAXes; *and* Captain Chesley Sullenberger; *and* the head of a major Pilot's Union, or- alternatively- an evidence-immune anonymous internet commenter ?

        tough call.

        • Who should one trust?? An expert commissioned by FAA or a self-appointed “authority”??

        • @ Bill7
          You forgot the United States Congress in your list — you know, the body in D.C. that has legislated that EICAS will be mandatory on new certifications starting in 11 days time?
          You also forgot the FAA — you know, the regulator who has said that it will stop certification work on the MAX-10/-7 in 11 days time if the EICAS impasse isn’t resolved.

          Zero relevancy 😉

      • Brice, can you have an adult behavior please? Your assertions are ONLY peremptory and sarcastic. This one isn’t going anywhere. There’s no proof of what you’re saying other than once again ridiculous wishful thinking on your part.

        • Any particular reason why you posted this comment as a reaction to @TW? Or do you also think that @Brice (whoever that is) and @TW are the same commenter?

          One could be forgiven for suspecting inebriation…

          • Brice, can you have an
            adult behavior please? Your assertions are ONLY peremptory and sarcastic. This one isn’t going anywhere. There’s no proof of what you’re saying other than once again ridiculous wishful thinking on your part.”
            To you whom I address

            I understand that Boeing frustrated you for 48 hours but remain an adult

          • @Checklist: Formal warning: You’re about to be suspended for violating Reader Comment rules.


    • As detailed above, the UA “gifts” were just empty boxes in fancy wrappings: low margin, low joy.

      The Air India whitetail “gifts” will be even worse: those boxes will contain bills for de-mothballing, refurbishing and age-related discounting. But at least they’ll be out of the parking lot.

      Santa’s BA bag is very meager indeed.

      • You’re still sarcasm and deni.

        There will be a lot of cash flow during deliveries to come. The gift is that many people (and me too) are delighted with this spanking inflicted by Boeing through its successful 787,

        Accept this harsh reality

        Congrats Boeing and United 🙏

  38. Bryce is Pedro ?

    -> FG: “United Airlines’ chief executive…”

    -> FG: “Water leak that affected 787 electronics prompts FAA call for inspections…”
    Can you explain to me please?

    There are two similar writings here.
    Why that ? Isn’t it easy to have only one pseudonym?

    • Didn’t know — or figure out — that FG is an abbreviation for Flight Global?

      • Everyone knows that FG = Flightglobal

        I’m talking about the arrow and the writing style…?
        It’s weird, it’s the same style

        • “I’m talking about the arrow”

          There’s no arrow in the comment in which I quote FG.
          There are, however, 2 arrows in your comment above.
          It seems that you’re attributing your own arrows to others.

    • >Bryce is Pedro ?

      I don’t think so. I am pretty sure there is more than one commenter ‘Checklist’, though- and that it/they want others to know that.

      #hallof mirrors (designed with care)

      • I guess our poster is caught with pants down, that’s why it sounded so desperate. 🙂

        • Excuse me, who are you talking to?

          Who is desperate?
          And why desperate ?

          If you talk to me,
          and see the violence of your rude remarks coming from a frustrated person like you because Boeing would have given a spanking that seems personal to you, and that’s why you’re so upset.

          So I don’t understand what despair you’re talking about if it’s not you who are.

          100 Boeing 787 orders. *One hundred* In your mind

          ***Merry Christmas, Lol 👍

          • OK, reading that “comment”, the inebriation theory is becoming more and more credible 😉

          • @Bryce, watch your language commenting. Personal attacks violate Reader Comment Rules.


    • They are not the same person, @Checklist. One is in Toronto, the other in The Netherlands.

      • Oh no – just what the world needs. Another Maple Leafs fan…

        1967 ring a bell, anyone?

  39. “Because there was more money to be made than not having the deal at all over the life of the air frames.”

    I wonder where this belief comes from, which is the exact opposite of reality.

      • It’ll be interesting to see how “lucrative” those Boeing 787s (fuselages in particular) turn out to be for BGS.

      • Why linked to a 2018 article? You can’t find anything more recent?? How about this?

        Are you aware that historically half of BGS revenue came from defense contracts??

        -> In 2021, BGS landed orders for more than 100 Boeing Converted Freighters (BCFs)

        I guess freighter conversion deals have little to do with winning big passenger aircraft orders from airlines. 🙄

        • @Pedro

          Close, in 2022. So far:

          Nine months ended September 30

          Commercial $7,111
          Government 5,692
          Total revenues from contracts with customers 12,803
          Intersegment revenues eliminated on consolidation 241
          Total segment revenues $13,044

          Uncle Sam does lend a helping hand

        • @Pedro

          Why do you feign ignorance or naivety. If you can dissect quarterly reports then surely you are aware of both OEM after the sale service programs.

          I give you too much credit. Problem fixed.

        • BGS is providing pilot training, flight planning, freighter conversion. Where’s the connection with making money over “the life of the airframes”??

          • Is it hogwash? Major players like: Lufthansa Technik, ST Engineering don’t have to sell airframes to take a major foothold in the sector.
            AGAIN, where’s the connection of selling airframes with making money over “the life of the airframes”??
            You believe BGS can outbid UA’s in-house MRO op??? 🙄

          • Edit:
            You believe BGS can outbid UA’s in-house MRO op and still enjoy a good margin??? 🙄

          • @ Pedro
            BGS and Airbus Services are indeed competing with heavyweights in the MRO industry. From the link:

            “The major players profiled in the global aircraft MRO market are AAR Corp, Barnes Group Inc., Collins Aerospace, Inc., Delta TechOps, FL Technics, GE Aviation, Lufthansa Technik AG, Rolls-Royce PLC, Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd, and Turkish Technic Inc.”


            In 2021, BGS made $2B in earnings from $16.2B in revenue — but what percentage of that came from MRO, as opposed to BGS’s other services?

          • Back in 2017:
            -> Consider, “We produce a little over half of the commercial aircraft around the world, yet we’re only about 7 percent commercially in [the] services market segment,” says Deal. “On the defense side, we roughly produce about half the Free World’s defense products,” yet Boeing provides a scant 9 percent of the services attendant to that key sector.

            In 2017 BGS Revenue is $14.6 billion

            Not much progress since then I guess …

          • @ Pedro
            Nice quote — thanks.
            I can certainly see why large airlines with their own MROs wouldn’t be interested in opting for MRO services from aircraft OEMS.

  40. Still 2 Billion in revenues in a quarter. Airbus and Boeing think its worth chasing.

    • Revenue is certainly worth chasing — assuming that it can be converted into earnings.
      But the big question is whether those earnings are enough to offset losses associated with sales.

      • Bryce

        …”But the big question is whether those earnings are enough to offset losses associated with sales…”
        The big answer

        Boeing is recovering. Delivered aircraft bring in cash-flow.
        The services associated with such historical orders will generate cash-flow.
        William (among others) clearly explained it though…
        It’s not difficult to understand?..

        • “Boeing is recovering”

          Did BA meet its own targets: Clearing the MAX inventory in two years?? Delivery of 500 MAX this year??

          MAX 7 delays

          -> ‘ Boeing has told the carrier to expect certification “in the next month, or two or three,” Chief Operating Officer Mike Van de Ven said. “In my mind, I’ve got it sometime in the first quarter.”
          Boeing had earlier indicated the plane would be *certified by mid-2021*, Van de Ven said. A Boeing executive said last month the company was performing certification activities and expected to *deliver the first Max 7 jets in 2022*.

          Sustainable profit???

          None of the above is relevant to the post-truth crowd.

          • Several factors make that the objective is not reached like the resupply chain for example, also the slowness of the FAA to certify the aircraft. It was the price to pay for SouthWest that encouraged the MCAS cover-up. But the MAX7 is not important for the market.

            If SW has to wait they will wait!.

            When I said that Boeing is recovering, it is compared to the COVID and 737MAX grounding crisis
            to 2020-2021 results when they had hit bottom…

          • Excuse me. BA should have dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s when they performed their self-certification of the MAX. Now what they failed in completing their homework is coming back to bite their behinds.

            BA’s higher-ups have little to no understanding of the reality when they made forecast?? Didn’t BA has to pause wing production for the MAX repeatedly because miss-drilled holes? Oh my, oh my!!!

            The lesson here is BA never has to accept any responsibility in the minds of the post-truth crowd.

          • “If SW has to wait they will wait!.”

            I believe BA has a good pot of money to compensate WN for non-delivery of the MAX 7. Another reason why BA fails to return to good profit.

          • Checklist:

            The Boeing results for 2022 are not going to be a good read either.

            The issue is Boeing management and what they have done and are doing to the Company.

            There is the contention that the grounded and built 787 (about 115 now) are money in the bank. But the cost to build was paid previously and they have to be fixed which is costly. Everett is not shutdown on the 787, they are now a repair center.

            The MAX is not allowed to fly in China and those sales may be lost.

            777X is all but grounded while Boeing fights with the FAA and what they need to submit (which follows a fight on MAX and 787). Different lines all having to learn it is not done the way it was in the good old days.

            Cash will start to return but that goes into the deficit that was paid out in the parts and labor.

            Military contracts continue to have high write downs.

            All blamed by Calhoun on fixed prices when he was on the board now knowing what was going on (for which he was paid to know what was going on).

            Worse is a no product strategy until Calhoun is gone. 777X is delayed and we don;t know when the FAA gets what it needs to man approved flight tests.

            Its a really bad time for Boeing and I do not blame the employees, been there done that, morale will be in the toilet and work becomes a drudge not a vocation.

            Get rid of Calhoun and Boeing has a lot to work with but also a lot of digging out if they start now.

  41. Brice

    OK, reading that “comment”, the inebriation theory is becoming more and more credible 😉
    I understand that it must be very frustrating for you, and since 48 hours you can not digest the spanking that Boeing inflicted on you.

    But from there insulting people,
    you will have to see a psychologist.

    100, 787 (+100) historic orders inflicted damage on your in the head…🙄

    • Interesting that commenters have been suspended from this site
      for much less that what Mr. Checklist does over and over and over and..

      • @Bill7: @TW is correct and I am dealing with it. You continue to whine because I had to suspend you because back-scene “dealing with it” didn’t work with you. Whine all you want, but you don’t have knowledge of what’s being handled.


  42. With travel demand in Asia continuing to recover, it looks as if (bankrupt) Thai Airways is also looking to add (20) widebody orders:

    “The flag carrier of the Kingdom of Thailand THAI or Thai Airways International Plc is in serious talks with OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) on both sides – Boeing and Airbus – to add some 20 wide-bodies twin-aisle passenger aircraft in the near future. ”

    “For those who fly THAI on a regular basis, the airline suffered from inconsistency issues before Covid-19 with a broad range of jets spanning the Boeing 747, A330-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, 787-9, 777-200, 777-300 and the Airbus A380, with different ranges in cabin products. 

    “With the pandemic, the result is that the Thai flag carrier has decided to trim its fleet to only 4 types, with 777-300ER, A350, 787-8 and 787-9 making the cut.”


  43. Bryce

    With travel demand in Asia continuing to recover, it looks as if (bankrupt) Thai Airways is also looking to add (20) widebody orders:”…
    “before Covid-19 with a broad range of jets spanning the Boeing 747, A330-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, 787-9, 777-200, 777-300 and the Airbus A380…”

    Oh my God, what will become of you if it’s the standard 787 Dreamliner at 1,600 orders who would be ordered?

    Do you think it will be before, during or after Christmas ?🙏

  44. Planespotters reveals that there are precisely 50 ex-China Southern MAX whitetails sitting in the parking lot — corresponding to the number in which Air India is reportedly interested. These will all have a uniform cabin fit, which might be appealing if AirIndia wants a quickly implementable solution and doesn’t want to invest in its own cabin fit — assuming that there aren’t too many China Southern emblems present.

    This contrasts with the Akasa Air whitetails, which are being plucked from various airlines/lessors.

    Interestingly, 4 of the past 5 MAX-8 deliveries to UA have been ex-whitetails — including three from Hainan Airlines.

    • It’s not new. Calhoun had already mentioned the possibility of delivering the Chinese 737MAX for other airlines…

      • Yes, we already know that.
        But another commenter here had previously expressed doubt that China Southern (specifically) had 50 whitetails still in the parking lot.

    • No.
      We hit over 400 comments on an article earlier this year, and we’ve been over 300 on various occasions.

  45. Reuters:

    “Air India order update: 190 Boeing 737 MAX, 30 787 aircraft”

    “According to a report by Reuters, the India-based carrier is looking to finalize an agreement with Boeing for over 200 aircraft, namely 190 Boeing 737 MAX and 30 787 Dreamliner jets. The report further indicated that the deal could also involve the 777X. Previous reports from December 11, 2022, pointed out that Air India was looking to order as many as 500 new aircraft from Airbus and Boeing, split into 400 narrow-body jets and 100 wide-body jets. ”


  46. I have a feeling it’s imminent. It can go very quickly.

    From the article, I repeat, from the article,
    I have the impression that Boeing will be served first.
    No doubt there will also be Airbus but it seems that the mixed orders (Airbus/Boeing) is very, (too?) ambitious.

    There seems to be a 50-50 parity between the narrowbody Airbus/Boeing and a majority of 787 over the A350 in the widebody order.

    The 777-X, nothing concrete.

    We know how quickly things have changed and can change quickly.

    I give a 65% chance that what Reuters reports will happen…

    • ALC (lessor) canceled some 787s in 2021, and BOC Aviation also canceled some this year — I think the numbers were 3 + 3.

      OR…maybe BA is stocking it’s foot in the water to see if there’s interest in NTU Chinese frames…

  47. I’m guessing that without the votes of all Seattle, WA and Charleston, SC area House members, and all the Senators from South Carolina and Washington state, there weren’t enough votes to get an Omnibus spending fill for FY 2023 passed.

    “U.S. lawmakers are preparing to extend a looming deadline that will impose new safety standard for cockpit alerts for two versions of Boeing’s (NYSE:BA) 737 MAX aircraft, Reuters reported, citing people familiar with the matter. The reprieve would be added to a federal spending bill.”


Leave a Reply

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