HOTR: Supply chain hurts A220 assembly flow, big push to meet year-end delivery target

By the Leeham News Team

Dec. 20, 2022, © Leeham News: Airbus’ woes with the A320 family production line are widely reported. So are Boeing’s woes with the 737 line.

Less well reported are the woes Airbus has with the A220 production lines in Montreal and Mobile (AL).

LNA was informed two weeks ago that the A220 line is its own serious production challenges traced to the supply chain. Rumors circulated that Airbus may shut down the lines to allow the suppliers to catch up.

Airbus’s Montreal office acknowledged challenges but denied the final assembly lines were going to be or were considered for shut down temporarily.

“In order to protect our operations in a complex environment, some ad hoc short-term planning adjustments have been made to align with our supply chain in order to protect our deliveries to our committed customers. We continue to focus on the aircraft that are almost ready for delivery in 2022 and there is no shutdown either of FALs nor pre-FALs planned,” a spokesperson emailed LNA.

Flow rate affected

LNA learned that the flow rate of the FAL—the pace at which airplanes flow down the assembly line—has been affected by supply chain issues. Airbus is adjusting the flow rate and in some cases resequencing aircraft to adjust.

Some parts are arriving late, causing some planes to wait for completion and others to jump the sequence. “Significant” adjustments sometimes are required, LNA is told.

Shortages are throughout the supply chain, including from engine supplier Pratt & Whitney. Sometimes workers must install weights, like a long-standing practice at Boeing and Airbus, in lieu of engines to clear the production lines. Aircraft are then parked on the flight line awaiting the engines. Chip and titanium shortages are two key missing items from the supply chain.

LNA is told that Airbus had to resort to tanking parts off some aircraft to enable the delivery of others. (Boeing has been doing the same on the 737 line.)

Painting and interiors

Like the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787, the A220 has been plagued by flaking paint on the wings. Photos seen by LNA don’t indicate the severity experienced by the A350 and 787. But a change in the painting’s chemical mixture resolves this issue.

Quality control on interiors also has been a problem, traced back to the vendor.

There is an all-hands-on-deck push to meet year-end delivery targets.

246 Comments on “HOTR: Supply chain hurts A220 assembly flow, big push to meet year-end delivery target

  1. I fly on Delta A-220s a lot. There are significant paint breakdowns on the wing upper surfaces with lots of telegraphing of fasteners thru the paint. These eventually break through exposing the fasteners and the carbon immediately around them. This is apparent on more than 1 of Deltas birds. I also wondered just how far under the compromised paint film the glycol based deicer fluid was penetrating. I doubt it is an airworthiness item, but it does look really tacky……..

    • Looking around paint issues seem to “(un)stick” on all 3 newly designed carbon wing airframes.
      We’ve seen reports on 787, A350 and A220 now.
      Fully different pedigree. ( What do we know about A400 paint things? though those don’t get the cycles by far.)

      Apparently not a “simple problem” to solve.

    • Scott C:

      A good question and a good one to watch.

      Dynamics we just have not see before.

      Tough gig for all. I never expect to fly one but we saw the A220s fly through Anchorage and it is even better looking seeing it than the pictures.

      I think its the best looking of the modern aircraft.

      • Tw. The 220 is much more comfortable, to me, than a 37 or 320. It seems quieter, gives a decently soft ride and when in turbulence feels solid. When going SEA-PSP in the summertime, the “re-entry ” into PSP feels like a shuttle landing….. It flys bigger than it is…….

        • I was shocked how big it was. You just don’t get the scale unless in person (or I don’t)

          I got to walk and drive around them when they were on the ramp here.

          Hopefully they get the issues all sorted, its a worth successor to the A320 and MAX-8.

  2. A220 has some significant corrosion issues on the Aluminum Lithium structure. An African operator had one out of service for three months in 2021 while Airbus had a team on-site for repairs, the same airline sent a 2nd airplane to Europe for repairs in 2022 which took 8-9 months for repairs with over 1000 separate corrosion repairs.

    • If you are talking about physical delivery – there is:

      55178 – Breeze Dec 1
      55181 – Jetblue Dec 13
      55182 – airBaltic Dec 1
      55183 – airBaltic Dec 1
      55198 – Air France Dec 12

      Were the two airBaltics and the Breeze counted in Nov? Could be.

      Surprised to see that Breeze already has 10 aircraft in their fleet.

      • Yes, the Breeze and airBaltics planes were all delivered in late November and counted in that month’s numbers by Airbus.

  3. Any idea what’s fundamentally causing the paint flaking issues on the A220?
    – In the case of the 787, it’s UV-induced de-crosslinking of polymer chains in the paint. The solution is to apply a UV blocking layer.
    – In the case of the A350, it’s lack of paint adhesion to a thin oxide layer on the underlying copper mesh. The solution is to use an adhesion/wetting promoter in the paint and/or to pre-treat the copper mesh (e.g. with a nano-coating) before paint application.

    Same symptoms, but different underlying issues.

      • Yes, indeed: problems with adhesion of coatings to copper substrates are well described in literature, and there are various treatment options available to improve results. The problems on the A350 are exacerbated by size, temperature/humidity cycles, and flexion. Nevertheless, copper is an attractive option for the lightning mesh because copper oxides are very durable, and protect the underlying substrate once they form, thus preventing structural degradation.

        I read (on a German website) that the main Airbus “fix” for the A350 paint problems was to use paint from a different manufacturer.

        • “change manufacturer”
          heh, who would have thought ..!

          PCB production has seen changes over the years.
          For a while black copper ( i.e. surface oxidized ) was en vogue to attach in a resilient way solder stop mask. afair the oxide layer thickness was critical.

      • Claes:

        Airbus is working on a different mesh so it looks like a multi layer fix.

    • The paint is the UV-blocking layer.

      The issue is that every OEM has used roughly same paint formulation as for metal when completely new ones were required to be developed.
      The same goes with paint stripping, it doesn’t work the same way.

      This is the problem when people think they are smarter than chemists. At the time the CFRP were developed they didn’t put the resources in the adequate paint systems.

      All of these issues will be easily resolved once the new formulation are certified.

      • CBL

        I don’t buy for a second the engineers did not know there was a difference, they are not stupid.

        Clearly on the 787 it took some time for it to manifest. The Chemical engineers did what they had available solution wise. Experience is a 20/20 hindsight teacher.

        The A350 looks to be a slightly different solution to the mesh and paint that did not work out as well. I am not surprised as Boeing at the time was clearly more R and D on the composites.

        The reality is there are only 8000 hours in a year and you can only test 8000 hours in a year. What looked like what worked has not for the long term.

        They will be learning and adjusting.

        • Obviously the engineers on the 787 weren’t stupid and the plane was bang on time, budget, performances…

          Never underestimate how simple and obvious things can be oversight 😉

    • @Bryce

      From what I have heard, it is the mold release agent, which has since been remedied.

      • Frank:

        The release agent was one issue but it is not the one affecting paint.

        It had to do with structural integrity aspects.

  4. I was wondering about how the c series could have avoided this issue, now we know. I am convinced that the problem is not with paint adhesion.Boeing are talking about putting an extra layer of black UV blocking primer below the top coat, which I am guessing is to stop UV from damaging the surface of the epoxy immediately below the first layer of paint, which is very quickly affected by sunlight.
    If my theory is correct, it’s a bit of a shocker that no one thought of this. The only explanation I can think of is that military aircraft don’t spend anything like as much time flying at high altitude where the UV is strongest. Tailfins are vertical so don’t catch the sun so much and I think that the airbus ones were covered in a layer of tin.

    • “it’s a bit of a shocker that no one thought of this”

      Worse than UV: has there been any serious analysis of the potential effects of prolonged exposure of (cold) composites to cosmic rays?

      • Someone somewhere would have done so. But I’d guess it’s quite unlikely to be an issue, to become a material structural issue.

        A comparison would be the time it’s taken for the graphite moderator (carbon) in the UK’s gas-cooled nuclear reactors to have deteriorated. That’s been exposed to the intense neutron flux in a reactor, all it’s life, and it’s taken decades of operation for the structural defects (caused by carbon ceasing to be carbon anymore, being transmuted into something else) to mount up.

        I know there’s a greater radiation flux at 30,000ft compared to ground level, but it’s not “nuclear-reactor” hot and I doubt it’s sufficient to cause noticable degradation in any material exposed to it. But it’d be intersting to know for sure! Composites have been used in spacecraft for a long time, I don’t think they’ve run into issues.

    • I would like to know what the mandatory crew-alerting system upgrade for all 737 MAX includes / excludes, and if it is acceptable for EASA and CAAC too.

      The role of US Congress together with Boeing in pushing, requiring FAA streamlining, delegation of certification since 2012 and reintroduction of “statically proven safe” certification (Grandfathering) is clear to everyone.

      • “Cantwell’s bill requires retrofitting existing MAX planes with a synthetic enhanced angle-of-attack system and the ability to shut off stall warning and overspeed alerts. It gives airline operators three years from the time the 737 MAX 10 is certified to retrofit existing MAX planes and says Boeing must bear those costs.”

        I suspect that EASA will be requiring these changes sooner.

        • Either the plane is safe to fly or not. The FAA and EASA have more knowledge of this plane than any commenter here no matter what they “read”. If the plane is unsafe yank its certificate. Period, end of story.

          • This is about less save, safe and safer.
            All the shades of grey.

            i.e. this is not a black and white thing.

          • @Williams

            This has nothing to do with the FAA and EASA does not take orders from our congress. This is about a bunch of politicians who were lobbied by Boeing and paid millions to get this bill passed. Politicians who know absolutely nothing about aviation/airplane safety. The FAA was complicit on the original mad max certification. Congress cannot re-certify this airplane, only the FAA.
            It’s all politics and money. Safety be damned.

            Scott, please accept my apologies for going off topic.

          • @Airdoc

            Politicians who know nothing about aviation/airline safety are the only reason there was a deadline that needed to be extended in the first place. That wasn’t something the FAA or EASA imposed.

          • “Politicians who know nothing about aviation/airline safety are the only reason there was a deadline that needed to be extended in the first place.”

            A Congressional committee that heard testimony from all sorts of experts was the reason why the law came into being in the first place.

            The only reason why the deadline needed to be extended is that “a certain OEM” was picking its nose for the past 2 years instead of bringing its products up to basic modern standards.

          • Did EASA not request this of the MAX as a prerequisite to return to the skies?

          • Airdoc Etc:

            In fact the FAA does take its orders from Congress. Congress lays it out and the FAA writes regulations to comply.

            And a big STOP, if you are going to argue the MAX is lethal because of the Alert System it has, then you dang well better argue against the NG and Classics. Otherwise its nothing more than hypocrisy or Boeing bashing (or both). Yes Boeing has aspects to be criticized on. So criticize those.

            I have seen timelines for critial fix to software that they let airlines take years to implement (my wife was on one of those and it was an A320). Yes it had a work around and not you should not have to.

            The MAX and NG are identical in the alert system so argue that if you will.

            The bill says that other features will be implemented and Boeing agrees with it. Management is not jumping for joy of course but its a good compromise as it adds features.

            None of those are mandated for the NG so argue that as well without egg on your face.

            EASA never determined that the alert system was an issue, they did want a third AOA and the stick shaker CB. That means it was not an issue.

            The FAA nor an AHJ did not mandate the EICAS, congress did by the way.

          • @williams,

            >… The FAA and EASA have more knowledge of this plane than any commenter here no matter what they “read”…

            And more than any polician too no doubt. But, my main point is that we should always reflect on the fact that, with the 737MAX prior to the Lion Air crash, the FAA didn’t know everything about the aircraft, because Boeing hadn’t told them…

            Regarding this new Bill: if it becomes clear, in the black-n-white text of enacted and enforced legislation, that politics now rules aviation safety certification in the USA, that is setting the stage for a fracturing of the global regulatory framework.

            The EASA / FAA relationship might survive one such political intervention. But what happens if the 777X is then put into service by Congress pushing the FAA out the way? What too of the CAAC? Political intervention in certification inside the USA simply opens the door (with some justification) for the CAAC to say, “not accepting your certification any longer”.

            Political intervention is just ghastly to contemplate. Regardless of the scale of this particular political intervention or whether it’s a good idea or not, it is the USA officially saying, “Our products are now no longer certified safe by sole means of a carefully reasoned and rational process”.

            That’s not a good image to project to the rest of the world, and it could do Boeing a lot of harm in the long run.

      • “Empty” threat: Oh, Americans are going to lose jobs. 🤣 In fact, buyers would switch from MAX 10 to MAX 9 with a nice chunk of compensation

    • For Airbus it has to be fairly low since they do not have the years and hours of engineering design to recoup. This due to getting the program for a song. I would guess 30M…

    • @Williams: When BBD still owned it, they calculated break even was 1,200 due to their cost overruns. No idea what it is for Airbus.

      • @ Scott Hamilton

        Thank you

        Yikes, no wonder BBD sold half of it for a dollar. On the positive note 780 orders toward the goal……….If the goal has not moved.

        • Considering that Airbus, with their far greater leverage and resources, is still losing money on A220 deliveries I think BBD’s 1200 frame break even calculation is hilariously optimistic.

          1200 may break even for Airbus though, since they have invested significantly less money into the program than BBD did.

        • Nothing a magic black box like BA’s program accounting can’t solve. To record “proft” from delivery of the 1st aircraft, easy peasy👌

          OTOH LNA reported that Airbus is confident enough to raise A220 prices. @William what do you have to support your claim? More “baseless speculation”??

          • @ Pedro

            I asked the question about the A220 breakeven. Scott answered my question. The End, go find someone else to argue with.

          • @William

            ” … no wonder BBD sold half of it for a dollar”

            Thanks for acknowledging it was a baseless speculation. 🙃

          • @Pedro

            Uhhh…you do realize that BBd did in fact sell half of the C series to Airbus for a (Canadian) dollar right? That’s not speculation. Here’s an article mentioning it:

            “ Bombardier agreed in October to sell Airbus a 50.01 percent stake in its flagship commercial jet for a token fee of one Canadian dollar, after sluggish sales and low production rates pushed the program well over budget.”

            The fact that Airbus paid nothing for 50% of the program is very well known and disclosed by all parties.

            I can only assume you thought @william said Airbus/BBD sold half the planes to customers for a dollar. Perhaps should read a bit closer first.

          • Ah thanks. It was sooooo long ago. The government forced Bombardier not to sell to a higher bidder (largely thanks to foreign interference).

            Don’t forget, in a bit more than two years later, Airbus had to *pay almost $600m* for Bombardier’s remaining interest in A220.

          • BA forced BBD to sell its C-series for pennies.
            BA is enjoying the “fruit”. Karma??

          • “The government forced Bombardier not to sell to a higher bidder (largely thanks to foreign interference).”

            Was there ever a higher bidder around?
            ( Boeing went the “nucular destruction” path. With the US goverment in tow creating a lot of bad odor with the GoC.)

            For the GoC the “Volkswirtschaft” aspect topped the spittle dripping interests of profiteers in a “free market”.

            Result: a constructive continuation for the C-Series product.

  5. Do the Beechcraft Premier/Hawker 200 have the same issues. They have been flying for while and made out of carbon fiber.

    • @ Pedro

      What does this have to do with the A220? Carbon Fiber paint issues?

      • How about the MAX 7 and MAX 10’s torturous path to certification?? Where’s the connection with the A220 or CFRP paint issue?

        “Either the plane is safe to fly or not. The FAA and EASA have more knowledge of this plane than any commenter …” 🤭

    • Apparently it was a BBJ with….get this, 50 hours on it. It was made for the Saudi royal family and bought back by Boeing in April 2022. It was moved to Pinal and I guess they couldn’t sell it, so the engines were removed (along with some other parts) and now it’s going into the shredder.


  6. Bill7

    …”Yes, what a surprise. No way they were they going to cancel the -7 and -10…”
    No surprises. I had warned that they would get it, and that’s good because something that doesn’t make sense, is just absurdity, for logical minds

    • Yes, safety is just so passé!
      And safety standarization is so “absurd”.
      It’s far more “logical” (and fun) to have a “sound and light show” in the cockpit rather than an actual, informative alerting system.
      Who wants clear, prioritized, mitigation info on a screen when one can instead go rummaging through paper manuals — especially when a goose has just come through the windshield.

      • Bryce.
        Remember that the A320 has EICAS. While Sully was ditching the airplane, Stiles was rapidly thumbing his way thru their PAPER QRG attempting an engine relight. It may be a bit disingenuous of you to slap the 737 for having paper QRGs, while remaining completely silent on the fact that the A320 family QRGs are also published on paper. If paper manuals are so bad, why do EICAS equipped Airbusses still use a 60 year old QRG concept???? They had decades to do better, and haven’t incorporated a better manner as of now………

        • There’s nothing wrong with having a paper backup.
          But having proactive, relevant presentation of information on a screen is a preferable option, don’t you think? The present 737 cockpit doesn’t offer that option when the sh#t hits the fan — EICAS/ECAM does.

          • Bryce, yes, paper backups are nice, but you are deflecting away from Skiles going to a Paper QRG as the primary data source when seconds literally counted. Could you perhaps get on point and explain the Airbus Paper QRGs being the first source Skiles referenced in a critical moment. If you read the tapes, there was never an attempt by Skiles to go anywhere before the QRG was consulted,

          • @ Scott Correa
            Don’t you think that’s a question for Stiles rather than for me?
            Maybe he panicked? Maybe he had a sore left hand? Maybe there was a coffee spill on the EICAS screen? Who knows?

            Why did the captain of the Titanic ignore the ice warning data at his disposal?

            Why do some people still use paper maps rather than digital ones? Or paper phone books?

          • Paper is not a backup, its the best way to read.

            Leaning over looking at a small EICAS screen sucks.

            And you assume that the EICAS knows what is wrong (do a deep dive into QA32 if you want a useless bunch of alarms).

            In fact Sully failed to put the A320 into ditch mode. He did the rest right so it was not an issue.

            QA32 has some major screw ups, but they did enough other things right they made it (possibly the most stupid was not evacuating the aircraft on the off side as there was a huge fuel pool under the left side) The Pilot kept saying how it would look on the news. That is not what a pilot is responsible for.

            He also obsessed with landing distance and its, who cares? At that point if you go off the end your speed is down and sand arbors fuel nicely.

            Not on the checklist was the landing speed with the left wing systems trashed. To his major credit he did find the burble point and then he kept it there so he did not land long.

            It almost stalled. None of it was in the EICAS.

            They pulled it off but one tiny shift the wrong way and not and that would have been a horrible tragedy.

          • Because the screen information are ALERTs , not detailed summaries of what to do next

            notice the coloured alert information is very abbreviated such as

            LAND ASAP ( in red or amber)

            ENGINE START[1 or 2] FAULT

            Interesting that some people think a system that dates from the 1980s ( A320) is some sort AI based complete instructions of the steps to follow when an brief ‘alert message ‘ is given when in fact its only slightly ahead of the previous specific coloured ‘alert buttons’.

          • @DoU

            Didn’t NTSB find that BA’s assumption of how crews react is flawed and the current MAX’s crew alert system and “stick shaker” overwhelmed the pilots??

            -> “We saw in these two accidents that the crews did not react in the ways Boeing and the FAA assumed they would,” NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said in a September 26 press release. “Those assumptions were used in the design of the airplane and we have found a gap between the assumptions used to certify the MAX and the real-world experiences of these crews, where pilots were faced with multiple alarms and alerts at the same time.”

            The NTSB report indicates that the planes are equipped with “stick shaker” function, which rattles a cockpit’s control columns, in addition to other lights flashing and alert sounds. The investigators concluded that it would be extremely difficult for a pilot to prioritize which emergency alert to respond to first, while multiple and cascading error messages chimed and rattled the cockpit.

            Investigators from the NTSB have made seven recommendations after reviewing the events that led up to the Indonesia and Ethiopia crashes, which the agency claims were caused by the design flaws that took the plane into deep dives that pilots were not properly trained on how to correct.

            The recommendations *call for Boeing to reevaluate the aircraft alert systems and make them more clear and precise*. This would help to inform pilots of the highest priority actions when multiple flight deck alerts and indications are present, minimize confusion, and help pilots respond most effectively.

            The NTSB also suggested the Federal Aviation Administration require Boeing to create a rigorous analysis of how the current warning systems sounding simultaneously may overwhelm pilots. Dana Schulze, director of the NTSB’s Office of Aviation Safety, stated by doing this type of testing, the human aspect can be considered when designing alert systems.

        • you are doing the apples vs oranges thing here.

          EICAS is _structured_ error reporting.

          you bring up the presentation of the _error handling_ path.

          • Uwe
            Good of you to see the apples and oranges of the EICAS vs Paper manuals point…. Bryce was nice enough to bring that up when he said “It’s far more “logical” (and fun) to have a “sound and light show” in the cockpit rather than an actual, informative alerting system.
            Who wants clear, prioritized, mitigation info on a screen when one can instead go rummaging through paper manuals — especially when a goose has just come through the windshield.

            I merely tried to have him explain why AB still used paper QRGs when he was so adamant EICAS was far better than PAPER MANUALS…..

          • @ Scott Correa
            “…so adamant EICAS was far better than PAPER MANUALS…..”

            I’m asserting that EICAS/ECAM is far better than having *ONLY* paper manuals for error handling, as in the current 737 “cockpit startling system”.

            Having a GPS satnav in a car is handy: you don’t have to use it if you prefer to use paper maps, but at least you have the option. However, if the car is without satnav, there’s no alternative, is there?

    • Very nice for COMAC!
      And nice that Indonesia has yet another OEM to chose from.
      It’s said that the ARJ21 is just a “copy” of the MD-80 — and, yet, the MD-80 didn’t have EICAS.

    • Contrary to some posters’ thought here: It’s not the end of the world if it doesn’t have FAA’s blessing.
      Any aircraft, but 737, is unsafe without EICAS/ECAM. Shrugged

      • There are plenty of countries that won’t give a hoot about FAA cert — especially with the reputation that that regulator has recently earned for itself.

      • Yep, great job. Certified by a fully captured AHJ.

        And people diss the FAA? Wow

          • @Bryce

            The poster dissed Airbus as a “job program”, you believe “they” can have a fair assessment??

          • Ahh yes, the same regulator that has 150 hour First Officers. As one of the top regulators in the world that all others model themselves after, Indonesia of course stand out on a limb all its own.

            Not like there is political stink here, no of course not.

          • When a country buys fighters from another country, you sure no political stink there?? 🙄

            Appears many here share a mentality similar to that of ex-CEO Dennis: try to blame victims rather than accept any responsibility. Dennis got a golden parachute? How about you???

            More rant about “150 hour first officer”, which appears irrelevant to the discussion and another great example of frequent baseless claims from the poster.

  7. As wiser heads had predicted ( you’re welcome! ) for many months now , no more December deadline for the Max 10 and Max 7 certification

    “The U.S. Congress has eased Boeing’s path to certifying its 737 Max 7 and Max 10 airliners by including an amendment in the 2023 Appropriations Bill that avoids the need for the manufacturer to implement a crew alerting system upgrade, which had been required under The Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act passed in 2020. The amendment includes requirements to retrofit more specific safety enhancements but gives Boeing up to three years after the Max 10 is certified to make these modifications.”

    • Duke:

      As one of the wiser heads I too bask in the glory of being right! Other well founded assessments will be right as well.

      The ranters and ravers don’t have a leg to stand on so they through out anything and everything hoping something sticks.

      The fact is they were arguing for a less safe MAX fleet and NG as the 7/10 if built would have nothing in common alert wise with the otherwise identical NG and MAX 8/9

      Amazing to see people argue for less safe. When that happens you know the motivation is not safety.

      • Before both of you get an overly swollen head: the bill has yet to be voted on 😏

        • Instead, prepare for it to happen. The most difficult is behind. The 737MAX-10 generated too many large orders. It will play on that

        • Its the *appropriations* bill for almost all the federal government which has these add ins.
          Good luck thinking its not going to pass, and if its come out of committee its going to be yeah or nay for the whole bill.

          Of course some countries dont have a legislature to decide issues like a 2nd waiver

          • And you’ve forgotten all the past rancoring and cliff edge tactics over US government spending bills?

          • Q: How many times the U.S.G. shut down because it ran out of money (in recent years)??? 🤣

          • Hello Pedro,

            Re: “Q: How many times the U.S.G. shut down because it ran out of money (in recent years)???”

            US Government shutdowns happen when the US Presidency, Senate and House are not all controlled by the same party, or when they are all controlled by the same party, but the party in power does not have the 60 out of 100 votes needed in the Senate to end debate and allow a vote. Until the end of this year the Presidency, Senate, and House are all controlled by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have the votes needed to pass a budget bill in the House, and the bill has been negotiated and acted on first in the Senate because the Democrats had to negotiate with the Republicans to get the 60 Senate votes needed in the Senate to end debate and allow a vote to happen. Democratic Senate leader Schumer and Republican Senate leader McConnell have both publicly stated their support for the FY 2023 budget bill, and as I write this on 12-23-22, the Senate yesterday passed the FY 2023 budget bill by a vote of 68 to 29, and it is now headed to a vote in the House later on today where the Democrats have a 222 to 213 seat majority until the end of the year, and only 218 votes are needed to vote on the bill and approve it. It is a done deal.

            Congressional leaders know how to count votes, and I cannot remember a shutdown happening when the leaders who needed to reach an agreement for a bill to advance, in this case Senate Majority Leader Schumer and Senate Minority Leader McConnell, had publicly announced that a compromise had been reached, and allowed the text of the compromise to be published. House Minority leader McCarthy is not on board, but until the end of the year the Democrats have enough votes to pass what they want in the US House without a single Republican vote, so what the Republicans in the House will or will not support is irrelevant until the end of the year.

            The party in control of the US House or Senate will sometimes schedule votes they know will fail if they think they will make the opposing party look bad by forcing them to vote against something. Sometimes they will do this repeatedly on the same bill or issue. However, on an important must pass piece of legislation like an end of year budget bill, the leaders of each party know how to count votes, and those in control will not publish a bill and allow it to proceed to a vote if they are not confident they have enough votes to pass it. Any congress member who does not want to have their office relocated to a stall in a public restroom, and be removed from their present committee assignments to become the senior and only member of the new Committee on US Capitol Toilet Cleaning, would be well advised not to go back on a vote commitment they made to their party leader, although a little bit of grandstanding by advancing a doomed to fail amendment so they can get an interview on cable TV and create an illusion of resistance for their base back home, might be tolerated as long as they finally vote as they promised.

            End of US Civics lesson

          • “The Senate overwhelmingly passed the mammoth fiscal 2023 spending package in a burst of activity on the floor Thursday after finally nailing down an amendments deal it took all day Wednesday and into the morning to hammer out.

            The vote was 68-29 in support of the 4,155-page legislation. It includes the dozen annual spending bills for every federal agency, supplemental aid for the war in Ukraine and natural disaster victims, and a series of unrelated policies ranging from retirement savings incentives to driftnet fishing regulations.”

            “The House planned to take up the measure Friday as early as 9 a.m., Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer announced hours after the Senate vote. House leaders initially had hoped to clear the bill Thursday night but then determined it would not be ready for floor action in their chamber before midnight, the Maryland Democrat said.”

            “So with Christmas fast approaching, the Senate passed, by voice vote, a stopgap measure that would extend current funding through Dec. 30. The latest enacted continuing resolution is set to expire at midnight Friday.

            House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said she didn’t think that would be necessary, however. And she expressed confidence the omnibus wouldn’t face any hurdles in the House.”


          • After getting the FY2023 Budget Bill from the US Senate, it took the US House (where Democrats currently have enough votes to pass what they want without negotiating with Republicans) less than one day to approve it and send it off to President Biden to be signed into law.

            “​The House cleared a catchall omnibus bill Friday containing $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2023 annual and emergency spending and a bevy of unrelated legislation lawmakers wanted to pass before the end of the current Congress.

            The 225-201 vote was mostly along party lines as House GOP leaders urged their members to vote against the huge package over what they called a “broken process” and higher spending levels than they would have negotiated.”

            “For a little extra insurance against a brief partial government shutdown, the House also cleared another one-week continuing resolution to extend the current stopgap measure — which expires at midnight Friday — through Dec. 30. That will provide plenty of time for the 4,126-page omnibus to be enrolled and sent to President Joe Biden for his signature. ”


          • @ AP_Robert
            We know how it works.
            You do realize that no other (developed) country in the world has this recurrent circus of cliffhanging tactics with spending bills / threatened shutdowns?

            Presumably, you also know how it looks internationally when Congress first passes a safety bill in response to two high-profile crashes, and subsequently (effectively) bins that bill in response to corporate lobbying?

          • @AP Robert

            Since my question was:
            “How many times the U.S.G. shut down because it ran out of money (in recent years)???”

            Here’s the (right) answer IMO:

            -> “Since the enactment of the US government’s current budget and appropriations process in 1976, there have been a total of 22 funding gaps in the federal budget, ten of which have led to federal employees being furloughed. […]

            Some of the most significant shutdowns in U.S. history have included the 21-day shutdown of 1995–1996 during the Bill Clinton administration over opposition to major spending cuts; the 16-day shutdown in 2013 during the Barack Obama administration caused by a dispute over implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); and the 35-day shutdown of 2018–2019 during the Donald Trump administration, the longest shutdown in US history, caused by a dispute over the funding amount for an expansion of the U.S.–Mexico border barrier.”



        • Didn’t they add enough pork to guarantee its passage?
          ( democracy? this is a full blown corrupt graft system 🙂

          • The problem with pork is that lots of people want nothing to do with it…

    • That’s what a “… fully captured AHJ” does, I guess.

      The Emperor has no clothes, but “wise” men say otherwise 🙄

      • Remember: even if Congress extends the waiver, the FAA can still refuse to certify if it considers that the plane isn’t airworthy…

        • Not for that reason they won’t, though don’t let that stop you.

          If its not airworthy for that reason then the NG is also not.

          Then in fact the Classic is also not airworthy.

          The A320 only has three AOA, it should have 7 like it has computers.

          So, one AOA goes bad and which one of the two (or which of the 3) is really bad?

          • Thanks TransWorld

            The 737-NG is another piece of evidence against absurdity and “mass” hysteria

          • Looks like certain commenters *still* don’t grasp the difference between possibility and probability…

          • what do you expect from a self assigned member of MENSA. 🙂

          • “Then in fact the Classic is also not airworthy.”

            Nice try. Are you trying to say the MAX is as aged as the Classic and should be phased out about the same time?? 🤣

            No wonder FAA didn’t ask you for an expert report.

        • Bryce.
          FAA regs do not allow the FAA to reject airworthiness if they “consider” something to be unairworthy. They must quote chapter and verse of the FAR which is deemed to be non-compliant. Thankfully there is no room for subjectivity in the determination of airworthiness, you are either in conformity or not. Also, there is no waiver to extend as no waiver has been granted.

          • The FAA can cite inadequate SSAs, for example.

            And the bill requiring EICAS included a 2-year waiver (or exemption) from the date of passage of the bill — so the new waiver is, in fact, an extension.

          • Bryce.
            You wrote “And the bill requiring EICAS included a 2-year waiver (or exemption) from the date of passage of the bill — so the new waiver is, in fact, an extension.

            No, There was no waiver involved at the time of passage. The Bill became law with a Dec 2022 as the implementation date. You do not need a waiver prior to enactment of the provisions in the bill. This is fairly straightforward, I’m surprised you missed it…..

          • @ Scott Correa
            The 2-year gap between passing the law and the date of entry into force was a grace period (i.e. exemption or waiver) — which is now being extended.
            Note the language used by the Seattle Times, for example: “Extend MAX 10 Exemption”


            As an aside: the link above also contains some info relevant to your “grandfathering” discussion below with @Bill7:

            “But because the 737’s cockpit inherited many systems from the original 1960s-era design, it’s difficult to update the airplane to comply with this regulation.

            “In 2014, Boeing convinced the FAA to relax this specific safety standard for the MAX.

            “Boeing relied on a special FAA rule to successfully argue that full compliance with the latest federal requirements would be “impractical” for the MAX and would cost too much.”

          • Bryce
            There is no waiver. you wrote……
            The 2-year gap between passing the law and the date of entry into force was a grace period (i.e. exemption or waiver) — which is now being extended.
            Note the language used by the Seattle Times, for example: “Extend MAX 10 Exemption”
            You are incorrect that (IE exemption or waiver) is a valid statement. They are not the same. The exemption, and a poor choice of wording at that, exists only because there is a delayed incorporation date for the actions that the law implemented. The Times says to extend the exemption, and is specifically silent on any waiver activities.

            The FAA repeatedly in many places defines a waiver as ” A waiver is an official document issued by the FAA which approves certain operations of aircraft outside the limitations of a regulation. ”

            As of now, there has not been a need nor issuance of a waiver for the 737 as the regulation needing relief is not in effect. The Times has always been quite clear that the exemption should be extended. This is far different from the FAA process of “extending a waiver” and your confusion here seems to be based on your misunderstanding of the difference between officially requesting relief from a regulation VS having the regulation itself changed to grant the relief. Your treatment of them as synonymous terms is the root of your error……..
            Have a great day

          • Definition of “waiver”:

            “the act of intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right, claim, or privilege
            also : the legal instrument evidencing such an act”


            The term is not FAA-specific.

            Intentionally postponing the effect of a rule/law amounts to a waiver of requirement.

          • The reality is not a misreading its a fully deployed agenda.

            As was noted, FAA has all its determinations in regulations.

            The period of not enforcing EICAS was written specifically to allow the MAX series to be certified under the original standards. It doesn’t matter what opinion anyone has, that was the legislative intent and the timeline to do it, period.

            It was not expected that it would take this long for the MAX 7/10 and the 8/9 were certified under the previous take on allowing the MAX cockpit to match the NG and Classic and Jurassic for that matter.

            Posters make a huge deal about commonality when it suits the agenda, but in this case they would throw that out and make it LESS SAFE by having very look alike cockpits that operate majorly different.

            In fact that is the core of the MCAS crashes, something that was different. With training it could be overcome (no it should not be but it could be, pilots have faced much worse and saved the aircraft)

            Argue is you want that grandfathering is a problem, then have the law changed. But then you have to be clear the difference between variants and grandfathering.

            The A220 cockpit is hugely lauded, why not change all the regs so that everyone has to put in an A220 cockpit? Right.

            In the end the use of the EICAS issue is nothing more than to bash Boeing and hate on the MAX ignoring all the other so called lethal versions flying out there.

            I vote for more safe not less. And yea, I will be flying both NG and MAX in the future in complete comfort they are good aircraft.

            MAX was a good aircraft, it had one fatal flaw that has been corrected.

            But then I think the Airbus products need 7 AOA if they are going to follow the true needs of two out of three.

            You don’t get it both ways. That is why there are 7 computers on an Airbus FBW. Not 3, SEVEN.

            And yes you have to work in the controls world to understand that.

            Some can get it for the logic involved but anyone with an agenda? Nope.

          • Bryce.
            Definition of “waiver”:

            “the act of intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right, claim, or privilege
            also : the legal instrument evidencing such an act”


            The term is not FAA-specific.

            Agreed, your definition is not FAA specific, BUT the discussion is. You sir need to look at CONTEXT. We were discussing the paperwork involved and the exact sequence of operations for the 737 cert process. We were not discussing anything remotely addressed by your overly broad generic definition that lacks a connection to the context of the discussion…. I honestly thought you were better than this, Merry Christmas wherever you are…….

          • @Scott Correa
            “We were discussing the paperwork involved and the exact sequence of operations for the 737 cert process”

            Maybe you were discussing this with yourself, but the rest of us — and the cited Seattle Times article — were discussing the waiver extension granted by Congress vis-à-vis the EICAS requirement for new certs.

          • Bryce.
            Your selective memory is becoming tiresome.

            you wrote Maybe you were discussing this with yourself, but the rest of us — and the cited Seattle Times article — were discussing the waiver extension granted by Congress vis-à-vis the EICAS requirement for new certs.

            The Seattle times never used the word WAIVER. They repeatedly said EXEMPTION. Their editorial piece was titled “Extend the Exemption”. You all by yourself, made a post that linked Waiver and Exemption with a parenthetic IE tie. I called you out because you were incorrect and printed the FAA definition of an exemption. You responded with a lame generic definition of a waiver that was very far out of context as I previously indicated. When you respond to me in that manner, we (you and I) are discussing the exact sequence of operations despite what you may be discussing with others. Quit struggling with this, you are wrong,

  8. The last three all-fatalities crashes of airliners have all been [stone-age, grandfathered] Boeing 737s.

      • Bill 7:

        “Across the entire A320 family, 160 major aviation accidents and incidents have occurred,[117] including 48 hull loss accidents ”

        ” On 22 May 2020, Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303, an Airbus A320-214, landed at Jinnah International Airport gear-up and executed a go-around. A few minutes later, both engines had shut down. The plane crashed into Model Colony near Karachi on final approach to Jinnah International Airport for an attempted emergency landing, killing 97 of 99 on board, as well as killing 1 on the ground.[65][66][67][68]
        On 26 January 2021, Pegasus Airlines Flight 939, an Airbus A320-251N, landed on runway 15 at Basel Mulhouse-Freiburg EuroAirport with the nose landing gear rotated 90 degrees.[69]
        On 6 March 2021, Batik Air Flight 6803, an Airbus A320-214, has its nose gear rotated 90 degrees while taxiing at Jambi Airport and took off from the runway. The plane could not retract the landing gear after taking off from Jambi Airport and had to return back. The plane landed with its nose gear rotated 90 degrees. The passengers and crew members did not receive any injuries and exited the plane using stairs on the runway.[70][71]
        On 18 March 2022, Viva Aerobus Flight 4343, an Airbus A320-232, suffered a nose landing gear collapse while making a 180 turn to line up for takeoff from runway 22 at Puerto Vallarta-Gustavo D. Ordaz Airport, Mexico. All 127 on board safely evacuated the plane.[72][73]
        On 29 March 2022, the nose gear of LATAM Airlines Flight 4292, an Airbus A320-214, was locked at a 90-degree angle on takeoff. The tires were damaged, and the plane returned to the airport. There were no injuries on board.[74]
        On 6 July 2022, British Airways Flight 820, an Airbus A320-232, caught fire as it was landing at Copenhagen Airport. Airport firefighters put out the fire. They had to use foam as well. People in the terminal buildings were able to record the footage.[75][76]
        On 10 July 2022, Spirit Airlines Flight 383, an Airbus A320-232, had its left main landing gear wheels catch on fire while landing on Runway 28 at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Georgia. No injuries were reported and the aircraft was towed away for maintenance.[77]
        On 2 September 2022, engine 2 of TAP Air Portugal Flight 1492, an Airbus A320-251N, struck a motorcycle that crossed the runway at Ahmed Sékou Touré International Airport during the plane’s landing roll. Both riders on the motorcycle perished, however everyone on board the plane were unharmed. Engine 2 of the plane was damaged from the collision.[78][79]
        On 26 October 2022, LATAM Chile Flight 1325, an Airbus A320-214, was on approach to Asunción-Silvio Pettirossi International Airport when the aircraft encountered a hail storm. The aircraft lost most of its nose radome, suffered damage to its windshield and lost both engines which led to the Ram Air Turbine being deployed. The aircraft made an emergency landing at Asunción with no injuries aboard.[80][81]
        On 18 November 2022, LATAM Perú Flight 2213, an Airbus A320-271N, was in its takeoff roll at runway 16 of Jorge Chávez International Airport when the crew spotted a fire truck crossing the runway and rejected the takeoff. The aircraft was unable to avoid the fire truck and struck it with its right hand engine, killing both fire fighters aboard the firetruck, and causing the right main landing gear of the aircraft to collapse and the right hand engine separating from the collision, which started a fire. Everyone aboard the aircraft survived with 40 people sustaining injuries.[82][83] The aircraft was written off making it the first hull loss of the Airbus A320neo.”

  9. Pedro,

    “UA ou AA ??”…
    The recent 100+100 787 order from United left its mark ?

    it seems hard for you

  10. Bill7
    The last 3 “all hands losses were West Isle Air, Jubba Airways and Meridian flight 3032. Continuing down the list is Tara flight 197. None of these were 737s. You have to go back 5 all hands losses until you get to a 737, China Eastern 5375 which seems to be a crew suicide in a NON-Grandfathered 737 NG built in 2015. The next all hands loss for a 737 is in 9th place, a 737-500 with 69K hours on it, It was a pilot error incident ending up in the ocean. Ethiopian 302 is Way Down the list…………

    • Bill7. Have the right reliable sources next time and not fake ones! Realize, we’re proving that absurdity does damage

      Thanks Scott Corréa

    • > China Eastern 5375 which seems to be a crew suicide in a NON-Grandfathered 737 NG <

      What do you mean, "non-grandfathered" ? The 737NG certainly was grandfathered: crew alerting, hull impact requirements, the list goes on. As far as those two-bit crashes you mention, you're being pedantic (as you know).

      Your "seems to be" WRT the China Eastern 737 crash is not evidence, by the way.

      • *Your “seems to be” WRT the China Eastern 737 crash is not evidence, by the way.”…

        According to the report, it’s a suicide. Classified case !

        • “..Multiple reports are asserting that the airplane was deliberately crashed, but the official investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) is ongoing. ..”

          Yeah, there were “multiple reports™” that “Saddam” had
          “weapons of mass destruction” awhile back, too; how did all that turn out? I’ll await the actual report, thanks..

          • The NTSB is not investigating, it has no jurisdiction.

            It cracked the Data Recorders for the Chinese Government.

            Said Government is procrastinating as the cause clearly is suicide and that does not happen in China so it did not happen. When you live in a perfect society, these things do not happen so everyone close their eyes and walk away.

          • “China Eastern accident: NTSB and China’s CAAC deny intentional dive reports”

            “The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) told China’s state-run daily Global Times on Wednesday (18), that it has confirmed with staff from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) participating in the investigation into the crash of China Eastern Airlines flight MU5735, that they have not released any information about the investigation, refuting previous foreign media reports about the cause of the fatal crash.”


            It’s a long-standing tradition at BA (and perhaps in the US?) to automatically blame foreign pilots when a BA frame crashes…

        • Wait there are multiple reports of GWB’s “mission accomplished”.

          Never mistook reports of “mission accomplished” as the same as the mission was accomplished.

      • Bill7
        The NG was not grandfathered. Grandfathered means that a law that should have applied to it was specifically exempted. You may run fast and loose with history, but the facts indicate otherwise. It (The NG) was an approved 737 derivative listed on the original 737 TCDS. The fact is that none of the issues you bring up were specifically exempted, as they did not apply to the headline aircraft in the TCDS and the NG was just another aircraft added to the existing 737 TCDS which had a certification basis predating the implementation of the systems you mention. NEXT……..

        • “..the NG was just another aircraft added to the existing 737 TCDS which had a certification basis predating the implementation of the systems you mention..”

          Word-salad, designed to obscure. Is that commenter really attempting to claim that
          the Boeing 737NG was *not* exempted from
          requirements that an entirely new aircraft
          would in fact have had to meet?

          • All:

            While Bill7 has gone beyond the pale for his contention, in fact the Classic, NG and MAX all have grandfather extensions.

            The 747 did as well as is the 777X.

            The AHJ can do that (FAA in this case). EASA etc does not have to go alone but they did.

            The determination is there is nothing unsafe about the grandfather clause and in fact its proven to be valid.

            That does not mean significant aspects of the 737 cockpit have not been modernized as they have.

            The argument is not Grandfathered, its is it safe and the 737 has proven to be very safe.

            MCAS was not part of the 737 series and one small areas of software in fact was fatal.

            But that same area of software with Speed Trim has proven to be extraordinarily safe.

    • How about concentrating on mainline aircraft rather than small regional turboprops and Cessnas?

      • Bryce,
        How about focusing on what the poster posted instead of only mainline aircraft.

        • Because hull-losses on mainline aircraft tend to kill far more people. Try killing 346 people with 2 Cessna crashes.

    • @ Scott Corea
      How do you conclude that Jubba was an “all hands lost” event when it only resulted in ” injuring 16 of the 36 occupants on board”?

      • Well, even I’m not perfect, however It does not lessen the truth that the last 3 commercial all hands losses were not 737s as the OP stated…….

        • And those 3 crashes killed a relative handful of people compared to the 3 most recent 737 crashes — with almost 500 dead.

          • Bryce.
            There is no perspective. The op was incorrect. The last 3 all hands losses were not 737s as he stated……..

          • Each of those handful of people that are so callously dismissed have wives, partners, children and parents as well as friends.

            When my dad and his friend died as a result of a shop mistake on an out-drive rebuild, it was only two families that suffered. Or more accurately lives shattered.

            You might want to rethink your approach to merely a few lives .

          • @ TW
            The high death toll in the recent 737 crashes took all that suffering and magnified it to unbearable proportions — made worse by the shorcuts taken.

        • Bryce

          You assuming too much…

          Assuming, that the services are also sold on each aircraft sold. Several people have already explained it to you, however, not difficult to understand?

          So why want to darken the picture at all costs? Are you so disappointed that Boeing’s last 3 difficult years are drying up? Come on, calm down and wait for the next financial results in 15 days. Pray that the circumstances will make that here, it will still be a bit of a playground.

          Too much bad news coming right now

        • Nothing BA’s magical black box program accounting can’t “fix”. Reality doesn’t matter to many here.

          BTW who assumed “that the services are also sold on each aircraft sold.” More baseless speculation??

          • A lot of details / subtleties get missed when using a machine translator to do English –> French –> English commenting 😉

    • As long as the A220 is loosing money then you are spending cash to support it.

      • Hehe can anyone here still remember BA is losing money left right and centre in 2022? How much?? Just a couple billions. Shrugged

  11. Anyways, that A220 is a heck of an airplane, and will probably be manufactured in another length.

    • To what extent will a -500 require an upgraded engine?
      Ow will the present engines on the -300 suffice?

    • Bryce

      You seem to be suggesting that @Bill7 is “absurd”. I suspect that that may be flirting with a suspension. You should make more effort to abide by the Reader Comment Rules…

      “seem”?? Lol! I have never hidden that those who want (congress, you and other anti-Boeing people) not want to certify the MAX-10 for obvious reasons already exposed here, is an absurd reason. I didn’t think Bill7 would need a lawyer but in reality you’re looking for trouble because your playground is no longer conducive.

      “Absurd” doesn’t break any rules…

      • Saying to a person “you’re absurd” is different from “it’s absurd what you’re saying”. The first case violates the rule, the second (my case) does not violate…

        No doubt here !

        On the other hand Bryce, beware of your personal attacks like this it’s an absurd idea 😄

  12. -> FedEx said yesterday it had cut US flight hours by 6% and cut 32 US domestic routes, as the economy *faltered*.

      • And China reports sudden airline losses as well .

        And none of those are related to the subject matter nor are they common reasons.

        By the way, Package Freight and Passenger flights are two completely separate aspects of aviation.

        Its -10 F here this morning and that is not relevant either.

        • As far as freight haulers, I wonder how much Prime Air is cutting into FedEx and UPS business. That and less importing due to the Lock Down being basically over…

  13. Bryce

    …”Assuming that low-to-zero margin sales can be considered “solid…”


    Nothing BA’s magical black box program accounting can’t “fix”. Reality doesn’t matter to many here….”

    okay, can you please remind us of the amount of the United / Boeing
    100+100 787’s agreement please?

    • And as time goes by we get to see the actually results of Boeing sales not the unsupported let alone unsubstantiated spiraling into never never land some engage in.

      • Indeed — we see the same story every quarter, for 11 quarters in a row: operational loss + crippling debt 🤕

        112 deliveries in Q3, and still a huge loss at BCA –> inadequate margins.

        • Lol! Based on the last 3 years?

          (grounding and COVID crisis)

          This is the only argument that you obviously have left…

      • @Tw

        “Actual results” from BA’s magical black box program accounting!! 🤣🤣🤣

        • In 2022, after BA’s magical black box program accounting, actual results: gross margin 3.5%, I kid you not (revenue – COGS = 3.5%)!!

          • “Here at Boeing, we lose money on every [obsolete, QC-challenged] airplane we deliver; but we make it up in volume.”

          • @Pedro / @Bill7
            There was an interesting piece on CNBC TV yesterday regarding the 787 — as part of a broader discussion of BA stock.
            An analyst said that a 787-9 — when sold at a typical discount of 50% — generates about $10M cashflow for BA. That means that a $146M sale price generates $10M unit cashflow (catalog price is $292M).
            Increasing the discount to 60% — per the recent Bloomberg figure for the UA sale — cuts a further $29M off the sales price, and reduces the unit cashflow to negative.

          • @Bryce

            Hey man, I’m just gonna jump in here for a sec, regarding your post about Boeing/CNBC and BA stock.

            Trying not to be picky, but lemme be picky 🙂


            I think you are using the term in the wrong sense. Let me explain;

            Boeing sold those aircraft to UA – let’s call it $17 billion (seems to be the figure floating around) and if they get a standard deposit (10%), they’ll get $1.7 billion down.

            Now, maybe the call up a few suppliers and say “Hey – inna couple of years we’re gonna need X” but I’m guessing they can take that $1.7 billion and put it straight into the account for a little bit.

            They can turn around (like they did last quarter) and say to the world “Hey – look! Cashflow is positive!” because they got a huge deposit for an order.

            The 787-9 sold for $146 million, generates about $10 million in margin for BA, not cashflow. Margin is calculated when the aircraft is delivered and UA sends the last payment to BA.

            Cashflow is the ins and outs of all the monies received up until the product is delivered. Which is why they can steal from Peter, to pay Paul.

            In Q3/2022 BCA had this:

            Commercial Airplanes Deliveries 112
            Revenues $6,263
            Loss from Operations ($643)

            So those aircraft cost $6,906 billion to make.

            That $643 million shortfall in money (cash) they paid out over the time period from order (deposits) to recording of sale (delivery) had to come from somewhere.

            Other deposits. Debt. Maybe other programs.

            But they cannot keep doing this.

          • @Frank
            You’re always welcome to jump in.
            “Cashflow” was the exact term used by the analyst. I also found the syntax strange — I’d have expected her to say “nominal unit margin”, or something like that. In the context, what she meant was clear, i.e unit sale price minus nominal unit manufacturing cost.

            I was just quoting her verbatim. Remember that “cashflow” is the new buzzword to impress investors 😏

          • @ Frank
            What I find most interesting about the analyst’s comment is that it indicates a current nominal unit production cost of $136M for a 787-9.
            I had previously read figures of $110M from a Forbes analysis, so the price has gone up — probably the effect of lower line output p/m.
            So, with this new figure: any discount above 54.3% results in a unit loss for BA.

    • Can you say P-8, Apache, C-17 and F/A-18 offsets? Sure you can. KC-46A next up!

      • TransWorld,

        we are going to extend the absurd thought beyond the certification of the MAX-10 towards this absurd thought that :

        Boeing does NOT generate cash-flow!👍

        • Time to re-read BA’s “penny wise and pound foolish” strategy to swindle its suppliers 🤣

          • Come on, be more explicit.

            Nobody understands what appears to be gestures of despair, just like your smileys which in fact express great frustration coming only from you…

            Santa Claus came again for the second time in 1 week at Boeing (100+100,787 orders + MAX10 certification extension).

      • @TW

        – C-17: sale was 11 years ago — things have changed since then.

        – Apache:
        “Boeing will make the helicopter fuselage at Tata Advanced Systems’ Hyderabad facility which will be ready by end of the year and the fuselage will then be taken to the US for fitting before being sent to customers. While the first Apaches for Indian Air Force will be delivered in 2019 and are being built in the US and other places, the Indian Army Apache will be made locally.”

        – P-8:
        “WASHINGTON: A new State Department-approved deal to sell six more P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft to India comes with the provision that 30% of the acquisition cost be spent in the Indian aerospace sector, an offset in keeping with the government’s push to bolster industrial capacity at home.”

        – F/A 18: recently lost out to the Rafale:

    • …So Boeing has already won the share of 500 aircraft since they are selling off, cheap aircraft and making no margin.
      A good negotiation for A.I. in restructuring…


    • -> The Air Force has grounded its entire fleet of B-2 stealth bombers following an emergency landing and fire earlier this month, and none of the strategic aircraft will perform flyovers at this years’ college bowl games.

      A bomber experienced an in-flight malfunction on Dec. 10, forcing it to make an emergency landing at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, where it caught fire. The fire was extinguished and there were no injuries.

      The standdown is significant in that there are fewer than 20 stealth bombers in the entire fleet [….]

      • > and none of the strategic aircraft will perform flyovers at this years’ college bowl games. <

        ..which is their primary use. When the USAF want to drop bombs on some poor country, they use- um- B-52s.

        More theater, to support the [latest MIC boondoggle, equally-useless] B-21..

  14. Bill7

    “…“Here at Boeing, we lose money on every [obsolete, QC-challenged] airplane we deliver; but we make it up in volume.”…”
    “Here i can easily create a quote and feed whatever I want to whoever I want without a source, anything”…

    • yes, its called industrial offset. Don’t be surprised to see a major commercial aircraft subcontract package as part of the deal. The problem with production of commercial aircraft subassemblies in India is they don’t have a well developed second and third tier supply chain The “package” would have to be pretty much self sustained within the same factory. Then again, a cheap and cheerful offset would be more engineering work packages to India

    • Why would an Air India order need industry offsets? They are no longer government owned, but owned by TATA. Indigo did not need offsets, the Air India Max order does not need it, so why would an Airbus order from AI need offsets and cause delays and cost increases (yes, while it moves some spending to the country which does the procurement, overall the costs goes up)?

      This is more likely for defence related business.

      • As @DP says below, we don’t know what “behind the scenes” agreements were made when the Indian government sold AirIndia back to Tata.
        Also, while it might not be worth arranging offsets for a relatively small order (e.g. 50 planes), it becomes a different matter if a larger order is involved (e.g. 300 planes).
        Moreover, since the 50 MAXs potentially involved in this deal are already assembled and parked, what possible offset could one arrange in this case? Cabin re-fit?

        • I remember a report that BA’s MAX software was outsourced to engineers for $9/hr in India

          • “In exchange for an $11 billion order in 2005 from Air India , Boeing promised to invest $1.7 billion in Indian companies. That was a boon for HCL and other software developers from India, such as Cyient, whose engineers were widely used in computer-services industries but not yet prominent in aerospace.”

            In 2010 ‘Boeing opened what it called a “center of excellence” with HCL in Chennai, saying the companies would partner “to create software critical for flight test.” In 2011, Boeing named Cyient, then known as Infotech, to a list of its “suppliers of the year” for design, stress analysis and software engineering on the 787 and the 747-8 at another center in Hyderabad.

          • Of higher interest is who wrote up the
            specifications ( what is it supposed to do, environment to integrate into )?
            and where those persons actually qualified for the task?

  15. Why does Boeing outsource commercial subassemblies to Japan (e.g. 787 wing, 777X fuselage)…..Japan airlines (e.g. ANA and JAL are not government owned) are not government owned? May not be government owned but is influenced by national policies

    • the large Japanese companies often are hand in glove with the government and for all practical presupposes, there is no space between them. MH, KHI etc.

      In fact Japan still operates on the original Airbus concept except there is less separation.

      Japan does not buy defense items from anyone, they license produce and at much higher costs as its not remotely efficient and they add profit on profit.

      Much the same aspect of LM has with the A330LMX, it won’t sell because its horribly overpriced and only in some areas does it bring more value.

      Boeing sends project to Japan and Japan buys Boeing (until recently). The Japan production items were disbursed to Japan before the A350.

      And the relationship is a JV so it unloaded costs to Boeing, Airbus sued on that premise that it was Government support but withdrew it as they realized they were shooting themselves in the foot.

      Airbus was right (as hypocritical as that is and was with the pot calling the kettle black) but they got the message from Japan that, keep it up and you will never get your foot in the door!

      They are now selling A350s, A320s and even a few A380 into Japan.

      Just the way the world turns. T

      • Furthermore BA has now lost *over $6 billion* on KC-46, which the air force awarded the original contract for $4.9 billion.

        I guess the upside for AB is the more financial resources BA squanders, the less it can pursue a new passenger aircraft

  16. AD focuses on possible flight crew hypoxia on the Boeing 737

    -> Since the tests, reports have emerged of ‘latent failures of the cabin altitude pressure switches, and the determination that using certain adapters while performing a functional test may lead to false failures of the cabin altitude pressure switches’ […]
    ‘The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unexpectedly high rate of latent failure of both pressure switches on the same airplane, which could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet, resulting in hypoxia of the flight crew, and loss of control of the airplane’, continued the AD.

    • Flight crew hypoxia is, of course, also a possible factor in the China Eastern crash: pilots pass out and slump forward onto the control column…one pilot regains temporary consciousness, trys to correct, passes out again. No mayday. On the FDR, it looks like deliberate input.

  17. Bryce,
    The old production VS deliverys count game is just that. A game.
    When I was at BA, the line rate and deliverys would almost never line up because people dont understand that after they leave the Factory, they go to the ramp to be finished, test flown and delivered. Published rate is how often they leave the building. Deliverys are how often they leave the airport. They may sit on the ramp for a while awaiting any of a number of things. Finalized financing, Late BFE, B1 squawks, theres a long list of stuff that is never the same airplane to airplane. Some people dont realize that it is a delivery buffer so to speak and operates somewhat independently of line rate. In an ideal world, it takes 6 to 11 mdays to clear the stall position. Things are seldom ideal of late and a lot of “out of position” work gets shoved out there. Im sure Airbus operates in a similar fashion, probably a bit more efficiently as BA has been running about like a headless chicken for a while now…….

  18. “..In Everett, a team of mechanics is working overtime next week — through the holiday break — to finish and deliver by year-end a batch of 787s built earlier that need defects at the fuselage joins repaired.

    Those quality defects caused an expensive halt in deliveries over a 19-month period. Engineers had discovered tiny gaps at the fuselage joins as well as improperly installed shims — small pieces of material used to fill small gaps in the jet’s structure.

    The defects were not an immediate safety or flight concern. But because they could potentially lead to premature structural weakness years later, Boeing grounded the planes and is now working through fixes on the backlog of undelivered jets.

    More than 100 jets built and undelivered remain to be reworked. Trade magazine Aviation Week obtained internal Boeing documents revealing how intensive the repair work is on each airplane

    The documents indicated the rework on each aircraft can typically take about five months from bringing an aircraft out of storage to having it ready to deliver.

    Boeing has already written off $5.5 billion to cover the cost of the 787 rework and the slowed production rate.

    The rework is being done in South Carolina and in Everett, where the 787 was first built. In 2021, Boeing closed the first 787 assembly line in Everett and consolidated assembly of the jet in South Carolina.

    The 787 assembly bay in Everett is now full of planes being reworked at each station. More planes are being reworked outside on the Everett flight line.”

    • You have to think of it as the gift that keeps on giving.

      Boeing management in their generosity has set it up so that Everett can continue to host a 787 line! Happy employees! How often anymore does management give out Xmas gifts?

      There is a bit of a mis-statement. There are aircraft flying that will be fixed that did not have the double gap issue.

      When the FAA realized how pervasive the issue was it did not ground the 787, it quit certification the ones not delivered and those pilled up (and in fact the FAA is certifying each 787 itself now vs Boeing being allowed to do it though that will change at some point in the future)

      The 787 was not grounded, that is a whole different aspect.

    • The Q4 deliveries have comprised relatively large numbers of planes from inventory (both MAX and 787) — which, as we now know, have very low / zero / negative unit profit margins. Expect Q4 earnings to be “disappointing” (again).
      Analysts have had to deal with downside surprises now for several quarters in a row.

    • @TW

      Reminds me “hope springs eternal”.

      “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.”

    • The 787 is easy: it was called the “dreadliner” after the battery fire issues.

      777X: still nowhere near a TIA.

      MAX/Congress: Diogenes’ lamp was much too dim for Capitol Hill. Maybe he’ll have more luck at the FAA 🤔

  19. Bryce.
    You know that the ExIm bank has never lost money on an aircraft sale involving Boeing Aircraft. Understanding that, I guess the profits on the financing could actually be a credit against all the aid you mention…….

  20. Anyone still asserting that Chinese airlines aren’t taking frames because of a supposed cooled economic climate in the country?
    Of the 9 A350s that AB has (so far) delivered in December, 6 have been for Chinese airlines.

  21. Bruce

    …”Nowadays, if you want to sell into developing countries, you have to give them a slice of the cake 👍”…

    It’s just an industrial footprint. Nothing that will change anything. On the other side Boeing also invested in India…

  22. Aerospace Suppliers Flag Cash Flow Warning as Jet Production Hits Turbulence

    -> Boeing-supplier Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc said earlier this month a “challenging environment” is “putting a lot of pressure on our ability to generate cash”.
    “We’ve got to carry extra inventory buffers because of supply chain,” Spirit’s finance chief, Mark Suchinski, had said. […]

    “Starting in September, cash flows were impacted as Howmet Aerospace carried higher inventory due to customer schedule rebalances, which we expect to persist in the fourth quarter,” the company said last month.

  23. AB deliveries for December now stand at 72.
    This brings the year total so far to 637.
    7 of 10 A350s have gone to Chinese carriers.

  24. Dec. 24: “Ethiopia: State investigators releases final report on deadly 2019 Boeing 737-8 Max crash”

    “Nearly four years after the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 that killed 157 people, Ethiopian officials reiterated their accusations towards Boeing over mechanical faults they say downed the 737-MAX 8 aircraft. State investigators on Friday released their final report into the crash. 

    “The head of Ethiopia’s investigation, Amdeye Ayalew, blamed Boeing for their failure to “disclose early and attentively” issues with the 737-MAX 8’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).”

    ““The airplane left (at an) angle of attack or AOA sensor failed immediately after takeoff sending faulty data to the flight control system, the erroneous data in turn triggered the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS which repeatedly pitched the nose of the airplane down to the point the pilot lost control” Moges added.”

    • This has gotta be the biggest case of product liability since,… I don’t know… DDT, possibly the knowingly food processing deaths, Bopal was more of an industrial accident. I can’t think what rises to this level.

      • Remember last month’s Texas ruling that the crash victims were victims of a crime? Can you imagine what will happen if — on the basis of that ruling — the DPA gets binned?

        Also: look, now, how insensitive/inappropriate the timing of this week’s EICAS waiver was/is…

        • > the [Boeing 737MAX] DPA gets binned?

          No chance- though it’s the sham of shams.
          See the George Carlin comment above.

Leave a Reply

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