HOTR: Boeing ponders 777-300ER P2F program, again

By the Leeham News team

Jan. 19, 2023, © Leeham News: Already well behind the 8 ball in delivering 787s, Boeing quietly advised some customers recently that they may see yet another delay—this one up to 15 months. Some customers expecting 787s in 2024 now expect them in 2025.

These additional delays are causing some airlines to retain Boeing 777 Classics longer than planned. Others want to re-lease 777s returned or sold to lessors on the expectation of 787s deliveries.

Retaining 777 Classics has implications for the cargo market. There are three conversion companies: IAI Bedek, the launch P2F firm; Mammoth Freighters; and Kansas Modification Center (KMC). These companies rely on feedstock from the airlines and lessors for their conversions. Retaining 777s may cause a dip in the feedstock.

Boeing seeks 777s to help 787 customers

Boeing is trying to source 777s to help its customers through this new 787 delay, LNA is told. This presents if not a dilemma for Boeing, at least there is a new consideration. How does Boeing control the 777 Classic supply once these 777s are released upon delivery of the 787s? Boeing won’t want surplus 777 Classics in the market as passenger airplanes. The answer is to convert them to freighters.

But as of now, IAI, Mammoth and KMC are independent of Boeing, albeit licensing technical data from the company.

The answer may be a long-dormant plan for Boeing Global Services (BGS) to launch the -300ER P2F program that was announced in 2018 by Stan Deal. Deal then was CEO of BGS. He is now the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. LNA is told BGS is indeed considering proceeding with its own P2F program.

A fourth conversion program is crowding a field that probably already has one too many P2F companies—especially as cargo demand for dedicated freighter service is declining post-COVID pandemic. The return of widebody aircraft to international flights adds belly capacity that was withdrawn during the pandemic. Even FedEx, the world’s premier package freight airline, contracts with passenger airlines for belly space for non-time-critical packages.

Boeing licenses technical information to the three P2F companies. BGS’s entry will put Boeing into competition with them. Boeing’s conversions typically cost millions of dollars more than third parties. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

MAX returns to China skies

On Friday, Jan. 13, 2023, China Southern Airlines operated commercial flights with the Boeing 737 MAX—the first time a Chinese carrier operated the airplane in three years and 10 months. The country’s regulator, CAAC, was the first to ground the 737 MAX following the second crash in five months on March 10, 2019. The US Federal Aviation Administration grounded the plane on March 13, 2019, for what was thought would be a few months at most. It took 20 months before Boeing received FAA recertification.

Ironically, Friday the 13th is widely considered to be an unlucky day. In this case, it’s an important day that Boeing had been working toward in China since the FAA’s recertification in November 2020.


218 Comments on “HOTR: Boeing ponders 777-300ER P2F program, again

  1. “Some customers expecting 787s in 2024 now expect them in 2025.”

    What’s the cause of this new delay?
    Lack of engines? Lack of labor? Quality issues?…

    For January so far, Planespotters is showing only two 787 deliveries. Both are from inventory: a 2.1 year-old frame for KLM and a 3.5 year-old frame for Lufthansa. Interestingly, the Lufthansa frame was previously NTU by TWO airlines — first Hainan and then Vistara. The KLM frame went straight into parking 12 days ago — presumably to finish re-work that wasn’t done before “delivery” (BA does this in order to free-up hangar space for the next frame that needs re-work).

    • Boeing cannot legally deliver an aircraft that is still awaiting any rework as it is not up to certified standards. Parking could be for pre-induction work that KLM would rather perform themselves than have Boeing do (which might cost more). Think things like wifi system etc.

      In any event it looks like that 787 is entering service today with a flight to ATL.

      • The re-work while parked could have been internal — no certification violation involved.
        LNA told us previously that unfinished frames were being “delivered” in an unfinished state so as to free up space in hangars…it’s been going on for months.

        • I found it difficult to believe that Boeing would send a plane that still needs rework internally by Boeing engineers all the way to Amsterdam as the plane flew on Jan 6/7. Victorville is far more likely in such a scenario (as Boeing has done with several AA 788s).

          Induction work is far more likely. Looking at prior KLM deliveries it appears they typically take a week or so between ferry flight and EIS. This type of work is not uncommon with major airlines that have significant MRO capabilities. Much cheaper to do it in house than pay Airbus or Boeing to do it for you.

          • KLM has a big MRO center in Amsterdam: its own engineers can do the work and send BA the bill. Look what it otherwise costs to fly to Victorville and back, when Amsterdam is in the opposite direction.

            The AA 787s in Victorville were getting fitted with WiFi, IFE, etc.

          • Both the FAA and EASA would have an aneurysm if they found that Boeing knowingly gave a frame out of certified spec to a customer and just crossed their fingers that KLM personnel would correctly fix it and perform the work.

            The cost of ferrying a plane around is a drop in the bucket. Ferry cost would not be the reason why Boeing would send a plane to AMS and perform work there and not VCV/CHS/PAE etc.

            As you mentioned KLM has a large MRO facility in AMS…that performs induction work on frames entering the KLM fleet. Induction work is not required rework.

          • “Both the FAA and EASA would have an aneurysm if they found that Boeing knowingly gave a frame out of certified spec to a customer”

            Since when does a lack of WiFi/IFE qualify as “out of spec”?

            And who says that BA has (suitable) personnel available for re-work in the US?
            The company has experienced a massive braindrain, and new personnel is green as grass…

          • Oh, so don’t understand what “rework” is.

            Rework is the work required on the 787s to get them aligned with certified standard. I’m not 100% familiar with everything involved but it’s inspecting to make sure gaps between barrels are within design spec and fixing those that are out of spec etc. It’s the work required to fix the issues on frames that halted 787 deliveries for 18 months and get the plane back into a certified state.

            Adding Wifi/IFE etc is NOT rework (as you state in your first post and continue to apparently use in reference to this). That is standard induction work and performed on all deliveries no matter the type or manufacturer. Nothing is being “re” worked- customer specific things are being added. As I have mentioned several times the OEM doesn’t always perform this work no matter the state of delivery delays- some major airlines find it more financially advantageous to do it themselves. They are not necessarily billing the OEM for the work as they work may involve contracts completely separate from the purchase of the airframe with the OEM.

            Rework has a rather specific connotation and definition and you have to be careful how you use it when referring to 787 (or 737max).

          • In order to address the fuselage gap issues in inventory planes, the interior of those planes has to be stripped.

            Putting (parts of) that interior back in place after the fuselage fix is, thus, certainly part of the re-work process.

            As soon as a plane can be moved out of the hangar, BA does so — but that doesn’t mean that the re-work process is finished at that juncture.

          • No need to strip the complete fuselage interior .
            Just the immediate area around the barrel join. Its not every join thats an issue. I think its only the aft sections 47 and 48
            The skin smoothness and the shims for the join were for the same sections. It was a software issue for the automated laser scans that were used to check the compliance during build. There was also a separate issue for horizontal stabiliser , but thats not in the pressure cabin area.

          • @ DoU

            “Checking whether a Boeing 787 has the fuselage smoothness issue is a difficult and capital-intensive procedure that involves removing the interior, opening up floor panels, and measuring whether the flaw is present. The check is complicated by the fact that the engineering mishap is not visible to the naked eye.

            “If the flaw is found, technicians have to remove defective shims and install new ones, replace all fasteners, re-paint the area, and then re-install the interior. “It’s like open-heart surgery,” Reuters quoted a source familiar with the matter. “They’ll be retrofitting the fleet for potentially several years.””


          • @DoU
            1) How about the faulty titanium parts?? 🤔
            2) Inspection of fuselage defects:
            -> “First, technicians must pull out the passenger seats, open up the floor paneling and use specialty tools to measure whether defects invisible to the naked eye are present, according to three people with direct knowledge of the process.

            “The repair work – already underway at Boeing factories in Everett, Washington and North Charleston, South Carolina – is even harder.

            “In the bowels of the jet, technicians have to remove multiple specialty fasteners on both sides of the inner fuselage skin, then install newly produced “shims” that fill out gaps and remove the structural dimpling. Workers then replace all the fasteners, re-paint, and re-install the interior, they said.

          • Like I said , only the interior for the affected sections and only where they join.
            Even your link says the same:
            ‘Shims, which are used to fill * when two fuselage panels are joined* in assembly, were found to be improperly manufactured as well. While the shim and the fuselage skin issue on their own were of no safety risk, the combination of the two could have resulted in the fuselage not being able to withstand loads during a flight.’

            The same Leica laser scanner used in the correct barrel section joins does the work. Photos show it being done

          • @DoU

            If that’s the case as you insist, how come it takes BA like five months to complete the inspection and rework, deliver a 787 from inventory?

          • @Pedro

            Rework definitely has a very specific meaning in aviation production. While it’s possible Boeing skipped installing customer option features to airlines, adding these back wouldn’t be termed rework. As pointed out, almost all airlines install some form of non-Boeing feature prior to EIS but post factory…. Even FedEx and UPS do this.

            Additionally, the longer an aircraft sits the longer it takes to bring it back online. Many of those 787 have extensive inspections to perform (similar to in-service aircraft) in addition to a bunch of functional testing. This all above the rework requirements. Even factory fresh aircraft usually take weeks to get to a customer. My guess the time frame is more to do with keeping the rework costs low rather than having dozens of people tripping over each other.

          • @John

            Well I don’t believe @DoU is correct:
            “Like I said , only the interior for the affected sections and only where they join.”

            It’s more extensive than that, don’t you think so?? 🤔

          • @ John

            “My guess the time frame is more to do with keeping the rework costs low rather than having dozens of people tripping over each other.”

            BA has told us that it’s cheaper to deliver a 787 from the line than to deliver one from inventory…

          • @John

            According to CX, it takes them *4 weeks* to reactivate its aircraft in storage. BA takes like five months to inspect, rework and reactivate the 787 for delivery. I believe it strongly indicates months are needed to complete inspection and rework, quite unlike what’s described by @DoU above. Or is it possible that BA is much less efficient in running its shop?? 🙄

          • @DoU

            Did you totally forget the inspection required around the passenger and cargo doors in the aft fuselage and other areas?? 🙄

    • All BA have to do is *more talk* of increasing production to five per month

  2. Maybe Everett will do the 787F and 777-300ER P2F’s where the 787 line were once it is emptied of fixing the new production 787’s. It can then fix future Charleston 787 problems as need arises.

    • > Maybe Everett will do the 787F and 777-300ER P2F’s where the 787 line were once it is emptied of fixing the new production 787’s. <

      That does not appear to be happening any time soon.

  3. This will be a guess, but I think it is a good one. One of the things you try to do in any manufacturing or assembly process is to implement a continuous improvement program. If this works, then it should be possible to commit to deliveries at a slightly faster clip than the current production rate would suggest as being possible. But, betting on the learning curve only works with new work, and not repairs and rework.

    We do know that the quality of work at the BSC plant is so bad, that the rework required on most of what they produce is substantial. That creates a huge bottle neck for which no learning curve opportunity of any significance can exist, because each cleanup job comes with its own surprises. Rework is dramatically worse as a cost driver and schedule disrupter than travelled work.

    There is a simple fix, but it requires a culture of truth telling. With that you can slow down the assembly process and implement a culture that does not tolerate poor or skipped work. Get the assembly process to whatever real base rate is possible, and then gradually increase the rate naturally as the continuous improvement processes do their thing. This of course is impossible if nobody is allowed to tell the truth about basic schedule and quality performance in the first place.

    Cost management is all about culture, commitments, deliverables, and good visibility so resources can be applied where needed. If you ignore all of that and try to manage by budgets alone, failure is guaranteed.

    • Did it start with the drive to deliver the first 787 on 7-8-7 for public roll out no matter what?

    • Amen. ” … betting on the learning curve only works with new work, and not repairs and rework.”

      • If you have to do a “repair” fix on some hundred frames
        a learning curve obviously is an electable item too.
        ( but nothing stands in the way of botching that too)

        Good planning up front would release some more “faster, pussy cat, faster” synergy.

    • Current Boeing management in a nutshell:
      Quality doesn’t matter….until all of a sudden it does!

    • “….ignore all that and failure is guaranteed. ”

      Indeed! Failure is guaranteed. And yet, somehow the failed clique of cash-flow obsessed executives lives on in its Hitler bunker on the board of directors and the C-suites. Seemimgly nothing can dislodge these people short of complete financial collapse.
      One is led to the conclusion that rather than spend millions to design and build a product with care, they prefer to spend billions to clean up the inevitable once a decade catastrophic failure ( eg, Max, 787 Development program)

  4. How many ex-China MAXs are still in inventory?
    Relatively few of the whitetails delivered in Dec/Jan were ex-China: I see a handful for United (ex-Lucky, ex-Hainan), and that’s about it.
    The 5 most recent Akasa frames were ex-Jet/ex-GOL. Other United frames were ex-Air Italy.

    Either there’s a lack of interest/uptake, or BA is still holding out in the hope that China will green-light deliveries.

    • Likely ‘resold’ to Air India big order..
      Chinese airlines are just hanging out for more Boeing compensation for the Max grounding.

      • There’s no Air India order as yet…

        There’s also no further compensation on orders that BA has cancelled…

          • On that subject: what’s the status on the ABC retraction that you predicted? 😉

          • Is Ryanair on standby to take BA 737 MAX delivery or not?? 🙄

            Ryanair will get almost all of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft it is due to receive in time for its peak summer season … it expects to receive 40 to 45 of 51 Boeing MAX aircraft due for delivery by the summer, up from a previous forecast of 40.

      • Oops. Our expert missed the train once again. Where those 737 MAX come from now??

  5. With airtravel retuning strongly and shortage of crews, we could see the demand for larger planes, upgaugeing incl. widebodies going up further.

    Now add in the delays for 787, 777x etc.
    Will we see airlines bringing back unloved planes from the desert?

    With A350, B777x and B787 hampered, i would presume Airbus may try to land a few more A330Neo with shorter availability, and Boeing more 737-10.

    • I’m not aware of how the A350 is hampered: paint?

      Airbus may succeed too, in shifting more A330neos. It’s a pretty good aircraft. If you’re an A330 operator not looking for a bigger plane, I’m sure that Airbus can make it a very tempting option (especially if you can shift your old aircraft into the P2F market).

      Speaking of which, one thing I don’t know is the potential size of the P2F market. Is there demand such that every single A330classic that comes on the market can and will get snapped up and converted? Or is the freighter market such there’s too much A330classic feedstock?

      Anyone care to share an estimate?!

      I’m also pondering whether or not A330neo was a missed opportunity. Airbus built it, so far as I can tell, to knock the bottom out of the 787 market, and give A330classic operators a solid minimum option to stay with Airbus for their next purchase before Boeing could tempt them with 787s, NMA or whatever. The choice to neo-ise the A330 indicates that speed of development was a consideration.

      However, despite the delays in the A330neo programme, Boeing has meanwhile done a pretty good job of sabotaging their own deliveries, killed off the NMA and Covid has got in the way. Airbus ended up having more time than they took. Could Airbus instead have done a full carbon fibre A330 replacement, aka a mini A350, still got it to market in the right timeframe to have the right strategic effect, and make a very good offering to existing A330 classic owners?

      Or would such a line up be totally bonkers?!

      It’s an interesting thing to consider whether Airbus has overestimated Boeing’s capabilities, in choosing their own product line up.

      • Matthew:

        I have to go with Bonkers (grin).

        You can’t just copy a fuselage let alone a wing into CRFP.

        What you are talking about is an all new aircraft, aka A350.

        That is something around 12-15 billion (well if you do it right which Boeing is not inclined to do as of late).

      • If my observations are correct, it seem both A&B are affected by supplier delays on all of their programs. Though the A330Neo less so as it is a bit more conventional built and re-uses lots of “old” parts.

        On the 330Neo, i am bit more bullish after having been on a DL 339.
        The noiselevel was outstanding low, and the cabin felt close to the 359.
        Except for the small windows it felt like a current generation plane.
        I would not be surprised if DL reorders more of them.

        As the 350 grows further in capablity, i would assume Airbus will allow for more weights and A350 enhancments to flow down to enhance the capablities. For lot of airlines the 339 should offer enough range.

        • The A330 neo cost relatively little to develop ($2B), and it’s certified and flying — which is more than can be said for some other offerings.
          Modifications as you allude to can be realized relatively simply and cheaply.

          • Imagine the compensation BA has to dole out for repeated delays of the 100+ 787s

        • Good to hear the A330neo is quiet! I can put up with small windows if it’s a quiet ride.

          • I think the A330neo will be a slow and steady, long term winner. Its costs were small, and most of them have long been paid for, as other commenters have pointed out.

        • “Though the A330Neo less so as it is a bit more conventional built and re-uses lots of “old” parts.”

          I don’t see the connection.
          parts are manufactured “now”.
          but look into how each manufacturer “socializes” with subcontractors.
          I had contact with US led management:
          Deliver immediately, subito!, on short call ::
          get your money 100++ days late.
          (I declined at the time. if you want service on short notice I want money on short notice. 🙂

      • up to now Airbus has avoided the scope creep killing vector in type updates.
        Afaics both NEO upgrades started _and_ ended with limited scope changes. .. and where done comparatively “el cheapo”.
        (NG,) 748, MAX and 777X all show the dangers of expanding scope of changes/upgrades.

      • A330neoF can have merit to replace most A300/A310 freighters in addition its fuselage is sized to maximize the number of standard LD3’s in upper and lower decks making it a bit more productive. The 767 need shortened LD3’s. There is a risk RR gets short on cash again and start to milk operators stuck with its T7000 engines. There might be a Boeing 787-9BCF to suck up the early builds with some manufacturing defects and fix it during the cargo conversion. They can start with the “Terrible Teens”, line number 10-19..

  6. Amen to RetiredTechFellow, particularly your last paragraph. Your perspective recalls the Boeing of the 80’s and 90’s.

    Your post reminds me of something we used to say on my coed softball team, when we were down by six runs at the top of the last inning. We just needed to score 7 runs then hold them in the bottom of the inning; “If we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs … if we had some eggs.”

    On the plus side, sometimes we did win those games, and it felt great.

  7. Very interesting analysis of the discounts that Ryanair is getting from BA.
    Particularly noteworthy: a 69% discount on the MAX 8200…even larger than the 65% discount secured on the 737-800.

    Note: bearing in mind the nominal production costs per frame, a 65% discount corresponds to breakeven, and anything above that represents a loss.

    We know from SEC filings that Southwest also got a 65% discount.
    Combined with Ryanair, that gives 600 aircraft on which BA doesn’t make a penny.

    Bloomberg/CNBC indicated a similar lack of margin on the recent UA order.

    Circling the drain…

    • @Bryce

      Thanks for this link. It’s the same for SWA and most likely UAL.
      As for the latest 787 delay, it’s related to the FAA. That’s all I’m gonna say.
      “Boeing is quietly advising customers on a new delay”
      Don’t wanna upset Wall Street.

      • That’s very interesting regarding the FAA — thanks! One wonders what new screw-up has now surfaced…

        And let’s not forget: checks/mods still have to be done for out-of-spec issues on 1200 in-service 787s…the FAA has yet to lay an egg on that matter.

  8. Now that we’ve heard Airbus is sold out until 2029 I wonder how many Chinese airlines will be placing MAX orders before they get sold out as well. Could be an opportunity for a lot of MAX10s given the route sizes

    • Xiamen placed an Airbus order in September last year and received its first A321 neo just 4 months later.
      Sold out?

      And why would Chinese airlines want to order MAXs when the C919 is now certified?

      • Certified? Isn’t that just the easy part.? A target of 150 per year in the next 5 years is actually where things start to get more complicated.

        Anyways the C919 and 320neo/max8 are not necessarily equals. Available data shows the c919 will have a max pax of 174, remember the not yet certified MAX 7 will have 172 ( 2 seats less) at high density.

        Also the 737MAX / a320neo are still expected to be more efficient.

        In terms of efficiency and capacity the, it seems the C919 does not come close to a substitute for MAX 8, let alone the MAX 10 so yes, there will be a need for them even with the c919 certified.

        With the limited a320neo supply I would not be surprised if Chinese airlines order the MAX 10 in the next coming years/months

        Even china knows they need the MAX, all the drama is just because they just don’t want to look weak to the US .

        Chinese airlines buying the C919 is just a show of support, but there is no indication that they will fully commit to COMAC for at least this decade.

        • Chinese airlines have already ordered 1201 C919s…so, it seems that lower range / efficiency are not an impediment– buying a homegrown product appears to be of greater importance.

          COMAC is aiming to produce 150 C919s per year by 2028…more than enough to fulfill the country’s needs, in addition to AB orders currently in place.

        • ‘the C919 and 320neo/max8 are not necessarily equals.’

          The c919 is a generation behind. It’s the learning curve aircraft. It’ll be the next one that’ll give the competition fits. China plays the long game.

          • IMU China had good reason to go for a product that “leans” on the A320 design bouquet.
            C919 is homage to the classic A320 but with NEO engines.
            ( hah! remember that Leahy quip :
            787 : Chinese plastic copy of the A330
            with new engines.
            787 and C919 thus seem to have similar pedigree 😉

        • China does know how to mass produce things… Keeping Quality Assurance high is always a challenge (ask Boeing). If they manage to make them in large numbers, and the Quality Assurance is actually OK, that does put them into an interesting strategic position in the global aircraft market.

          There is a possibility that such a strategic goal does translate into good QA; who is going to want to be to blame for derailing China’s ambitions in aviation through shoddy work?

        • Ed:

          The big Chinese Airlines are owned by the government.

          The government makes the aircraft orders and hands them out.

          Other Chinese Airlines are a mish mash of City owned and not sure what else. They too know what they have to do.

          So they take what the government gives them and make the best of it. As long as they have equal numbers the less efficient aircraft is a wash though the maint and support are ????? So you park as many as you think you can get away with.

          Leeham ran the numbers and if the Chineese economy returns to something resembling normal, they can’t begin to get enough A320 types or make C919, ergo, they will have to buy Boeing or do without.

          • EU carriers have only ordered 175 MAXs in the 26 months since re-cert…and they’re managing just fine 😏

          • > ..they can’t begin to get enough A320 types or make C919, ergo, they will have to buy Boeing or do without. <

            So far China seems ok with "do without".
            I think getting the COMAC C919 in place domestically is their priority.

          • Bill7:

            Well the MAX is flying in China again and do you think they want to fly just one?

            As for the C919, as stated, its a decision China will make. There are no where near enough C919 to fill the need (granted that is Leehams take and we all know how dodgy their figures are) (said in jest by the way)

            Now China could just put the 64 or so into service and leave it at that. I doubt it but…….

          • @ TW
            The Chinese may just decide to keep the MAXs that they have, without adding any more — perfectly possible.

          • “Leeham ran the numbers …”

            LNA, like BA’s Muilenburg, has talked up this coming big order for years to no avail.

          • The LNA article in question assumed that China’s current fleet would be retired when it reached an age of 10-15 years — in line with present policy.
            This, of course, doesn’t necessarily have to be the case going forward, and Chinese carriers may elect to keep existing frames for (much) longer. Such a move would drastically alter the need for new aircraft.

            Here’s the LNA article:

          • @Bryce

            I recommend everyone to go to planespotters and have a look how many aircraft older than 15 years are still flying in China. 🤭

          • “Other Chinese Airlines are a mish mash of City owned and not sure what else.”

            Wow. Not sure what else?? 🙄

          • @TW

            Do you know the ME3 are owned by the states? So does SIA and China Airlines. BOAC and BEA were crown corporations. BA was also once a crown corporation.

            No need to parrot what other says. I form my opinion after my own work, I don’t believe that the Big 3 is desperate to place big orders replacing 737-800s. Their 737 MAX 8 on order should be sufficient for next couple years.

          • “The LNA article in question assumed that China’s current fleet would be retired when it reached an age of 10-15 years”

            That happened over a decade ago or so. I don’t believe it’s a policy per se. Times have changed. Maintenance standards have catched up for many years. Interesting that most NB over 15 years old are AB. Maybe there’s a reason they order more.🤔

        • “With the limited a320neo supply I would not be surprised if Chinese airlines order the MAX 10 in the next coming years/months”

          Excellent prognosis! In the *next coming years*. Definitely. Make sure you hold your breath.

          Yeah the 737-700 (at the max. of 174 seats – Wow) has more seats than Bombardier’s C-series. How come Boeing had to give out like 70% discount in order to win the sale??? Give me a break.

      • “COMAC is aiming to produce 150 C919s per year by 2028…more than enough to fulfill the country’s needs, in addition to AB orders currently in place.”

        Ok you want numbers?

        The 3 largest Chinese airlines:, China Southern, Air China and China Eastern have a combined 1090 current generation 737s/320ceos.

        Their combined orderbook for replacements is around 640 orders ( a321/320/ 319neo and 737MAX) .

        That leaves a deficit of around 450 aircraft. Each of the 3 have 20 C919s on order( total 60) .

        450 – 60 = 390 aircraft that will need replacements in the next couple of years

        It seems that your idea of these Chinese carriers being ok without Boeing is false.

        How will the Chinese Big 3 replace those remaining 390 aircraft in the coming years?

        I have not even included aircraft required for potential growth/expansion with could push this n.o ( from 390) to 500 frames.

        I know you want to prove that you know more than everyone else, but anyone who claims China does not need Boeing are clearly just letting AB Fanboism get into their heads. Lol.

        • “…aircraft that will need replacements in the next couple of years…”

          Define “need replacements” ?
          The Chinese fleets of current aircraft aren’t old (unlike the fleets at US carriers) — so they can easily get another 10-15 years out of them.

          That’s also what Emirates is going to do with its A380s — keep them until 2035. Its not what the airline normally does with aircraft, but there are plenty of other airlines that do keep aircraft for that long (particularly in the US).

          China doesn’t “need Boeing”, because it has other options.

          No “fanboism” — just straightforward logic.

          • The other options, you mean the unproven C919 and long waiting line on the 320neo? 😂😂lol.

            The Chinese Big 3 have ordered only 20 C919s each, seems that are not placing their bets on it just yet.

            I’m sure they dont mind waiting for the 2030’s to receive most of their a320neos if they place orders now.

            Don’t tell me Xaimen airlines placed order recently and received their first a321neo, that seems to be your excuse when backed into a corner . That a321neo was probably a freed up slot that Xaimen airlines was lucky to have.

            Either way it does not matter what you think, many of your predictions have been wrong before anyways. Haha

            Chinese airlines will order hundreds of 737MAXs in the next couple of years because they need them.

            With the Chinese economy opening up again and the travel demand exploding again, China will not have a choice by to order the 737 MAX.

            The options you are talking about, the unproven c919 and sold out 320neo are not as straightforward as you think.

            Anyways who told you that the Chinese big 3 will operate their older jets for up to 15 years, is it it assumption?

            Crazy you compare emirates who dont have a direct a380 replacement with Chinese airlines who have a lot of replacement options for thier older 737-700s and 800s

            Emirates will operate their a380s till 2035 because no other aircraft will be able to replace their capacities when they are gone.

            If there was an a380neo, that 2035 you are talking about would have been reduced to 2030, the time the average a380 fleet will be 15 years old.

            You are comparing apples to oranges Mr know it all.😂😂😭😭😭😭.

            The thing is you know I’m right deep down, it’s just that you don’t don’t like admitting that you are wrong sometimes Mr Bryce 🙈😂😂😂

          • @ Ed
            That was a great rant — you even repeated yourself in it! You must have been very agitated 😉

            Pity you didn’t check your facts first.


            “The Chinese Big 3 have ordered only 20 C919s each, seems that are not placing their bets on it just yet”

            Actually, the C919 now has over 1000 orders:

            300 orders were placed in just 3 days at last year’s Zhuhai air show.


            “that a321neo was probably a freed up slot that Xaimen airlines was lucky to have.”

            The second A321neo for Xiamen already has a registration (B-32CY).
            The third A321neo for Xiamen is currently in the FAL.


            “With the Chinese economy opening up again and the travel demand exploding again, China will not have a choice by to order the 737 MAX.”

            It’s currently the busiest time of the year in China for travel (Lunar New Year) — it’s actually the largest human migration on the planet — and, yet, only 3 MAXs are flying in China (see below). Looks like the Chinese have other choices after all 😉


          • You are all missing out on the “elephant trampling the roses” cloaked in a star spangled banner.

            I don’t think that China is at all interested in buying planes, spending money, that are destined to be embargoed by the currently extremely warmongering US that sees it as a win or founder cusp point ahead.

          • @ Uwe
            The *real* elephant in the room: what happens if/when the US embargoes engines for the C919? Does anyone really think that China would ever again buy a US plane if that happens?

            Of course, such a move would just serve to increase production of the PD-14 — including under license in China; sanctions/embargoes always backfire in such ways.

            And it would cause further friction between the EU (Safran) and US (GE).

          • “elephant” ( apparently a herd )

            With the (overused with abandon) sanctions the US may have handed itself the tool for seppuku.

            ( Who will stand by as the pain stopper? China )

          • Oh one more

            ‘China cannot be out, China must be in’: France says it’s diverging with Washington on Beijing ties

        • Do you want numbers??

          Why can’t you dig deeper? How difficult is it? 🙄

          China Eastern’s 737-800 on average is *only* 7.5 year old. How urgent is it to order for replacement??

          China Southern has around 30 737-800 at 15 years or more, however, it has 34 MAX on order.

          Don’t forget HSR is also expanding

          • @ Pedro

            The 140 737s at Xiamen have an average age of just 9.5 years.
            The 111 737s at Air China have an average age of just 10.8 years.
            The 72 737s at Shanghai Airlines have an average age of just 9.3 years.
            The 127 737s at Shandong Airlines have an average age of just 9.3 years.

            Against that background: AA, UA and DL are flying narrowbodies with an average age of 21-27 years. The oldest A320 in the United fleet is actually 30 years old! At Delta, the oldest one is 33 years old!

            Conclusion: Chinese airlines can still use their current narrowbodies for at least another 10-15 years.

  9. Good Morning Scott: I have been remiss in not writing you months ago.

    Find your over views very informative.

    thank you and keep up the good work

  10. Emirates has been saying delay of 787 of at least a year or more for awhile.

    • Poor AAB will throw an impressive tantrum if his 787s are late — he has no other option at this stage…

        • I doubt that Qatar will back down: question of ego.

          Will the new copper foil impact the dispute?
          It’s a design tweak to improve paint adhesion, and only used on certain parts of the fuselage…even without it, the delamination problem can be solved by re-painting with a modified paint composition…

        • Matthew:

          That is in line with where Airbus said it was going. Its a full acknowledgment that they can’t master the existing system without faults and then re-paint.

          • They why is the new copper foil only being used on limited parts of the fuselage? The original foil is still being used on the rest of the plane…

          • How much is caused by excessive sanding in preparation of QR A350 repaint? BA also suffers from UV damage of B787’s paint. They have to apply for a FAA exemption.

            @TW => full acknowledgement from BA that “they can’t master the existing system without faults and then re-paint”?? 🙄

    • @Pedro……
      Delays are the the name of the game at EK..
      Like Sir Tim hasn’t delayed an order before..!!!
      If he played his cards right , he’d have his first a350’s delivered next month as originally planned ,not a year and a half from now if he’s lucky..!!

        • Obviously not ..but they cancelled / amended the a350 order twice , threw away the 330 neo order, converted the 787 10 to the 9…. Sir Tim, if you’d made up your mind years ago, you’d be flying newer gen. aircraft!!!
          Can’t blame that on Boeing !!;☺️

  11. Bad start to 2023 for BA:

    “BREAKING NEWS: Boeing is ordered to appear in US court on felony charges for two 737 MAX crashes that left 346 dead after judge overturned $2.5billion immunity deal”

    “U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor on Thursday ordered a representative of the company to appear in court on January 26 to be arraigned on a 2021 felony charge, after families of the nearly 350 killed in the 2018 crash in Indonesia and the 2019 crash in Ethiopia objected to a plea deal.”

    • This *should* be a very big deal, but my guess is that nothing substantive will come of it.

      “..Then, after the second crash, the agency said, Boeing and Muilenburg assured the public that there was ‘no surprise or gap’ in the federal certification of the MAX despite being aware of contrary information.

      ‘In times of crisis and tragedy, it is especially important that public companies and executives provide full, fair, and truthful disclosures to the markets,’ said SEC Chair Gary Gensler in a press release.

      ‘The Boeing Company and its former CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, failed in this most basic obligation. They misled investors by providing assurances about the safety of the 737 MAX, despite knowing about serious safety concerns.’..”

      That no one from Boeing went to jail over single-sensor MCAS [oops!] is a crime in itself,
      as is the Deferred Prosecution Agreement that they got off with, but that’s how it all
      works these days. We’ll see how it goes.

      • Bill7

        “We’ll see how it goes…”
        I don’t expect much different. In the agreement Boeing compensated the families of the victims.

        Lol, trust me we are on to another absurd case orchestrated by the LOT airline, and lawyers who think they are getting a lot of money by pushing the families of the victims to rebel more.

        I really think that the case will be difficult and that it will end in 5, 10, 20 years if not soon in oblivion …

        • I do not doubt the sincerity of the Victims families.

          I don’t have any faith in the legal system either.

          Something I have pondered for 60 years as my dad died as a result if a mechanics mistake (no question it was not deliberate and like the MAX rashes there were other aspects involved as factors in the decision for he and our friend to be where they were).

          Nothing brings them back, the money can allow you to re-build your life.

          Ironically I think the Boeing execs can say, no we did not know (they are bean counters not engineers). What a Jury would rule in what they setup for a failure on the MAX is a question I am glad I am not on a Jury to have to decide.

          That said we also saw what happened with the 787 (battery) as well as the shim debacles. A great many people are fortunate as all get out that we did not see a 787 crash.

          And while Boeing has no involvement in RR and its flawed Trent 1000 engines, that flight out of Rome could have resulted in a crash. Another case of the AHJ allowing two bad engines on an aircraft when no bad engines should have been allowed.

    • Bryce,

      …”And why would Chinese airlines want to order MAXs when the C919 is now certified?…”
      Zoom is right

      And why would these Chinese airlines mass order a barely certified but early career aircraft?
      The A320 experienced 3 crashes in 1988/1990/1992 and yet juste certified.

      Why it is not imperative to order 737MAX in particular MAX10?

      You do not treat Boeing to the same extent as Airbus, COMAC or any other non-Boeing aircraft manufacturer

      • “And why would these Chinese airlines mass order a barely certified but early career aircraft?”

        You mean like the MAX? Subtract the time that it spent on the ground and it, too, is “barely certified but early career”.
        The MAX-7/-10 aren’t even certified.

        Someone hasn’t given much thought to his own arguments 🤣

        • Nonsequiturs mixed with strategic grammar
          “issues” seem to be that one’s stock in trade.


      • Bill7,

        …”That no one from Boeing went to jail over single-sensor MCAS [oops!] is a crime in itself,
        as is the Deferred Prosecution Agreement that they got off with, but that’s how it all
        works these days. We’ll see how it goes…”
        It is a value judgment that is yours, but based on wishful thinking and blind bias.
        After the crash of the A320 in Absheim in 1988 during an air show in France,

        The pilot went to prison so that it would not be the leaders of Airbus at the time. In all others crashes following that of Absheim (Mt St Odile in 1990, In India in 1992) Airbus has never admitted any responsibility.

        These cases was questionable and scandalous for some insiders of the time…

        • Checklist: Agreed that is how the system works, neither fair nor just but also if Boeing is convicted, then that means they can’t do government contracts.

          In regards to the Airbus control system, its all good until it isn’t

          AF447 was a classic including the fact that the stall warning quit below certain air speeds. So the answer was to keep the nose up and get rid of the stall warning (which is the exact opposite of what you want to occur). Ie, encourage good behavior with putting the nose down.

          Then of course when the system shifts into Alternate law it no long works like it did in Full Law. Ergh.

          Just remember, EICAS solves everything and there is no issue, no issue, no issue.

          • Even better example was the XL Airways/Air NZ A320 crash into the Med off Perpignan France.
            the crew did test manoeuvres at a low altitude and unknown to them the AOA sensors had water inside from a intense wash for the return to lessor. 3 sensors but the one correct data rejected instead of the 2 faulty ones. So stall protection wasnt activated and the EICAS displays didnt prevent the crew from failing to recognise they had reverted to manual mode at couldnt recover from a stall at low altitude

          • “The crew did test manoeuvres at a low altitude ”

            which was “Verboten” .
            You see parallels to the early Habsheim crash.
            doing things that no sane mind should have started to do. for once real pilot error.

            Not like Boeing crashes that were attributed to pilot error/suicide under pressure from wordy US reps.

          • The pilots didnt have the information from the cockpit systems to inform them that stall protection was turned off automatically.

            Their mistaken beliefs time and time again has led to ‘pilot error’ because they misunderstood what the planes computers could do , and which phase of control it had.
            The planes computers also decided wrongly that with AOA disagree it chose the two incorrect ones and ignored the correct one.

            Why didnt EICAS warn them with a “AOA disagree” message

            No ordinary pilots would such things at these altitudes , unless they thought automation could protect them.

            Wheres the EICAS message that stall protection is ‘turned off’ and stays prominent ?

          • DoU, TW:
            the gist of your posts indicates that you lack insight into the problem domain.
            It doesn’t reach any further.

            Those “double whammy” faults you are so keen on expounding on as major “sky is falling” faults of FBW systems are well below the relevant probability
            demanded by the cert environment.

    • @Bryce…
      Yeah ..we can read Sam…You do realize there are plenty of other aviation forums reporting that Breaking news flash..
      We don’t need to get it second hand from you !!!!

      • Having a bad day, again?
        It must be tiring when your team just can’t catch a break 😉

  12. Bryce

    “Someone hasn’t given much thought to his own arguments “…
    YOU haven’t given much thought…

    The MAX 7 has the modified MCAS and served as a testbed and certification for the MAX8 and MAX-9.

    Remember that the obstruction of getting MAX7 and MAX10 certified was an absurd thought shared by many, and I was one of the few people who knew that the MAX-7 and MAX 10 would get a waiver when no one was there. then one fine day, Boeing suddenly obtained it …

    So the argument that the 737MAX among other MAX10 for China remains very relevant.
    The C919 still has a lot to prove and the road will be very long.

    Remember what I tell you…👍

    • Checklist:

      You can add in that the C919 was certified not just by a captured agency but an owned lock stock and barrel by the Chinese government.

      The 737-800 crash there is the classic case of denial of what happened (Egypt did the same thing on EgyptAir 990.

      If there is an issue it will be covered up. That truly is a recipe for further disasters. With the MAX grounding they did the right thing for the wrong reason.

      What I am looking at is the MAX aircraft that were delivered to China and how fast they come out of storage. That is an untapped pool that will last them for a bit (64 I think)

      Then they have to decide to limp along, take whatever Airbus can scrounge out of their over committed system or order MAX again.

      Airbus can snag an order out here and there but if the air traffic keeps going up Airlines are not going to be willing to defer and order for a lower price on one latter.

      It will be interesting.

      You may see MAX takeup by Airlines Airbus stiffs to supply the Chinese market, stay tuned.

      • > You can add in that the C919 was certified not just by a captured agency but an owned lock stock and barrel by the Chinese government. <

        Um… who else *should be* initially certificating the C919, if not one "owned lock stock and barrel by the Chinese government"? Maybe let self-discredited Boeing/FAA "public-private partnership" handle the job?

        [shakes head, then lets it slam onto desk]

        • Bill7:

          I am sorry for your pain.

          Do two bad systems make it right ?

          I don’t disagree at all with the issues with the FAA (I do disagree how recent those are, anywhere from the 737 Rudder Issue, the DC-10 and Hawaiian Air 737.

          For now the FAA is doing its job. How long that lasts?

        • Bill7 , the point wasnt the ‘government agency’, it was the government
          owned aircraft company- Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, or Comac.

          Im sure its a fine plane , a close copy of the 1970s tech Airbus A320, as thats the way of the aviation industry in China.

          • At least it has FBW and EICAS — unlike a certain other, controversial dinosaur on the aviation market 😉

          • Shocked. What a wonderful idea if profits are not privatized in a Boeing/FAA/NASA public-private partnership!!

        • “Maybe let self-discredited Boeing/FAA “public-private partnership” handle the job?”

          That is the path Mitsubishi and its SpaceJet have taken. I don’t think it will survive the experience.

          • I’d still like to know the backstory/real story on the SpaceJet- I’d bet money that there is one.

      • Was the 737 MAX certified by a captured agency? Privatize the profits, socialize the risks. Use money to grease the palms. It works.

  13. > The 737-800 crash there is the classic case of denial of what happened (Egypt did the same thing on EgyptAir 990. <

    Please tell us "what happened", so we can all be the wiser.

    • Bill7:

      Both crashes were Pilot caused.

      Egypt was proven because the Egypt Authorities handed the case over to the NTSB (then insisted the probably cause was false)

      China did not hand the case over to the NTSB. They requested the NTSB download the flight data recorders as they were so severely damaged that you need special equipment to do so (which they did)

      We have not heard a peep out of China since. China cannot admit one of their pilots committed that atrocity.

      Our system is better as the NTSB is not part of the FAA and we get their honest assessment.

      • Wasnt the same ‘denial’ in play for the Silk Air 737-300 that nose dived from altitude [FL 350] into a river in Indonesia
        ‘The NTSB, which had jurisdiction based on Boeing’s manufacture of the aircraft in the U.S., investigated the crash under lead investigator Greg Feith. Its investigation concluded that the crash was the result of deliberate flight-control inputs “most likely by the captain”.[3][4] While the Indonesian NTSC investigators found “no concrete evidence” to support the pilot suicide allegation…’

        It seems that both CVR and a bit later FDR had been turned off when Captain left cabin .

      • > Bill7: Both crashes were Pilot caused. <

        Please provide evidence to support your claim.
        Thank you.

        • Said evidence can likely be found in the A320 wing-join = delivery locker, BTW.

        • “The BEA, France’s Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety, has since concluded that pilot Mohamed Said Shoukair’s mid-flight smoke break ignited oxygen seeping from an oxygen mask in the cockpit, resulting in a fire onboard the Airbus A320 jet.’

          he lit a cigarette in cockpit !
          most crashes are caused in a large or small amount by the pilot or pilots

          • Faulty cabin pressure sensors also cause crashes: flight crews going unconscious generally isn’t conducive to a smooth flight.
            As it happens, the FAA just recently issued an AD on the subject, covering all 737 models — including the 737-800. This wouldn’t have shown up in the FDR.

          • My comment was carefully confined to the China 737
            crash. Bringing other crashes into it muddies the waters,
            probably by design.

            Solid *evidence* of the cause of the China 737 crash is welcome.

          • “Solid *evidence* of the cause of the China 737 crash is welcome.”

            Really NOBODY posting here has access to that information.

            But we have a rich set of reports where later upcoming information tainted the “clear” judgement ( often egged on by US reps.)

          • @ Uwe

            Yes, indeed, nobody here has access to that info.
            But the BA back office automatically switches into “pilot blaming mode” in such instances 🤔

          • Its circumstantial evidence so far , sudden dives from high altitude could point to pilot deliberate action…based on profiles of similar ‘swan dives’ investigated fully , but could be other causes too.

          • Who sabotaged the NS1? It’s the Russians … but could be others too. 🤣

      • “Our system is better as the NTSB is not part of the FAA and we get their honest assessment.”

        Ah, yes…as with the report into the Turkish Airlines Amsterdam crash, where pressure was exerted on the Dutch accident investigation board to modify their findings in BA’s favor…

        • Yes, the New York Times did a fine, extended article on that.
          I’ll see if I can find the link, as a help to others with less-good memories.

          • I apologize: I normally post links, but was in a hurry this morning when I posted this remark.
            Pedro has provided relevant links below, as you saw.

  14. “Boeing won’t want surplus 777 Classics in the market as passenger airplanes. The answer is to convert them to freighters.”

    I fail to see the logic in that statement.

    Those Aircraft are going to be there regardless of what Boeing wants. There is the conversion time factor and demand for the PCF.

    And if those airlines are moving to a 787, why would they want a 777 any longer than they have to.

    The only way Boeing controls anything is to buy the 777s outright and then park them when done.

    Clearly the dedicated F market has peaked and is in the downslide.

    Maybe FedEx is back in the game looking for lower cost 777PCF that can replace the MD-11 at less than full boat price for a 777F (or even some 777F as they have hit a profit wall).

    • FedEx is parking its aircraft in view of the slump. Orders more long haul freighters under great economic uncertainty? What da “great” idea!

    • More data point

      Amazon Looks to Sell Excess Air Cargo Space as Demand Cools

  15. Bill7

    …”Boeing/FAA auto-discrédité s’occuper du travail ?…”

    Argument exceeded by reality. We are no longer in 2019 but in 2023

    It’s time to get out of the freezer…

    (!) The point is that “Zoom” had argued the possibility of China ordering 737MAX including MAX-10.

    This is still valid until proven otherwise…

    • ”Boeing/FAA auto-discrédité s’occuper du travail ?…”

      Still machine-translating everything here on LNA to/from French?
      That explains a lot 😉

    • “valid until proven otherwise …”

      Will work. There’s nothing toxic or pollutes (or dangerous like the MCAS) until proven otherwise!!

  16. Bryce,

    “…Poor AAB will throw an impressive tantrum if his 787s are late — he has no other option at this stage…”
    Continue in exaggerated statements to minimize or hide the problems of CFRP skins of the A350…
    Is it the tree that hides the forest?

    (!) Always objective, that’s good. “Boeing is not going well. The others are doing wonderfully”…

  17. Judge O’Connor just issued charges over the two Max crashes to Boeing overturning the D.O.J deal.

      • There’s nothing wrong when the government sides with Big Corps

        Apparently that’s how *modern* capitalism works: privatize the profits, socialize the bailouts.

        • Sadly that is how the world works and always has. It goes back to the dawn of time.

          Boeing got away with the 737 Rudder issue as well. People are lucky that the Lauda Air crash was not repeated before Nicki got it proved as to the cause.

          The Maconda blowout is an example of regulatory capture and the catastrophic results.

          We can only fight it as best we can and hope things change.

          • Aren’t they “democratically” elected with no conflicting interests or outside influence, ensuring the best for the people they serve?? That’s democracy, right? Isn’t this what the U.S. preach to the world???

  18. Looks like we finally know what’s delaying the Air India deal:
    “Air India’s Mega Jet Deal With Airbus, Boeing Held Up by Engine-Cost Debate”

    “(Bloomberg) — Air India Ltd.’s order for as many as 500 aircraft from Airbus SE and Boeing Co. is being held up by an impasse with engine makers powering the 737 Max, dragging out what stands to be one of the biggest single purchases in civil aviation history.

    “CFM International, the General Electric Co. and Safran SA joint venture, is reluctant to offer big discounts on engines and maintenance that typically accompany mega orders, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The deadlock centers on the hourly rates Air India would pay for repairs, said one of the people, asking not to be identified as the deliberations are private.”

    “CFM is the sole supplier of engines for the Boeing 737 aircraft family, while Airbus’s A320 can be powered by either CFM or Pratt models. Air India’s management has largely completed work on the Airbus portion of the deal, although it’s still finalizing details, including the split of models, some of the people said.”

  19. Planespotters data is showing today that — so far — only one Chinese airline (China Southern) has returned the MAX to service…and it’s flying only 3 frames.

    Every other MAX in China is shown as being “parked”.

    • A journey starts with a single step.

      China Southern may need airlift sooner than others

      It takes time both to pull from storage and to train pilots.

      What we do know is Airlines don’t do 3 of anything, its not worth it, scheduling alone precludes it.

      Speculation: China Southern has been elected to take the in China MAX fleet while others get the A320 series deliveries. It makes sense to do so for concentration of training and pilots in one Airline.

      That also defers a political decision on further MAX buy.

      The fun part is that a while ago MAX was not certified to fly in China, now its “only 3” and then its????????????

      • Let’s wait until after the Chinese New Year celebrations in a week’s time…we may well see “3” dropping back to “zero” 😏

        • Thanks for that . That site often has very good background stories. And some good predictions ( better crystal ball)
          ‘the running theory once again became that certification of the Boeing 737 MAX would ultimately be tied to the certification of the COMAC C919, which is China’s attempt to gain market share on the Chinese market, and that’s exactly what happened and I did point this out various times including more recently in October’
          Which happened exactly like he said !

          Sad to see the Max deniers still clinging to flimsy excuses for chinese airlines not putting the MAX planes they paid for and are sitting around back to work. Like the rest of the world domestic demand for flying quickly rebounds after the covid restrictions eased.
          China Southern has 24 max they accepted , Air China has 16, the others very few which they wont bother putting back in service

          • Another Damascene conversion!
            I remember a time when you regularly derided Mr. Bechai here 😏

            Perhaps it’s time to do some research on the difference between “coincidence” and “causality” 🤔

            I wonder what Mr. Bechai would say if he knew that only 3 MAXs are currently being used in China…? Hardly what can be called an RTS.
            He should read more LNA!

          • And the fun part is we get to see what happens over the next few months.

            There is another factor here but have to avoid that as it gets into political but as we have seen, you can change a policy on a dime in certain types of systems.

            Love watching the progression, no MAX at all certified, then well its only MIAT and they don’t count, well its only China Southern and they don’t count and ……………………………………………………….

          • @ TW
            It’s a little bit more complicated than that, isn’t it?

            MIAT came — but then it went away again (just 4 flights).

            Most people wouldn’t call that ” progression” 😉

          • MIAT is using *every day* EI-MNG, its only Max, for longer flights to other Asian destinations such as Bangkok or Phuket.

            Mongolia being a landlocked country, its going to cross Chinese airspace to fly to Thailand from the capital

            So the idea that Max was *only 4 times* in Chinese airspace is laughable, and just another fabrication

          • @DoU
            TW’s reference to MIAT was as regards its 4 flights to a destination *in China* (Guangzhou) last year.

            We’re not talking about overflights here — but, seeing as you bring up the subject, can you show us some flight tracker route data for these alleged MAX flights between Mongolia and Thailand?

            Presumably you’ll able to provide this data before the fabled ABC retraction comes 😏

          • Any flight tracker will show all flights , once you know the registration or flight number. MIAT only has a very small fleet so not hard to know their movements.
            Like I said the 737 Max is flying everyday, so must be crossing Chinese airspace and the tracker I used showed it doing so on route to Thailand .
            I suppose the winters in Mongolia are hard so flights to resorts , which are also Buddhist country are attractive

            Your doctrinaire upbringing which doesnt accept anything but what the party says is too obvious.

          • Well, Ryanair’s flights last autumn DUB-EIN were conducted on MAX-8200s … but flight trackers indicated that 737-800s were being used.
            One can only wonder why.
            Seems flight trackers aren’t always reliable 😏

            Summarizing, then:
            – 3 MAXs are flying within China.
            – 1 MAX is regularly overflying China.

            A truly stunning level of deployment 🙈

          • ” … which are also Buddhist country are attractive”

            Lol. Rome is attractive for the Eastern Orthodox because of the St Peter’s Basilica!?! Ask what the Mongolians say, expert!

          • Eastern orthodox Russians seem to prefer Cyprus , amoung others, its an orthodox country and also very important, time zones roughly match those in western Russia.

            Mongolians seem to avoid closer tropical type resorts in say Chinas Hainan Is but a small airline with only a few planes flys a regular rotations a couple times per week to Bangkok and or Phuket . Why is that ?
            Its single widebody goes to Europe or say Turkey

            Where do you holiday Pedro, the motherland ?

          • “As Mongolian who lived in Thailand for about 3 years. I can tell that we are quite close to each other in all matters, whatever it is: culture, mentality or appearance. When I came to Thailand I didn’t feel that I’m in a foreign country, only the climate was much warmer and food is more spicy, but the traditions and customs, probably during the Buddhist roots, are quite similar. Also by appearance I found that its quite easy for me to merge into the crowd, especially here in Bangkok, since a lot Thai people originate from East Asia (Yunnan or Northern China), so I often don’t feel myself as a foreigner. ”

            I did not read this till now , but I was pretty close , …must be my crystal ball again, unlike our […….. ] closed minds

          • “since a lot Thai people originate from East Asia (Yunnan or Northern China)”

            Sure Jane. Lol. Do you know what’s GIGO?? 🤫

          • Our poster has no idea that the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lol.

          • So it’s Jan 24, how many 737 MAX are currently flying domestic routes in China? We should have an answer by now.

    • Hi Bryce,

      Many here talk a lot but without any indepth look and only speculate or even fantasize (remember the talk of “bidding war” of those remarketed 737 MAX or the wishful thinking that those stored 737 MAXs are “as good as” *cash* 🤣 )?? How does it match with reality? 🤔

      I came across this:
      Only three came out from storage, and both you and I are fully aware of how many hours of work it takes to get aircraft out of long-term storage (it’s been almost four years Oh my).

      • The Boing 737MAX is the finest commercial passenger aircraft
        to have ever graced the skies. Of that I have no doubt.

        • A “Gesinnungsaufsatz”. but from you ? :-)))

          ( I am aware of undercurrent info getting stripped while traversing the internet :-)))

      • Hi Pedro,

        Fascinating! And those three MAXs came out of storage last October — and no more since then?
        It will be very interesting to see what happens after Chinese New Year celebrations end next week…

        • Inviting the press for uncorking 3 frames
          looking busy as hell.
          Wait for public attention moving elsewhere
          and fall back to sleep.

          In sum: project the image of being attentive, successful, to gain shareholder benevolence.

          • Far beyond the mark.
            Chip design doesn’t work that way.

            compiler toolchains fit any high level programming language to any ( sufficiently capable for the task ) command set target.
            ( look at the range of platforms Linux and GNU systems have been ported to.)
            The issue is terribly done “proprietary” software by commercial entities that took the Boeing/Microsoft way of designing. ( here: hardcoded gimmicks that only fit one instruction set )


    Ryanair’s Renewed Max 10 Talks with Boeing ‘Going Nowhere’

  21. I have watching the NASA contract to Boeing on the TBW. I had wondered about the full scale part. Fuselage from and MD-90.

    The Air Current is behind a paywall sadly but you can see the general details

    Clearly this is what Calhoun is hanging his hat on. Of course he will be long gone before this comes to fruition (or not)

    It is one of two promising technologies that would break at least the single aisle aerodynamics open a bit.

    I like the part that NASA has finally gone all in on Boeing, they should be supporting the US in its endeavors.

    • Just as well Boeing has those big autoclaves for the 777X wing.

      But the numbers in Aircurrent only suggest the TBW gives only 9% fuel burn reduction on its own which *could* go to 30% with new ‘propulsion and system architectures’ [unspecified]

      of course NASA has to work on new airliner tech with Boeing as they are the only US airliner manufacturer. Thats what happened in the 90s when NASA had Boeing do a research project on wide body carbon fibre fuselage barrel.

      • The key here is that they will add the wing to a fuselage and test a full scale article.

        I have followed the NASA series and its always been based on a GTF engine.

        Clearly P&W could bring a new core and efficiency gains to an engine like that as a result of the learning curve they have been on as well as the on going materials that can be used in a hotter core.

        Now what Calhoun actually thinks is debatable, frankly I believe he is using it as a Fig Leaf.

        Those longer wings pose an issue on gates as well. I am not sure a folding wing works on something in that size and you have to avoid control areas like they did with the 777X.

        • Also most advantages would come on longer flights , say US transcon or similar.
          Not going to help the masses of short haul 1 -3 hrs, which the terminal gates wouldnt allow anyway

    • What did Calhoun say last year?
      -> “Calhoun declared that […] he won’t support a new airplane until the next decade when a new engine that can reduce fuel consumption by at least 20% is ready”.
      Are we there yet?? 🙄
      The project looks to complete no earlier than 2030. A clean sheet design takes another six, seven or eight years. Circa 2040?? Yup.

      Hey Airbus’ 321 plus plus would probably finish the MAX.

  22. Wow no need to spy or steal any more. Time for “fun”.
    FG: Technical F-15 and F-16 documents leaked in online gaming forum

  23. Oh dear — a bad day for Qatar at the London High Court:

    “UK Court Demands Qatar Airways Produce Evidence Of QCAA Grounding Airbus A350s.”

    “Qatar Airways has been given a deadline of 13 weeks to produce correspondence between itself and the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) relating to the grounding of the Airbus A350. Qatar Airways has always maintained that the QCAA has forced its hand on the A350 issue, revoking Airworthiness Review Certificates on 22 aircraft and effectively grounding them from operations.

    “According to notes from the case shared with Simple Flying, Judge David Waksman expressed frustration that, despite repeated requests for Qatar to produce this information, still nothing was forthcoming, saying that the idea that there was no communication between the QCAA and Qatar Airways was ‘absurd’.

    “Now, it sounds like Waksman has had enough. He demanded that either the evidence be presented on April 21st, or that a witness statement from Al Baker be submitted stating that no evidence exists. Without evidence to back up their arguments, the Qataris now face elements of their claim being struck out or, ultimately, the entire case being thrown out of court. Waksman concluded:
    “If those gaps [in the evidence] remain and cannot be explained, especially as Mr Al Baker apparently is not giving evidence, then they [Airbus] will make an application that I should draw an adverse inference, either in relation to his absence or in relation to documentary absence, and there is very well-developed case law as far as that goes.””

    • Chutzpah:

      > Boeing and >>the DOJ<< have opposed the airlines’ challenges, saying European regulator EASA caused the financial damages by ordering the grounding. <

      "If EASA had not grounded our single-sensor-MCAS-triggered, 346-person-killing-in-two-separate-accidents Boeing 737MAX, none of this would've happened."

      No further comment at this time.

        • I think that the US “Department of Justice” [sometimes referred to as the Department of Just-Us] running interference for- and advocating for- a very large supra-nation corporation is noteworthy. There’s a descriptive word for that phenomenon, and it starts with ‘F’.

        • -> “More than a dozen relatives of people killed in two Boeing 737 MAX crashes plan to speak Thursday at a federal court arraignment for the planemaker in Texas

  24. Even 777X customers has now started to ponder when is their delivery, rework their fleet plan for coming years.

    • Reuters:
      [EASA] has been seen at odds with Boeing for more than a year over changes that it wants to see in the flight controls of the latest version of the 777 – one of the factors contributing to a cumulative five-year delay, according to industry sources.

      • EASA isnt a ‘customer’ who can specify nice to haves.
        They are regulatory who leave it up to the company to meet the previous standards in any way they see fit.
        Of course delays over the rigorousness of the software writing process can catch any business, be it banking or commercial processes let alone flight decks

        Maybe EASA could look at that popular single aisle with outdated software that doesnt inform pilots that AOA can disagree or even worse , ignore the 1 incorrect channel and blindly accept 2 channels that are incorrect and all the while the pilots are mislead in thinking they can do no harm as the FBW ‘has their back’. Instead it can take them into the drink.
        Something from 45 years ago isnt ‘ failsafe’ any more than a plane from 55 years back

          • “Boeing has warned regulators that having two systems provided by two separate suppliers running in parallel would risk new problems by adding complexity, the sources said.”

            This is at the core of the Airbus FBW solution from the get go.
            (x86 and 68K CPUs running in parallel.)

            Interesting what Boeing design shortcuts get some exposure now. My guess would be that there is more to come.

        • “EASA isnt a ‘customer’ who can specify nice to haves.
          They are regulatory who leave it up to the company to meet the previous standards in any way they see fit.”

          FAA is no longer a reliable lead in checking for conformance. EASA has to supervise and recheck.

          and it is “.. to meet the _current_ standards ..”

          .. and there are (longtime) established solution to the issue at hand. Which EASA seems to have pointed out.

  25. BCA full year loss reaches $2.4 billion
    Operating margin -9.2%

    Confirms it sells planes at a loss.

    • Yes — no surprises there.
      154 deliveries in Q4, but still more than $600M loss for BCA in that quarter — and there were no one-offs in that Q4, so the loss is purely/structurally operational in nature.

Leave a Reply

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