HOTR: Boeing slammed in absentia at conference

By the Leeham News Team

Feb. 9, 2023, © Leeham News: Boeing wasn’t present, but that didn’t stop a succession of speakers and suppliers from slamming the company during the annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance this week in Lynnwood (WA).

Boeing boycotted the conference for the second year in a row. In October 2021, Boeing withdrew from the February 2022 conference over an alleged sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a woman against the then-executive director of PNAA and against the organization. The lawsuit was settled out of court and the executive director today is a woman. But Boeing declined to return to the conference this year.

Boeing’s absence was roundly criticized by suppliers on the sidelines of the conference. The suppliers complained about Boeing’s payment policies (deferring payment to them for 90-120 days) after years of cutting prices under Boeing’s Partnering for Success. They also complained bitterly about Boeing’s lack of transparency and frequently changing production plans. Boeing should have been at the conference to face them and communicate with them.

Kevin Michaels, managing director of Aerodynamic Advisory, is a supply chain expert. For many years, he criticized Boeing’s approach toward the supply chain. Tuesday wasn’t any different. He once again criticized Boeing for its treatment of the supply chain. Noting that suppliers, mainly Tiers 1 and 2, went through “Partnering for Poverty 1 and 2” cutting prices, Boeing then promised payment terms of 30 days. In subsequent days, payments stretched to 60 days, 90 days, and now up to 120 days. Coupled with the 737 MAX grounding, 787 delivery suspension, and the COVID pandemic, the extended payment terms put additional stress on the suppliers.

In terms unusually blunt for Michaels in this forum, he predicted it will not be long before “the shit hits the fan.”

Boeing’s standing

Michaels also displayed the results of a December 2022 suppliers survey by aerospace analyst Ken Herbert ranking the production confidence level of 11 airframe and engine manufactures. Boeing ranked seventh, followed by all the engine OEMs. Boeing’s rival in commercial aviation, Airbus, ranked second.

A confidence survey by aerospace analyst Ken Herbert in December ranks Boeing seventh out of 11. Credit: Aerodynamic Advisory.

“My message is, if [Boeing] could do one thing to help secure your supply chain, change your payment terms. Take them back down to 30 days. That’s an instant injection of working capital,” Michaels said. The usually staid audience burst into applause.

Poor leadership

Richard Aboulafia, Michaels’ partner, is a master of the quip. His barbs are often without mercy and without favor, nailing Airbus, Boeing, and when it was still in commercial aviation, Bombardier. He was unusually blunt about Boeing’s leadership on Wednesday.

Discussing Boeing’s lopsided No. 2 position of the 737 vs the Airbus A321, Aboulafia displayed a bar chart in which he said “that giant middle finger just keeps getting bigger and bigger.” He continued to say that Boeing has a “complete abdication of leadership.” He suggested that Boeing should go to the library to get the [fictional] book, “Leadership for Dummies.”

Michaels, Aboulafia, consultant Michel Merluzeau, and aerospace analyst Ron Epstein roundly criticized Boeing for failing to proceed with a new airplane. Epstein is a rare voice in the analyst community placing a priority on product development rather than on shareholder value.

Related article

Leaving Boeing

On the sidelines, several suppliers told LNA that they are leaving or reducing Boeing exposure because of its erratic production guidance or lack of transparency. (One supplier said so from the PNAA stage.) One supplier told LNA that Airbus was more informative and, despite its own cost-cutting requirements, was easier and friendlier to work with.

Bottom line

The bottom line is that Boeing has a lot of fence-mending to do with its supply chain—including returning to PNAA to interact with them here.

214 Comments on “HOTR: Boeing slammed in absentia at conference

  1. It looks like Boeing’s suppliers are not any happier thn their customers.. can they make
    up for that by essentially giving their aircraft
    away [once they have all their QC and FOD and safety issues sorted, of course] ?

    We’ll see how it goes.

  2. The Truth hurts, but unfortunately, BA does not seem to get the message, and is prone to get worse with their contractual compliances with their loyal Suppliers.

  3. I’d like to say I’m stunned about this but once again this is typical Boeing arrogance. Stan “let’s make a’ Deal is thumbing his nose.
    Sad but true.

    This supplier culture started with McNerney and basically his edict was/is, treat suppliers like Walmart treats theirs, drive to them hard. This is the GE Jack Welch school of thought for his protégés.

    With apologies to Walmart.
    None of this surprises me.

    • Yes. For some time now Boeing has been run by a clique of ex-GE Welch clones, who juice the stock price by eliminating R&D and slashing costs regardless of long term impacts.
      Their goal is cash extraction. The stock owners who support them are not really investors, a better name would be “outvestors”, cause it’s all about taking money out of the company not putting new money in. They are not investing in the future of the product line, they are cashing out investments made 20-40 years ago. It’s like a reverse mortgage.

      • The management philosophy of these Welch clones is a prescription for shrinking any business over time. Logically then, these people should be in charge of an industry that society wants to kill off, eg, coal-fired power plants, oil companies, or some kind of toxic polluter.
        What would happen if this guys took over Shell Oil? They would immediately eliminate R&D spending and spend that money on stock buybacks. In this industry R&D is exploration for new oil deposits. With no new oil wells, in 20 years the existing ones are all tapped out, so everyone can turn out the land go home. But in those 20 years 100% of cash flow went to buybacks and driving the stock up.
        Boeing stockholders have essentially hired Calhoun to cash out of the business of commercial aviation.

        • > Boeing stockholders have essentially hired Calhoun to cash out of the business of commercial aviation. <

          This sentence seems to fit the facts pretty well.

          For how long did Boeing / Calhoun claim they were right on the brink of launching a New Aircraft- and with *plenty of media PR support* for that claim? Then, suddenly: "nah, just kidding! Maybe around 2035.." [i.e., never] ..

          • Vincent.
            The backtracking on the new airplane development happened for a logical reason. BA was trying to find engineers with the specific talents to do a new program. Those people are rare and BA couldn’t staff up to do a new program. It was a correct decision to change directions on a new program because proceeding without great talent would be the start of another failure BA couldn’t afford. We may not like it, but Calhoun making that call was correct. If you continue with looking at what he did, focusing on fixing the current problems by moving the engineering help available in PD is also logical. Adding a 4th line as the first step in expanding the 737 rate is also a logical low capital move. There are some things actually moving in the correct direction compared to the Mongolian Cluster it was 3 years ago. There’s a pile of stuff to be critical of, but it is a tad bit intellectually dishonest not to note that which is positive…….

          • @PNWgeek

            You’re not wrong, about the steps being taken….now.

            If Calhoun had just walked in the door, was new to the company and started making these decisions – it would be one thing.

            However, he’s been there since 2009. From wiki:

            ‘Since 2009, Calhoun has served as a director at Boeing, and was named lead independent director in 2018.[6] In October 2019, he was named chairman of Boeing in the wake of the Boeing 737 MAX groundings,[4][7] and on December 23, 2019, he stepped down as chairman in preparation for becoming Boeing’s CEO and president, effective January 13, 2020.’

            He’s been pulling the (Muilenberg) strings behind the curtains, all along.

            ‘In 2020, Boeing had a historically bad year, reporting a $12 billion loss and laying off 30,000 workers. At the same time, Calhoun earned $21.1 million in compensation’

            It took years to get BA to the C-F you mentioned, didn’t just happen overnight. He…was (at least, partly) the problem.

            Whether Boeing can recover from what happened, is another story. Airbus is building a $10 billion rainy day fund. Boeing has to pay $2.5 billion annually in interest expense, because of a $52 billion LTD load, which happened on his watch.

            Steps in the right direction? Sure.

            But he’s one of the guys who tickled the tail of the dragon with the screwdriver and irradiated the whole company – in the first place.

            (Do you like the Manhattan Project reference?)

          • None of it addresses stiffing your contractors and treating them like dirt.

            Those are the people whose success you count on.

            I won’t say its the lowest you can go but it is clearly dealing from the bottom of the deck.

            You can’t keep your own house clean so you make a mess in someone else’s.

            Calhoun had major input in creating the monster. A Broken watch can be right twice in a day (or once if you go with 24 hour time!)

          • Directors dont ‘run a company’. Thats the CEO. Plus for Boeing the CEO was also the Chairman, which means the directors had more in common with puppets, especially those hand picked for for their ability to be seconders for the Chairmans board resolutions

      • Calhoun is a private equity guy.

        Milk the place and flip it. Spend your weekends in the Hamptons.

        • @PNWgeek
          “…Boeing was trying to find engineers with the specific skills for a new program but those people are rare…”

          Wow! All I can say is, Dude, what have you been smoking?
          Boeing has spent the last 5-6 years encouraging its most experienced (and best paid( engineers to leave. Most of my friends took the Golden handshake and got out. One of my buddies told me back in 2016 they had a engineering All-Hands meeting where they were told “the Boeing product like is now mature”…so we don’t need people for product development.
          If Boeing can’t find people with the skills to develop a new plane, I say the solution is simple, stop looking in India and other third world countries and start looking here in the US. A good place to start would be all the people you let leave over the last 5 years.
          Bottom line: Calhoun’s decision not to launch had nothing to do with availability of people, it was driven by his not wanting to spend $15 billion on development that he will spend on stock buybacks instead.

      • 100% agree, but here is something for everyone to think on. The UK and US have been in negotiations for a trade deal since Brexit. One of the conditions for the US is that the UK become apart of the Boeing system, and leave Airbus. If that happens, or the EU breaks apart, Airbus is done, and Boeing will be the only one left standing.

        • But Britain has nothing to do with Airbus – the usually short-sighted governmental system decided it needed some cash and sold out. All that Britain provides Airbus is wings made by a private company. So your fears (or hopes) are irrational.

          • « All that Britain provides Airbus is wings made by a private company. »

            The wings are made by Airbus in the UK since BAe sold its stake to Airbus in 2006.

        • ‘One of the conditions for the US is that the UK become apart of the Boeing system, ‘

          IF….it even mattered, because of the small footprint Airbus has in the UK, could you please provide a source and link for exactly what you are claiming?


          • As near as I can remember, the UK is a dues paying member of the Free Lunch group.

            Boeing does not launch any new aircraft with its Free Lunch.

        • Thats completely false claim that a US trade deal would *require* ‘Britain to leave Airbus’

          US company Spirit is a big supplier to Airbus ( A220 and A350) as well as Boeing. Airbus has suppliers outside Europe too.

          Would EU require Italys Alenia to leave the Boeing 787 structures as well.
          As others point out Britain as a government never joined the Airbus consortium at the beginning ( a private company Hawker Siddeley provided wing design and construction but not with UK state aid). France Germany and Spain are smaller shareholders in Airbus today , but not UK ( never was).
          Wing production was sold by BAE to Airbus and another UK company GKN

          Its quite laugable the nonsense some in US believe about EU and Airbus , forgetting the tie ins with GE and Frances Safran and Avio in Italy, or Alenia in Italy with Boeing.

  4. Boeing is desperately trying to work through a historic crisis and finally appears to be turning the ship around.
    These attacks and jabs are petty and fail to recognize that Boeing has been for decades the reason for the survival of these suppliers.

    Give Boeing a break and a little time to recover and I am sure they will start doing the heavy lifting again.

    • No they won’t. The only thing they are interested in lifting is the short term stock price. Not interested in lifting anything else. So don’t fly in their planes, just buy the stock.

    • Small suppliers have to sacrifice themselves for the big Corp.

      Just wait til “the sh*t hits the fan”.

    • Boeings crisis is of their own making. For years they have overplayed their hand, now things are coming back to them. Because they are at the top of the supply chain, they bear the responsibility for the supply chain failures happening today driven by extended payment terms, repricing exercises and unreliable build rates. I wish them luck but they need some self reflection on how their actions directly led to their situation today.

      • I still say some of the big stakeholders, the big stockholders the pension funds have to put their foot down, and hire people that want to build planes, not these bleed the company till it collapses types.

    • “Give Boeing a break”
      They have had many breaks, most recently US Congress granting them certification exemptions for the mad max -7 and -10.

      The execs have squandered this once great aerospace company.
      Speaking of breaks all is quiet on the 777X flight test program. Hummmm. A program that’s now running into 6 years behind schedule.
      Yeah right….. heavy lifting.

        • Hey PNWgeek

          Big deal it’s flying. Where’s the TIA? If you even know what this is?
          It’s still six years late…..or later.

          Pathetic for a DA program.

          • Airdoc said.

            “Hey PNWgeek
            Big deal it’s flying. Where’s the TIA? If you even know what this is?”

            CLEARLY you were unaware the Trip7X was flying AND you made no mention of TIA in your sparky disrespectful reply. Perhaps you should learn how to say “thank you for pointing that out” instead of attempting to pivot when you don’t get it right…… If you wish to talk about TIA, we can do that, but dragging that into the conversation when it wasn’t there to begin with is ungentlemanly. Have a great day……..

          • @ Scott Correa

            Airdoc’s retort was perfectly relevant, and in no way “disrespectful”.

            No point in “flying” without a TIA — because, without a TIA, such “flying” will never actually lead to the bottom line here, i.e. certification.

          • Bryce….
            It is/was disrespectful in that he was bashing my understanding of TIA withought any knowlege of my background or capabilities. Second, he, and you for that matter are making the mistake that ONLY TIA test hours are useful. That view is of course is wrong as illustrated by the engine problems discovered ON THE WING while flying engine durability and compatabiliy tests not associated with FAA flight tests hours. Many systems tests are run far outside the certification test minimums. Take the FBW system for example. It has to have its actual flight control responses flown, validated and fine tuned before you submit the vehiclen to certification testing.. Test flying before entering into the cert process is quite common. Airdocs glossing over the very basics that he doesnt fully understand to bash me is terribly disappointing……

          • “777X flying hours”

            We don’t know what hoops Boeing has still to jump through before passing the gate into TIA land.

            Discussion style: less emo stuff, more facts please. ( some choice comments are really from lala land. )

          • @ Scott Correa

            “It is/was disrespectful in that he was bashing my understanding of TIA withought any knowlege of my background or capabilities”

            How could he have been bashing *your* knowledge of anything when his comment was explicitly directed to PNWgeek…?

          • Bryce.
            Paying it forward man…… Remember when Airdoc was bashing me, calling me a Boeing Executive on one hand and then questioning if I was ever even at Boeing? Another writer posted my article on the Chicago DC10 crash published in LNA listing my industry background and experience. I got a 1 word apology from Airdoc. Well I’m paying that forward now. PNWgeek got excessively bashed and I stepped in for him suggesting that we could talk about TIA if he wished to do that. You then came back to ME saying (Bryce said) “No point in “flying” without a TIA — because, without a TIA, such “flying” will never actually lead to the bottom line here, i.e. certification”. My bad for lumping you two together and typing he instead of you and confusing you, but that doesn’t diminish facts. My point is ABSOLUTELY on target, Both of you skip the fact that many development flight hours are flown for many things such as Engine reliability/compatibility, FBW validation, systems integration and on and on. Why don’t we get this back on point and discuss how flying the airplane has great value even if TIA has not been granted, because ALL HOURS FLOWN, support the end goal of aircraft certification.

          • Wheres the proof TIA hasnt been issued by FAA after the ‘pause ‘ nearly a year ago ?

            Anyway 777X test flights CAN occur under a LOA or a TIA

            ”500. Flight Test Planning. All flight testing and evaluations conducted by FAA personnel will be done under the authority of either a Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) or a Letter of Authorization (LOA) signed at the appropriate management level…”
            Theres also other evaluations Boeing can flight test without the FAA

            What does the car boot flight test engineer say about that

  5. It appears that @Bryce and @Frank’s analysis of Boeing’s latest quarterly report (Q4 2022) with regards to how they reported improved their cash flow (FCF) was spot on. They pointed out that Boeing appeared to have deferred paying it bills to supplier which was showing up in the increase in the current liabilities on the balance sheet. There were many commentators in the forum who disputed their analysis. Thanks to all of you in the forum who take the time to dissect the various company financial reports released to the public and give informed opinions on the happening in the aviation industry.

    • The money turns faster if payments are made at the same time the goods pass Receiving inspections, services are made or hired hours are signed. That way the same $ moves much quicker thru the system benefitting the whole chain.
      Having a sound relationship with owners, employees, customers, government and its branches (including IRS) and suppliers is key to running a long term business (like Mercedes, except for their spare parts business).

      • Boeing has created “unexpectedly good numbers”
        in quarterly reporting by way of (stealthily) moving advance payments from customers left and deferring/moving right paying liabilities.

        that process is a one way street ( actually a cul de sac as an additional florish :-).
        imagine the dust kicked up when they reverse that process ( even just on the OEM payments side.)

        • Thank you Brana and Uwe , you are absolutely correct on the liabilities thing.

          Many tout the ‘cash flow’ mantra. There is one other place that you can generate cash from; debt.

          Boeing went from $10.6 billion in LTD at the end of 2018, to $51.8 billion in LTD, at the end of 2022.

          Sure – cash looks good. But you 1) gotta pay interest on that money and 2) gotta pay it back.

          Don’t even get me started on the $137 billion in assets and the $153 billion in liabilities.

          • slightly beyond the finish line. 🙂
            I’ve read that a managers perfect dream is to form a company into having zero assets in sum.
            all value balanced by dept.
            ( actually the “Zero Point Energy” thing.
            profits from zero value.)

        • ‘by way of (stealthily) moving advance payments from customers left and deferring/moving right paying liabilities.’

          Thats might get you one or two Qtrs , but they are predicting a couple of years of good cash flow

          Call your car boot accountant to see what he says now

          • “Thats might get you one or two Qtrs”

            Obviously 🙂

            So you have to invent some new sociopathic move every quarter. That is Boeing!
            ( and it works. Behave to the rpatterns of a sociopath and the share holder universe loves you.
            Unfortunately there is no return path. The hounds of Wall Street nip your heels if you ever try to turn.)

          • Borrowing $40+ billion also increases the amount of cash they have, doesn’t it?

            My accountant would ask “So when are you going to start earning a profit? It’s been 4 years now – you planning on that happening any time soon?”

            Just in case you forgot, being so wrapped up in cash flow, a profit is what is earned after you sell something, then subtract your expenses and end up with a number in the positive integers.

            How is that going for BCA and Boeing? Some would say that it’s kinda important…

          • Won’t it be nice that every co. has the same magic wand (accounting black box) from BA?

            Losing money quarter after quarter: Q3 $(3.3 billion); Q4 $(0.7 billion)
            but able to generate the much touted FCF non-stop: Q3 $3 billion; Q4 $3 billion.

            However, the guidance from BA for 2023 is only a relative paltry amount of $4 billion FCF (ave.) for the *whole year*. It seems BA has run out of rabbits to pull out of its hat, at least for 2023!!

    • @ Brana
      Thank you for your kind acknowledgement.

      @ Frank
      There’s been $5.1B of short term debt on the books since the end of Q1 2022 — which means that it’s going to have to be paid off within the next 12 months. That will make a nice hole in available cash…

      • Addendum: the short-term debt is actually now due for repayment within 2 months.

  6. Does General Dynamics have any civil activities?
    In their primary(sole?) domain of activity they are probably floating on gilded milk.

      • Uwe.
        I’m not sure what the breakdown is, perhaps Frank will check it out. I’m an airplane guy, not an accountant and I’d hate to get numbers wrong when others are better at that… Enjoy the day

        • Oh thanks. Push it off on the numbers guy, huh?


          Well, a little look-see won’t hurt.

          The last financials available were the 2021 numbers. General Dynamics had Revenues of $38.469 billion, Operating Earnings of $4.163 billion and an operating margin of 10.8%.

          (they also returned $1.3 billion in dividends and spent $1.8 billion on buybacks…)

          Aerospace segment revenue was $8.135 billion ($5.864 in manufacturing and $2.271 in services) which was 21% of consolidated revenue in 2021. Same percentage in 2020. Down from 25% in 2019.

          $8.135 in 2021
          $8.075 in 2020
          $9.801 in 2019

          Marine was 27% of revenues (mostly the new Virginia subs)

          Combat systems was 19%.

          Technology was 33%.

          70% all of revenues were from the US Gov’t.

          Margin in aerospace was a healthy 12.7% with 119 Gulfstream jets delivered.

          If anyone else wants to have a gander:

  7. Sorry to be off-topic but is there a reason LNA is totally silent about the settlement between Qatar and Airbus?
    This is really major news but no word on LNA

    • @Carl: Simply reporting what Reuters and Bloomberg already reporting isn’t adding to anything. We’ve been trying to get information that’s not been reported but so far without success.


      • Any cross link into the Qatar denigrations in EU media in scope of the Soccer tournament there, bribery sdandal .. . Went silent rather abruptly ~~end of January.

  8. Airdoc,

    “…With apologies to Walmart.
    None of this surprises me….”
    Lol! You compare Boeing to Walmart, but you apologize to Walmart,
    but not Boeing, although they are condemnable…

    I don’t understand your feeling,
    This (strange) move of making Boeing the only witch to burn at the stake
    and forgiving others is something I can’t buy into and understand…

  9. “Boeing is desperately trying to work through a historic crisis and finally appears to be turning the ship around.
    These attacks and jabs are petty and fail to recognize that Boeing has been for decades the reason for the survival of these suppliers.”

    Fouad is touching an interesting topic, Boeing’s supply chain. I think suppliers such as Collins and GE/CFM are the places much of the innovation came from. As Kevin stated, P4S drained a lot of suppliers in return.

    Maybe suppliers around Collins & Spirit should unite, sit with Washington policy makers and set some long term strategic goals, if Boeing isn’t able.

    Boeing got a lot of support over the last 20 years but basically consumed it. With politicians/voters and stockholders cheering on the sidelines..

  10. One supplier told LNA that Airbus was more informative and, despite its own cost-cutting requirements, was easier and friendlier to work with.

    LOL, that is too funny. On other “sources”, customers and suppliers are finding Airbus not to be the same company when it was a scrappy #2. Times have changed.

    • @Williams: You’re not wrong but remember, the context is a comparison with Boeing.

    • Who’s the current scrappy #2? Times have changed. Haven’t received the memo??

      • Exclusive: ‘Airbus tells A320 suppliers to cut prices 10 percent by 2019 in order to make its main cash cow’ ….more profitable

        ‘Airbus SE is pushing suppliers on its A220 jetliner programme to renegotiate contracts and reduce the price of parts to help slash costs and turn the former Bombardier Inc. model profitable.’

        thats is they sold production slots for higher prices than production costs

        • And yet, Airbus scored number 2 in the “suppliers’ favorite” poll cited in the LNA article above…

          • Airbus also owns, lock stock and barrel, most of its ‘suppliers’.

            And its PNW suppliers conference , whats the guess few even supply Airbus while its Boeing heartland

          • Airbus also owns, lock stock and barrel, most of its ‘suppliers’.

            Make a list.
            Find it sparsely populated.

            But Airbus had to “mend” a range of suppliers after Boeing ruined them in the FUBARed 787 creation process.

  11. Per the Seattletimes the main topic was not Boeing but a shortage of workers.

    “At the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference this week, the acute shortage of skilled labor as the pandemic wanes was a hot topic. It has constrained production throughout the aerospace supply chain, right up to slowing Boeing jet deliveries.

    Though air travel has surged since the pandemic downturn and demand for new planes is high, Airbus and Boeing cannot meet the demand because production is stunted by problems with the supply of parts, longtime aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, of consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, pointed out at the conference.

    And the main constraint is a lack of trained labor.”

    And talking about the big bad money guys. This is ironic…..

    “It’s clear that will take substantial investment — which for smaller companies, now financially stressed, may not be possible.

    Bank of America aerospace industry financial analyst Ron Epstein noted the number of private equity representatives at the PNAA conference who are looking to buy up distressed suppliers.

    “The sharks are swimming around,” Epstein said. “They smell blood.””

    • Hey Williams!

      So you mean that laying off skilled labour isn’t a good thing? Is that the point you’re trying to make?

      ‘In 2020, Boeing had a historically bad year, reporting a $12 billion loss and laying off 30,000 workers. At the same time, Calhoun earned $21.1 million in compensation.[9]’

      But at least Dave isn’t going hungry. That’s a load off my mind…

  12. Zoom,

    Boeings crisis is of their own making. For years they have overplayed their hand, now things are coming back to them. Because they are at the top of the supply chain, they bear the responsibility for the supply chain failures happening today driven by extended payment terms, repricing exercises and unreliable build rates…”


    D. Gates of the Seattle Times, aired an article 3-4 weeks ago that Boeing including Airbus were negotiating behind the scenes to compensate their customers for supply chain delays…

    But why would Boeing be the only condemnable witch at the stake?

    • Supply chain issues are industry wide, however Boeing has been the company unilaterally extending payment terms and running continued PFS rounds trying to extract margin from suppliers. They are probably the sole reason RTX is the size that it is, because they needed to grow big enough to push back. Compounding all of that is the erratic delivery schedule. So if you’re a small supplier, how are you supposed to hire, buy supplies, make capital investments and pay your own bills if your largest customer can’t tell you how much they’ll need, continually stops paying you per the agreed terms, and randomly comes in demanding price reductions. Do you think that’s a recipe for a successful business? This is the reality Boeing created

      • I finally understand why BA continued touting the NMA non-stop for like a decade:

        -> “Boeing BA.N offered a major 737 supplier, Teledyne Controls, a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

        If the Teledyne Technologies unit also wanted to be a top-tier supplier on the blockbuster 737 MAX program and a future jet codenamed NMA, it had to slash prices for its data systems, according to a person familiar with the situation.

        It also needed to give Boeing a share of the higher-margin work for repairs.

        • Thanks for that enlightening info, Pedro. The pieces of the puzzle make a little more sense, now.

      • Scott C:

        I would rather Boeing paid their fair share of taxes, then we don’t need their ittty bitty little charity that can come out of Calhouns chump change.

        • @Trans

          Not for nothing, TW – but this is money donated BY THE EMPLOYEES.

          (emphasis added)

          It’s some $3 million a month that the rank and file have taken off their paychecks to spread around the needy.

          From the PDF (which you obviously didn’t check out)

          ‘Boeing employees
          donated more than
          $36.5M and 290,000
          volunteer hours to
          charitable causes in

          • Frank:

            I don’t get how Boeing employees donating has anything but good to say about them and anything to do with Boeing?

            Scott C lauds Boeing Corporate donation a million to Fukushima (and where does Boeing get a lot of the 767 and 787 from?)

  13. Supply chain issues have been coming for years, and i have written about them many times in Leeham News.
    Pure Boeing suppliers suffered a lot with P4S first and then the ultra low orders.
    Every supplier in this industry is fully aware that It is suicidal to fire highly qualified workers.
    Airbus programs have always been much more stable, which mean easier survival for their suppliers and less supply chain issues during recoveries.
    Much safer to have engineers at the helm than bean counters!

  14. From the Seattle Times:

    -> ” … the gap between good pay and just-get-by pay to what management gets was way too high”

    -> “Washington state’s aerospace industry has for years been a relatively low-skilled, low-wage sector pressured by the cost-cutting demanded by Boeing at the top of the food chain

    – ” … how suppliers are currently caught between rising costs of raw materials and a squeeze for lower pricing from the top of the supply chain at Boeing.

    – ‘We are in a place where we try to save money on the most valuable capital that we’ve got, which is our people, particularly on the shop floor, [w]e have to take this wage inflation as an inevitability and perhaps as an opportunity to look at our business differently.”

    – “It’s clear that will take substantial investment — which for smaller companies, now financially stressed, may not be possible.

  15. @ PNWgeek: « BA was trying to find engineers with the specific talents to do a new program. »

    When Boeing initially launched the 737 MAX I already had the impression they would have a hard time finding new talents to carry out this dreary task. Had they launched the NSA at the time it would have been a much more interesting proposition. But since then it has become even less enticing to work for Boeing because the brand has been irremediably tarnished.

    • Normand.
      Respectfully. BAs second choice was the MAX. The customers demanded it inasmuch as they didnt step up and buy the NSA. You build what you can sell.

      • NSA was a FUD scheme. ( IN parallel ran the financial and leaser FUD campaign : A320ceo will lose value .. C-Series heckles the A320 but not the NG, Airbus is just catching up, bla, bla, lots of tears. All later bought NEOs 🙂

        Much further in the future than the A320NEO.
        A rather unspecific offer full of diffuse promises.
        Boeing later offered that they had no inkling on how to build that future product in a profitable way.
        ( IMU they still haven’t. All the new leapfrogging Airbus methodology/technology thingies foundered. 787, fuselage upright assembly, various attacks on workforce and suppliers … )

      • PNEgeek:

        Lets see, you can’t get specialized engineers because you don’t have any R&D and have not come out with a new product in 20 Years? Really?

        So, how did they get the engineers for the Empire State Building? I mean, no skyscrapers, no skyscraper engineers and ……..

        That is as bizarre an unsupported statement as I have ever read here. Deep into alternative facts (fact check with Scott H, is that allowed as a phrase?)

        I have just come up with a new scale. -10 to +10, plus 10 being funny.

        My root canal was a 0 on that scale and the engineers is a -10. I had thought the root canal was in negative numbers but was I wrong.

        • “That is as bizarre an unsupported statement as I have ever read here.”

          In a way it fits.
          Boeing ( like Microsoft ) has never been at the forefront of innovation. Usually they had a forerunner solving most issues and then accessorized that stuff into a new B product with a judicious covering of overstating and overowning PR.

          • You know that I am not a BA fanboy, by any stretch – but I’m not so sure about:

            ‘Boeing ( like Microsoft ) has never been at the forefront of innovation.’

            I can think of a lot of Boeing aircraft, over the years – both military and civilian, that were ground breaking.

            Just saying…

          • If you scrape off the protecting folklore coating
            what products would you see as innovative firsts?

        • Trans.
          There is a huge difference between the Engineering skills needed to do skyscrapers and Aircraft Certification. Any Civil Engineer with a PE can design and analysis the bolted steel joints in structural steel because that is the bread and butter of the civil engineering curriculum taught today in schools across the country.. Aerospace Engineering does NOT teach the certification skills necessary to get a product through the certification process. These are small subspecialty positions that are developed over years. You seem to believe that we are building toasters and that any engineer is interchangeable and capable of doing development and cert work, it isn’t so. A good example can be found in the medical field. Few doctors become neurosurgeons because the skillset is so difficult to master. You cannot plug any old doctor into a neurosurgeon practice, it isn’t safe to do. Doctors are not interchangeable because people are not simple things like toasters. . The same go’s for PD and Cert Engineers. You grow them. As for fact checking with Scott H, Leeham reported on more than one occasion that Ba was out to staff up the engineers needed for the next programs, Leeham reported on that push in past articles. Perhaps you should be the one to Non Fact check things. When BA went through RIFs, the PD guys weren’t targeted. Unfortunately those guys have been ageing out and combining that with the retirement of a lot of people caused by the lump sum distribution changes accelerated the replacement needs. The people BA needs to do these exacting things don’t grow on trees. This is the true tragedy of not completing the Embraer purchase, Had BA done that, they would have been positioned to create anything they wished to build with a young and VERY talented engineering force that also has a certification path through EASA……. That solves 2 huge immediate needs, It would have fixed the cert skills engineering problem AND allowed you to use EASA to be the primary cert path and have the FAA placed into the concurrence position if they chose to do that.

          • PNWgeek:

            Phew, so you think there was a sch0ol for skyscrapers?

            Its engineering calculations. Nothing different about aircraft, except you do air frame structural calculations.

            You get them out of school, you do R&D and you have programs that they learn on.

            Boeing simply dumps engineers when times get tough and or they terminate them and offer them a new job at lower wages somewhere else.

            You can spin it any way you want, Boeing shot itself in the foot and its a self fulfilling prophecy.

            By your basis of illogical NG can’t build the B-21.

  16. Scott Correa: “The lack of press is a good thing.”

    Indeed. The 737 MAX saga was almost entirely the making of a corrupt media. Whether it was a cadre of reporters with close to zero competence in aviation technical and engineering matters who decided they could preempt the efforts of the ICAO-authorized investigations of two crashes and conduct an investigation of their own, or those who published blatantly fake news that U.S. pilots also had reported problems with MCAS—which triggered the POTUS to ground the airplane the next day. Or prejudiced reporters who latched on to a an absurd conspiracy theory that Boeing hid systems from pilots and the FAA to avoid triggering a different type rating for the MAX, and aiming for a Pulitzer Prize in investigative reporting, deliberately skewed the reporting to support that story line. Or provided a platform for disingenuous airline pilots who gave demos in flight simulators that purported to show how events transpired on the flight decks of the airplanes that crashed and painted a picture of terror, struggle, confusion and doom, but the demos did not match the data from the flight data recorders at all. Or the media that published dubious information presented as fact (but seemed to be speculation) supposedly from “industry experts” and ex-Boeing or FAA employees who hid behind anonymity. Or Travel & Tourism blogs that had been advising readers how to maximize their airline miles but overnight became Aviation Blogs and pretended aeronautical engineering competence, spreading nonsensical analyses about airplane designs far and wide. And that’s just scratching the surface of the completely unnecessary grounding and subsequent fiasco.

    • Or of course the story was being run instead by patriots so convinced of the supremacy of any Boeing product that they could not accept that the rest of the aviation world had already grounded the aircraft by the time the lethargic and Boeing owned US regulatory system was forced to accept that indeed a Boeing product had faults. But feel free to re-write history.

      • David….
        We were discussing BAs charitable contributions. Are you unable to read and write in context????? You have a number of valid ointment in what you write, but they are not remotely connected to BAs charitable activities nor the fact that the emmplo y ees pony up about 2 1/2 million bucks a month. Go read the link I posted and try to look less a fool……

        • Scott C:

          And how much a month does Calhoun pony up?

          Of course employees across the country pay Boeing taxes as well.

          Yea, Boeing management is enough to make you choke up.

        • You may have been – I was referring to the ‘abuse of the press’ claim. Consider in future the precise placement of your comments in relation to the placement of others on this site.

          • David.
            My comment was immediately below Checklists posting of BAs contribution to the Turkish earthquake. I got it right. Scolding me when you stepped in the poop tells me much about you. Goodbye.

    • Outch.
      been skippin on your meds?

      “the making of a corrupt media. Whether it was a cadre of reporters with close to zero competence in aviation technical and engineering matters ”

      One such reporter was Dominic Gates.
      You judge him an incompetent oaf?

      Think again.
      If it would have been handled “the Boeing way” half a dozen further crash with massive pilot error as cause would have followed till the MAX would have been grounded nonetheless.
      It is OK to be a fan of the home team.
      It is not OK to turn this into a religious “no truth than this truth” faith thing.

  17. Hey Pete.
    Context my friend context.
    My comment was aimed at the fact that BA could make points with their charitable contributions but doesnt….. Nothing more. The vast bulk of your diatribe is not usefull in the context of discussing BAs charitable contributions. I’d wish you a great day but I’m afraid of the out of context testicle twisting you would do with a simple act of civility……

    • I think he took your ‘lack of press in a good thing’ in not trumpeting the work that Boeing does (along with their employees, who donate some $2+ million a month to charity, straight off their paycheck) on the charity front – to mean that the press is responsible for the Max mess.

      Kudo’s to the generosity of the BA employees who donate.

      (must be those darn airplane guys who are doing all the giving…)

  18. MarketWatch: FAA looks to fine United Airlines $1.15 million for flying Boeing 777s that ‘were not in airworthy condition’

  19. Air India done deal
    Air India has agreed to purchase 250 Airbus planes, split between 210 single-aisle A320neos and 40 widebody A350s, and 220 Boeing aircraft including 190 of its 737 MAX narrowbody jets, 20 787 widebodies and 10 777Xs.

  20. OK, Children, ratchet your sniping back or I will close comments.


    • No comparison.

      The case wasnt bought by the political appointee, they have senior lawyers who handle it. She joined a private firm , thats what US attorneys do who resign when a new President takes office.

      Nothing like the Airbus criminal *trial* underway in Paris, the prosecutors there dropped that case too , but an appeals court overturned that decision.

      Have you been following the Airbus trial ?…of course not , all you follow is news feeds

      • Of course we have – it is more than significant that the executives in Europe are being charged with ‘involuntary manslaughter’ and, based on the presumptions already made public, likely to experience punishment: Now they are unlikely to go to jail because they were not (largely) in positions of power when the A330 crash took place. However it just shows what should have been done to Boeing executives in federal trials in the US – since in the MAX crashes the executive individuals, active and fired, were personally responsible.

      • The Texas prosecutor didn’t join any randomly chosen law firm. She joined Boeing’s lead criminal defense law firm. Coincidence? How about the terms of the DPA, called unprecedented by legal experts?

      • ” … US attorneys […] resign when a new President takes office.”

        Srsly? She’s not AG. All U.S. attorneys mass resign when a new President takes office?? Wow. Where do you get this idea?

        • All US attorneys , the federal prosecutor for each federal district court , *appointed by the President* DO resign when a new President takes office. A few carry over but the rest are out.
          Its like Ambassadors
          Your ignorance about the US system of political appointments which covers the Judicial system doesnt surprise me one bit

  21. One more thought on the Boeing product development dance. Wasn’t a recent refrain from executive management: “No more Moonshots.”
    But when Calhoun says he won’t launch a new plane without new disruptive technology ensuring a 20-25% gain in efficiency, isn’t he saying he will launch a new ONLY if it is a moonshot? No NMA cause it wasn’t enough of a Moonshot.
    Bottom line: it doesn’t matter whether or not a proposed plane is an incremental 10% improvement or a disruptive 25% improvement. Either way development costs $15 billion that he would rather spend buying his own stock.

    • Uwe

      “…In a way it fits.
      Boeing ( like Microsoft ) has never been at the forefront of innovation. Usually they had a forerunner solving most issues and then accessorized that stuff into a new B product with a judicious covering of overstating and overowning PR…”

      I can’t help but react to this comment which is stellarly wrong, you have NO limits…
      Boeing innovated and competitors copied.

      The A320 is a copied 737 but with 80’s sauce. No other aircraft was doing 3-3 and being twin engines.

      The 727 was the first aircraft introducing APU (Auxiliary Power Unit).

      The 747 program offered for the first time a real simulator with a cockpit mounted on verains. The Queen has democratized international travel and offers a cargo door under the cockpit which will allow it to offer a valuable Freighter for decades beyond its last production in 2023.

      The 757 reuses the fuselage of the 737 to become a Middle Of Market replacing the 727, paired with the 767 which is the A300 killer. Which Airbus will do the same with the airframe for the A330/A340 program drawing inspiration from Boeing’s engineering talent.

      The 777 was and will be for a long time the largest twin engine ever built which has pushed ETOPS limits further, and for the first time incorporates the “Crew Rest Areas” above the passengers to free up space for cargo during the launch of the -300ER/ -200LR and 787.

      What the A330, A340, A350Mk1 could not do, forcing Airbus to launch the -XWB to Boeing standards seeing the A340, A380 go nowhere in the face of pressure from Boeing with the freshly launched 777LR’s and 787!

      The canceled NMA had to be assembled and produced cheaply. Even if the M.O.M is not that big, it would have upset the market with its price and attracted the market by this cause. In the end, the goal was not achieved and CEO D. Calhoun and the board see it as a risk.

      For the moment, cash-flow must absolutely come back on the table for them, before considering the future for the 2030s.

      I think it is still a company that can still innovate today and tomorrow. There is always a legacy. The innovation is still there, but it’s not time to launch a brand new aircraft yet IMHO, and they understood it…

      • Good points . I had previously said for the MOM aircraft it had to make most sense for it to be the basis for both single and twin aisle models.
        From undercarriage ( one with double wheels the other single) to a shared wing structures ( some carbon fibre) , fins and horizontal tail, cockpit and computer systems and all the other underlying things like wiring and air conditioning etc
        The fuselage would be built the same methods and highly automated but using same crown and belly panels but different diameter side panels ( and maybe using metal fibre laminates).
        Also could be built on same final assembly lines , perhaps not simultaneously but have the capability to do either model, as market conditions suit.
        For airlines the crew training would been the pilots fly either, the spares would have high interchangeability.
        The engine type and advantages is the man issue. It doesnt exist yet.

        • ” CEO D. Calhoun and the board see it as a risk. ”

          Calhoun sees tying his shoe strings as a risk. He must be unfathomably terrorized to go to work, maybe he just does zooom?

          note to self: Running a business has risk, aircraft mfg is high risk, do not apply to CEO of a business let alone Aircraft Mfg unless you can deal with risk.

          • Hello, A340 and A380 are calling you to tell their life story.

            The engines for what were otherwise fine planes were outdated when they made their first flights.
            Boeing doesnt make fan engines , so cant do anything but wait since the rush of new engines in service since around 2008 settles down and the newest designs come through – and are mature enough for airline service

      • “The A320 is a copied 737 but with 80’s sauce. No other aircraft was doing 3-3 and being twin engines.”

        Actually, the forerunner of the A320 was the Dassault Mercure which came along not long after the 737 and had both these features – and at 140 seats was much closer n size to the A320 than either of the early 737 variants.

        • Roger,

          Good point about Dassault’s Mercury,

          But as I said and this makes even more sense about engineering and innovation at Boeing, is that the reuse of the 737 fuselage for the 757 started with the reuse of the 707 and 727 fuselage as a 3-3 cross section at least 20 years before the Mercury of Dassault…


          • Wasnt quite re-use of the full 707 fuselage , only the upper passenger cabin, the bottom lobe is smaller diameter which I think is shared with 727 ( also a ‘low loader’)
            I understand Boeing also lightened the fuselage structure with ‘thinner skins’ to compete with the lighter 5 abreast competitors. It came back to bite them as there was too many fuselage ruptures – evident in 200 and 300 series. Not all planes were very high cycles either

          • “Mercure”

            and 737
            concept is from the same time.
            Dassault was a bit more careful with aerodynamics. The Mercure has a very clean wing.
            Much cleaner than the thrust gated n times slotted stuff stuck onto the 737 :-)))

            Downside was the short range fitting European distances. less suitable for the US.
            and they had to cope with that jingoistic US attitude too.

            As I stated : more PR than substance.
            But they were always top of the pops in _that_ domain.

          • Mercure didnt just have a ‘short range problem’. Its aerodynamics were over optimised for short range with rapid climb to cruise altitude.
            There was a longer range, more seats version proposed plus CFM56 engines but it faced the ‘not invented here problem’
            Companies from Italy (Fiat) Belgium and Spain were involved in fuselage build too.

          • Duke:

            Having recently re-read the Hawaiian Air debacle, that was a case of gross negligence by Hawaiian Air when they were repeatedly warned and admonished by Boeing about their corrosion practices and inspections.

            This was aided and abetted by the FAA regional inspector (or mare accurately the FAA failures involved)

            The one I can think of that was a Boeing issue was the one with the bad drilling.

            The others I have not looked at in depth.

          • Transworld, the Hawaiian 737 wasnt the only fuselage rupture – it was extremely high cycles as well. There were 2 Southwest 737-300s around a decade back too. Barely in their midlife, and it led to Southwest practically immediately retiring all that type fleet by buying used . So it was a systemic problem with the 737 not solved till the NG

            I dont know about how it was the airlines fault. All US airlines sometimes have sub standard maintenance practices, and get pinged by FAA for it. A fuselage shell crack detected generally isnt a maintenance item- its a scrappage solution.
            As they are in hard to find places the guidance afterwards became a lower cycles hard life limit.

        • I was told on two separate occasions at two big OEMs (AlliedSignal & Goodrich Aerospace) that whoever built the A320 probably took a B737 apart first. Just think if Boeing would have replaced the 737 in timely fashion 25 years ago, they would have probably built the A320.

          • Thats ridiculous.
            Britain and France had previous experience of civil airliners in this size.
            In fact they led the pack with Caravelle and BAC 1-111 were before the 737.
            Even Douglas had an inside look at the Caravelle detailsas they were considering license built , but -SURPRISE- built there own ‘copy as the DC-9

  22. Checklist wrote…….
    But as I said and this makes even more sense about engineering and innovation at Boeing, is that the reuse of the 737 fuselage for the 757…………

    Unfortunately history says otherwise. The 757 fuselage at a diameter of 12 ft 6 inches is a completely new design sharing nothing in common with the 737 fuselage at 12 ft 4 inches in diameter. It has all new skin panel assemblys, floor beams, intercostals, exit doors, window assemblies and on and on…… HOWEVER, the 757 and the 767 were both clean sheet airplanes done simultaneously incorporating a common cockpit between 2 very different airframes reducing training and simulator expenses, Exceptionally innovative for its time….

    • 757 is said to have the same upper lobe crosssection and an enlarged lower lobe vs the 737

      767 / 757 commonality was added later in the development process. ( Maybe after Airbus started the A300 A310 common crew interface thing, CRT displays and such? )

    • The internal cabin diameter was the same for 707,727, 737, 757.
      Other sources give the 707 and 757 as the same exterior cabin size. The ‘engineering’ maybe new but they wanted to reuse the same fuselage jigs

      • Duke.
        Poppycock. The 757 fuselage tools are completely different.from the 737 tools. They exist on their own specific drawings and have no product interchangeability with the 737 because the fuselage is a different diameter. REMEMBER that BA scrapped all the 757 tooling because it had no usage going forward. If it was usable on the 737, it would still be here.

        • Valid point is the interior was the same and was fully in line with the predecessor aircraft.

          I suspect the cargo hold was the same but I have not researched that part so I could be wrong.

          The A320 in fact does have a cargo hold that can use cans if that is the way a given airliner wants to handle baggage. Not all do but its a nice option and if used saves staffing and injury issues

  23. Thanks for the info on the Dassault Mercure, Uwe. I had not heard of it, and am reading about it now- quite interesting.

    • That is one reason Airbus was not just born out of nothing, the UK and France had built commercial aircraft and had the design experience to found Airbus on.

      You can copy previous (C919) but you won’t get anything innovative out of it.

      While not an Airbus design, the BBD C series built a composite wing as that was a way to get an efficiency gain.

      A future A320 would be composite wing as would any new Boeing product (don’t hold your breath)

      • The big problem at the time was that the European aerospace companies were all independent and seemingly incapable of working together to compete with the USA behemoths. The really success of Airbus lay in bring together that amalgamation.

        • Not that independent . The french Caravelle used the Comet cockpit design and Im sure it was built as a subcontract by a british airframe business ( who didnt do airliners)
          The Concorde was a UK- France cooperation, and by the early 60s certainly were cooperating in military fast jets and airlifters. Dassault even test flew a Mirage with a RR Avon jet engine to try for RAF order – who in the end went for cheaper french engine , even though the Avon which they were familiar with in subsonic version, was better performance and takeoff
          Its so far back now you would deeper research on how much they cooperated and which programs. But UK definitely was the bigger civil programs while the French were also rans , but made better strategic moves getting Germans on board , and later Hawker Siddeley on their plane.

  24. Duckeofurl,

    The takeaway from the cancellation of the NMA, wasn’t how it would be (size, features etc), but how it would be assembled for less cost. How to address the size of the aircraft was no longer important. There is no shortage of ideas out there, because the CEO had announced the return to the drawing board in 2020,
    He said “want to know everything about narrowbody and all know about widebody”.

    Which allows IMHO to be able to gauge between a smaller aircraft likely to outsell the big one in case the goal of producing it cheaper still partially or totally fails, and this has happened many times since 2019.
    So they tried to introduce a third member [-5X] a few months later with certainly a smaller CFRP wing
    This made it possible to establish itself more extensively in the market. Besides,
    LNA saw in it something naturally more relevant on the market because it was closer to the A321XLR.

    Flying 5,000-5,200nm without tank in the hold as a different product. The CEO saw a “more diverse product” as a family. Proposing a product that spreads more widely on the market could partially compromise on the challenge of producing cheap, but once again something failed. What ? Certainly M.O.M is an illusion if you have to launch a brand new aircraft in this market segment. It’s very risky while in the last 3 years they have seen the 737MAX-10 become the spearhead and an unexpected success of a simple strech which has already sold 1,000 copies. NMA became a headache and cheaper production had always failed. People say D. Calhoun has to go, Boeing sees the short therm and looks for shareholders. I think they really tried everything there and if the business case was closed, there would have been the launch of a new aircraft. People are seriously mistaken.

    D. Calhoun now see 2030 as a potential replacement for 737MAX. Because now it is both too early and too late because it should have been launched in 2011 instead of the 737MAX, whose backlog is +3,600 aircraft, and still ~600 787 in backlog to produc so the cash- flow becomes essential at the moment.

    So they will launch something around 2030 since anyway the design offices are still working for things beyond the NMA/MOM…

  25. Yes Duckeofurl, he is wrong !

    The 737 and 757 have the same cross section 12.4′ wide and 13.2′ high.

    Moreover at the beginning the 757 had the same nose as the 737. It was a long 737 with thicker wings and higher ground clearance.

    And then one day a more modern nose was revealed a few months after the launch of the 757.

    • Checklist.
      Duke said they wanted to reuse the 737 fuselage tools on the 757, and I said there was no interchangeability. The fuselage tools for the 737 and 757 are different because the cross sections are different. They are not interchangeable. The fuselage has approx the same exterior height and widths BUT the beltline moved creating a different external shape in the lower lobe, and all the internal frames and skins are different. I guess im wrong for saying diameter instead of cross section. In any case, the tooling as I stated was not interchangeable between the 2 fuselages for a number of reasons and that’s why it was scrapped.

      • SC,

        Please don’t argue.

        Duckeofurl agreed that it is not the same tooling and I also agree but the cross section is the same than the 737 over the width of the aircraft…


      • I have always said the 737 and probably 727 had lower lobes that were different to 707 and 757 . My emphasis was the upper lobe – the cabin- that was carried through , in shape and dimensions but maybe different structurally in places
        Boeing does double bubbles which join at the floor line for its single aisles . Its not till the 777
        and 787 that you had a fully circular fuselage. Im not sure about 767

  26. Checklist.
    We’re in agreement that the mom was probably put to bed by the success of the -10. I think that lacking an engine breakthrough, there’s little to be gained in additional airframe development in either the 737 or A32x. Boeings immediate need is a 767 freighter replacement or relief from the carbon impact phase out. They dont have an airframe available. You could do a 767 genx reengine and gain the ground clearance you need with a new engine strut and plugging in the -400 gear if push came to shove. The notional 787F is too big for the existing ground gacilities at ups and fedex and you would have them choking on Capex. This is the where I think BA needs to go and airbusses opportunity to take that away with their existing products.

  27. Uwe,

    …”767 / 757 commonality was added later in the development process. ( Maybe after Airbus started the A300 A310 common crew interface thing, CRT displays and such? )…”
    Maybe ? Lol !…

    Certainly not the A310 is a mere shrink of the A300 the cockpit is of course the same with a few small improvements but it’s basically the same plane.

    For Boeing, it was a question of integrating a cockpit commonality for two different aircraft.
    The challenges were more real…

    …”Dassault was a bit more careful with aerodynamics. The Mercure has a very clean wing.
    Much cleaner than the thrust gated n times slotted stuff stuck onto the 737…”

    Lol! Yes look at the clean wing of the 777 against the A330/A340.
    Then look at the A350 that looks like the 777 and see the number of slots and reduced number of wing rails to understand how Airbus copied Boeing
    Then look at the clean wing of the unbeatable 787 today

    Lol !!! No evidence
    More PR than substance 😏

    • “Lol! Yes look at the clean wing of the 777 against the A330/A340.”

      you haven’t looked, really.
      There is this interesting doc on High Lift devices on airliners around from NASA. rather interesting read.
      ( 19960052267.pdf )

    • What defines a shrink? I’m pretty sure that the A310 had a different wing and cockpit to the A300 – I’d have said that made it a new plane, certainly not a simple stretch, just as you might argue that the 737NG was a new plane vs the 737Classic.

      • Roger,

        No it’s worse. It is of the same order as the 777/777X, A300-600/A330/A340/A340-500/-600

        But you are right !

        The A310 is not only shortened to the A300, its wing is smaller with a naturally more advanced aerodynamic improvement then some cockpit changes including the third pilot overpressure made this aircraft one of the most innovative before design of the A320 in the mid 80’s.

        But that does not take anything away (quite the contrary), the same methodology that Boeing used decades before.

        The 707/727/737, then 757 later have the same fuselage. This argument confirms my point above.👍


  28. Scott Correa

    …”We’re in agreement that the mom was probably put to bed by the success of the -10…”
    I didn’t say the NMA was canceled because of the 737MAX-10. I said that the NMA was canceled after several attempts to complete the business case as I explain above in my comment.

    D. Calhoun has been very active the last 3 years to launch a brand new aircraft.
    With a family of 737MAX which now includes the MAX-10, then the 787 and the Freighter there is something more robust out there. and it is enough to get some cash-flow through at least 2026-2028 IMHO…

    After that it’s another story…

    Scott Correa,

    …”The notional 787F is too big for the existing ground gacilities at ups and fedex and you would have them choking on Capex…”
    Do you want to meet the requirements of a weak and secondary market for two airlines?
    It’s not a strong argument.

    Well I think it’s better to have a 787F that caters to the rest of the market rather than a 767F that caters to two customers

    A 767-400ER with a CFRP wing + GEnXB2 engine sounds like a good idea but something must have gone wrong out there again.
    What ? I don’t know.
    But certainly…

    “…Airbusses opportunity to take that away with their existing products…”

    What Airbuses?
    A330neo or A330F
    Sales are poor out there IMHO

    • Phew, the 737-10 is a a new Aircraft? Really?

      And the 787F has been cancelled.

      But we do have the all new yet to fly 777-8F!

      • I’m afraid it says nowhere that the 737MAX-10 is a new aircraft. It is a simple stretch launched since 2018 and which has already accumulated nearly 1,000 sales..

        For “Freighter” not mention the 787, it’s a bad write on my part, it’s rather the 777F, 767F, the forthcoming 777XF, (Freighters) in addition to the 787 and 737MAX for my comment above…

        • *simple stretch*??

          I wonder why BA had not thought of that for sooooo long? 🙂

          • Because the new “self extending” gear leg is a “design unpleasantry”. and MX nightmare.

            (load bearing) parts count should more than double, number of joints too, the oleo leg carries about twice the load …
            That is not a cheap solution. neither to build nor to maintain.

          • Boeing had thought of a stretch – it was the 737-900

            The pair, the Max 10 and Max 9 should be seen as the A321 neo counter offer.
            The A320 is soooooo much smaller than even the max 8 and predecessors, its closest to the max 7 these days

  29. Roger,

    …”just as you might argue that the 737NG was a new plane vs the 737Classic…”
    The gap between the 737NG and the 737MAX is slightly larger.

    Apart from MCAS, which was not visible, the 737MAX has a brand new tail cone very similar to the 757 precisely and a cockpit with large screens

    But these are NOT new aircraft !

    • Checklist.
      The MAX also has a reshaped nose gear area for the longer nose strut. Of note is the aft fuselage reshaping in addition to the new tail cone and the first use fly by wire controls running the wing spoilers.

  30. Re 737MAX vs 737NG

    I would also add that the 737MAX offers size -10 and -7, which are new and were not offered at the time of the 737NG.

    If the Boeing engineers had proposed a landing gear that lengthens during the rotation of the 737 at that time (and it was feasible,
    (nothing technological, but mechanical solution)
    They would have sold more
    “737-1000NG’s”, now called MAX-10.

    Things would have been different. In truth the reduced ground clearance was a problem with the 737 against the A321 already at the time, but it was belatedly solved today with the 737MAX-10…

    • Chcklist:

      And the -7 is not so close to a 700 that there is a serious difference?

      If we added 6 inches to Each MAX model every year Boeing could have dozens of new models.

      That would show Airbus

    • Heck, when will the Boeing 737MAX-10 even be certified?
      The comment above about the MAX-10 being a “big success” made me smile. Wouldn’t the aircraft need to be in sevice for awhile to make that determination?

      • Word on the street is 2024 sometime.

        But we get the -7 this year, for sure, maybe, alm0st certain, errrrr……

        The -7 was an incredibly complex project, they whacked a few feet of a -8, you know how inconceivably technical that is.

        Calhoun deserves another bonus by golly. Granted if I had got a bonus every time I did my job I would be rich but……

        • The Max 10 got caught up in the post MCAS debacle and exaggerated concerns over the numbers of and usefulness of AOA sensors

          It will likely bite the A321XLR in the you know where as well- its EIS has been pushed back a few times already

          • The MAX 10 is competitive with the XLR. Oh lord rotflmao.

            -> Several leasing company officials and other delegates at the conference, which can set the tone for new developments, said Boeing may penalize sales of its own 737 MAX 9 with the new plane, but would struggle to dent sales of the A321neo itself.

          • “The Max 10 got caught up in the post MCAS debacle and exaggerated concerns over the numbers of and usefulness of AOA sensors..”

            Having two Boeing 737 MAXes in a row crash (with 346 persons losing their lives as a direct result of Boeing’s criminally flawed single-sensor MCAS system) tends to provide a touch of focus. “caught up in..” and “exaggerated concerns”, indeed..

          • Any ideas how many times and for how long the EIS of MAX 10 has been pushed back? 😁

            Unlike UAL, KLM thankfully didn’t make the wrong bet.

          • I lack the background:
            Is the Boeing intervention a real savety issue or
            just leveraging the FAA to drag their feet… again. Wouldn’t be the first holdup created by the FAA versus non home team market participants.
            ( nothing has changed for the FAA in rspsect to their “hat” of promoting US aerospace industries.

          • Uwe wrote. I lack the background:
            Is the Boeing intervention a real safety issue or
            just leveraging the FAA to drag their feet…

            Uwe. I’m assuming you are wondering about the -7 and -10 delays. Some aspects of the Aircraft Certification Reform and Accountability Act don’t get the coverage they should, It was about so much more than Cockpit Alerting and MCAS. One directive was to “Revise and improve its process of issuing amended type certificates for modifying an aircraft”. This directive was to close the door to derivatives that were actually new aircraft using the original certification basis to endlessly manipulate existing TCDS to invent new airplanes and certify them by “commonality”, The applicable FAR revisions to accomplish that went to public comments in the middle of last year. I’m not sure if the final rules have been released, but the -7, -10 , 777x and to a similar extent, the Airbus integrally skinned fuel tank are affected by this. The old major minor change criteria have been replaced, and new rules for just what you can do before it needs a new TCDS need to be incorporated into BAs and ABs manufacturing documentation. Hope that helps.

          • Pedrofl….
            I have never said the max 10 is competitive with A321XLR. Its the standard A321 , and is better as its standard version without extra fuel tanks can fly further
            Just as the standard Max8 can fly further than smaller pass capacity A320
            Just because your claims are fabrications dont start making them up for others too

        • Accepting a non immediate final sensor fix via the upcoming MAX10 was a compromise to the advantage of Boeing. ( alternative was all MAX grounded till … )
          Which Boeing is already dragging further into the future … if just for staying in character.

          • Egg on face for AESA is more like it.
            Their former air traffic controller CEO over reached

      • Meaning of words changes. ( like “gay” 🙂

        Success used to be
        * built in numbers and satisfying customers
        * build in numbers
        * sold in numbers
        today and for boeing
        * potential to be sold in numbers.
        ( a select poster really brought that to a cusp. 🙂

      • Vincent.
        Using your logic, Im sure that you would agree that the A321XLR also needs time in service to determine if it is a success.

        • > ..Im sure that you would agree that the A321XLR also needs time in service to determine if it is a success.”

          Certainly. How else might it be done?

    • BTW per BA’s 10k, it has 720 737-10 in backlog only (far lower than the 1,000 talked above). Launched back in 2017, no matter how you slice and dice, the backlog is nothing to be proud of in comparison with its competitor.

      • Market Narrow Body Up to 200 places: A22x/A320Neo/Max7,8,9,/E Series 195E2, MS-21,C919 (No A321neo, no Max10)

        Airbus: 4836 Orders = 42 %
        Boeing: 4453 Orders = 39 %
        Other: 2168 = 18 %
        all Orders = 11404

        Market Narrow Body Up to 250 places: A321Neo/LR/XLR vs Max10

        Airbus: 4596 Orders = ~83 %
        Boeing: 920 Orders = ~17 %
        all Orders = 5516

        • max 9 is another plane in the 190 seats range near the A321

          So much bigger than the little A320 which is below the max 8 in capacity

          • So “bigger” is bigger than “smaller”. Good to know; thank you.

    • Pedro.
      The -9, while a runway loving pig, is no more challenged than some 320 derivatives that cant get from Florida to the west coast on a windy day when full. Even at that, a -9 can still get out of Denver on a hot day. The -9s challenges are caused by its limited rotation angle. They have the ClMax available to do the job, but can’t rotate to use it. The 320s problem flying west is insufficient fuel quantity to get the mission flown with headwinds when full. The -10 doesn’t have performance data publicly available yet but the gear appears to be designed to get the rotation angles needed to get off the runway. Would you please be so kind and post your private -10 runway performance data so we can all see t and continue the discussion, thanks…

  31. Uwe said, on February 12, 2023:

    “Because the new “self extending” gear leg is a “design unpleasantry”. and MX nightmare. (load bearing) parts count should more than double, number of joints too, the oleo leg carries about twice the load …
    That is not a cheap solution. neither to build nor to maintain.”

    This is one reason why I think a wait-and-see approach to the MAX™-10 is advisable.
    That aircraft is kludge piled atop old kludge..

    • Since when is Uwe an undercarriage expert?
      It seems a simple change and minor in terms of parts, and undercarriages are regular check items anyway

      Will he be offering a view on the ‘complications’ from the even bigger changes to A321XLR ?

      • “Since when is Uwe an undercarriage expert?”

        Independent of other qualifications I have basic understanding of mechanics.
        So “hic Rhodos, hic salta” write down your chain of reasoning why my judgement is wrong.
        ( afaics you participate in most discussion here unarmed.)

        • The problem wasnt a mechanical solution- extending undercarriage legs are nothing new- but the space to fit it all in. 737 had an unusually limited space to store the leg and wheels. The A320 used to have twin axle main legs as an option, so had lots of space

          Airliner Undercarriages are simple . end of story. You are just making it up
          You should look at what ( some) airlifters and fast military jets do

  32. The consensus is the MAX 10 will have worse field performance than A321neo. Can anyone prove otherwise??

    • The “consensus” was that “Saddam” had “weapons of Mass Destruction™”, not so verylong ago. Consensus is not very valid for determining veracity these days. I won’t even mention “Russiagate”, where a former US President was accused by murky sources of consorting with a foreign power..

      I think “Go Look!” [aka empiricism] works much better in these domains. When the Boing MAX-10 finally enters service we will have some basis for comparison with the AB narrowbodies; six-year-old articles based
      on flimsy, carefully-uneven hypotheticals are not of much use.

  33. Pedro
    In a 2 horse race, somebody is always second. The real question is if the -10 had adequate runway performance to fly the missions the customer needs. Apparently customers ordering somewhere between 750 and 1000 ( everybody has different numbers) -10s are finding the aircraft meets its needs and in their environment was a superior choice to ABs offerings…… That is an unarguable fact supported by customer financial committments….. As far as proving -10 runway performance, there isnt a published consensus because the only people with actual runway performance data are BA and the Customers and you, who has yet to show us why you say what you do….. Please post the runway performance data.

    • @Flyguy: LNA has done extensive analysis on the MAX 10 field performance. It is not as good as the A321neo and it falls well short of range vs the A321LR and XLR. Seat mile costs are within a percent or two of each other and there are some instances where seats must be blocked vis-a-vis the A321neo. But if you don’t need the range, the MAX 10 is an acceptable alternative. If you have a big Boeing fleet or are content to fly the MAX 10 within its capabilities, or use the MAX 10 for what it’s designed for and the A321LR and A321XLR for a mixed fleet for different missions, the MAX 10 is fine.

      • Hi Scott Saying the max 10 ‘falls well short of the A321LR’ ( exclude the XLR as its more weight and other differences) doesnt add up to the excellent LNA story on the A321 and Max 10 compared

        ‘So we would say that on maximum range with passengers and their bags the aircraft seems about equal.’

        Extra tanks will always add range , the A321LR has 3 to allow it to claim the extra distance . A Max 10 “LR” could do the same, just with 2 tanks as it has extra internal capacity

        also backed up here
        “As soon as these issues were solved, Boeing started offering the 188-230 seater with a range of 5.955 kilometers/3.300 nautical miles to customers, since then upgraded to 6.110 kilometers with one auxiliary fuel tank. Boeing said this outclassed the Airbus A321LR, which it claimed had only 188 seats and a 5.530-kilometer range. Although Airbus says it has 206 seats and can fly 7.400 kilometers/4.000nm with three extra fuel tanks.
        “We have the same number of seats as our competitor……, Mounir said. “Only thanks to extra fuel tanks they can fly further, but that means extra weight, a higher fuel consumption, and so higher costs. The MAX 10 really is the best aircraft in its class.”

        The A321LR isnt really a separate model , but really an options package and for extra weight of those ACt plus seat type and pass baggage for trans atlantic long haul you lose even more payload.

        The answer to to the LR limits was of course the HGW, changed belly tankage plus wing changes and caller XLR

        • @Duke: Without going into our in-depth analysis (which is reserved for paying subscribers and more so for consulting clients), I would only remark that take anything Airbus says about Boeing and Boeing says about Airbus with a grain of salt.

          • I understand that many manufacturer performance and costs claims are ‘puffery’. And as your business no doubt does for airlines looks at specific routes and fitouts to compare more exactly like for like

            But on easily comparable metrics ( no extra belly tanks at all , so the basic model), one is better , LNA said so.

        • According to the linked LNA article:

          -> ” … a more efficient configuration for the A321neo. We could have used two over-wing exits and blocked the third door pair. It would have filled the cabin attendants seats at the third door in the floor plan. The A321neo then takes 16+180 seats = *196 seats*. One can also use the same configuration for the MAX 10. Due to the service doors (fore and aft, on the right side) being of lower exit rating than Airbus doors, the cabin then can only be equipped with *189 seats*.

          -> The MAX 10 will have worse field performance

        • “A Max 10 “LR” could do the same.”

          No space for aux tanks with full bags loaded,
          no excess MTOW available.
          ( use a trailer ? 🙂

        • Your error is in munging types.

          The basic A321NEO ( aux tanks, no aux tanks?) was compared to MAX10

          you expand that to A321LR ( more fuel, _higher MTOW_ )

          anyway out of scope A321XLR ( much more fuel, even higher MTOW, simplified/improved high lift )

          • A321LR isnt a model derivative like say the XLR is , its just a standard A321 neo with 3 aux tanks. An option package with a marketing name. Just like Ryanair Max 8-200

            There is no higher weight that isnt part of the standard version …97 tonnes. The next weight up is for the XLR ‘only’

            Airbus doesnt claim an special changes for the LR except for the 3 ACT . Boeing Max 10 ( and 7,8,9 ) can match that fuel volume with only 2 tanks because its wing tanks are bigger volume

        • Market Narrow Body 200 to 250 seats: A321Neo/LR/XLR vs. Max10

          Airbus: 4596 Orders 83 %
          Boeing: 920 Orders 17 %
          all Orders 5516

          If the Max10 were so good and the LR so bad, it doesn’t show in the orders!

  34. No one here believes Boeing’s own backlog number of 720 (737-10)?? Incredible!!

  35. I am curious as to how Boeing 737MAX™-10 performance can presently be determined, other
    than from that [interested] company’s claims..

    We’ll see how it goes in the fullness of time.

    • The changes are known. you can extrapolate from there.
      ( LNA seems to have done that. NO quantum leaps in physics expected. 🙂
      My guess is Takeoff performance predictions may be a bit “unsharper”.
      You are not limited to the Boeing PR leaflet.

  36. AB plans to hire 13,000 workers in 2023.

    IIRC that’s quite a bit higher than BA.

  37. Reuters: Suppliers Face Competition for Hires From Planemakers

    -> “Despite efforts to retain employees, overall turnover in the aerospace industry still grew from 5.8% to 7.1% in 2022, as inflation prompted workers to seek higher-paid jobs, according to a study by the Aerospace Industries Association.

  38. So, we now have a little more detail on the “favorable timing of payments and receipts” responsible for the 2022 Q3/Q4 positive cash flow flukes — just keep postponing payments and create the illusion of increasing cash.

    I wonder if we’ll soon get an LNA article telling us how BA is pressuring customers to pay earlier, e.g. by offering extra discounts on new orders.

    The problem with all of this: when you try to push kinks along the carpet, you’ll eventually run up against a wall…

    • > The problem with all of this: when you try to push kinks along the carpet, you’ll eventually run up against a wall… <

      Way, way back when words still meant something, these were called 'sharp practices', and that term definitely wasn't a compliment.

      Good to see you back.

    • ” how BA is pressuring customers to pay earlier”

      That is already in the box of (well) used tools 🙂

      next step: get money before orders are placed ( SCNR )
      Q: will customers lightly put money into a company that could “unexpectedly” go belly up? How well are prepayments protected? ( pension moneys seem to be free for the taking )

  39. More E. Fingleton, this from 2021:

    “..When a nation imports more than it exports, someone, somewhere, has to finance the gap. In the case of the United States in recent decades, the main sources of such finance have been Japan, Germany, and China—the same nations that, by buying U.S. Treasury bonds by the truckload, have long sustained Wall Street and by extension its talking heads. In deciding to fund America’s trade deficits, these nations have determined that, on balance and in the long run, they stand to gain handsomely. In particular, they know that by developing ever more advanced manufacturing industries, they can create a torrent of high-paying, productive, secure jobs for workers of average or even below-average ability.

    These foreigners hardly regard U.S. Treasuries as a particularly great investment. Rather, they choose to eat U.S. government debt mainly because otherwise the U.S. dollar’s foreign exchange value would implode. It is axiomatic that the higher the foreigners can drive the dollar, the easier it is for foreign exporters to penetrate the American market. By the same token, a high dollar hastens the demise of any remaining American producers trying to hang on..”

    Hey, c’mon man- we still make lots of suff here in the Exceptional Nation:
    expensive Weapons of War (hi-ya, B-21!), PR, drug abuse, mental illness; weapons, PR, homelessness, suicidality, Wall street profit$, PR..

  40. Air India’s crew crunch leading to flight cancellation and delay in US, Canada

    • pay them and they will fly ( i won’t mention the “vaccines”, for now)

      so many working *so hard* to Not Understand

    • Twits of feather flock together .
      You cant be serious on relying on news feed ‘twits’ as your major information source

      • Seattletimes-

        The European giant delivered 98 jets in December, including 76 of its single-aisle A320neo family. In January, it delivered just 20 jets total, of which 14 were in the A320neo family.

        Airbus also delivered two smaller A220 models, one widebody A330neo and one widebody A350.

        Airbus has struggled with supply chain issues, arousing concern that it could miss the target of 700 deliveries in 2023, as it did last year with a disappointing total of only 661 aircraft delivered.

        Reuters reported Monday that Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, in a Feb. 8 internal webcast with managers, was “furious” at the January delivery performance, calling it a “wake-up call.”

  41. Airbus with 58 Billions Euro Sales Volume and 5,6 Billions Profit in 2022.
    To Ask?

Leave a Reply

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