Pontifications: Bumps ahead notwithstanding, Boeing sees steady recovery

By Scott Hamilton

Feb. 21, 2023, © Leeham News: Boeing will have some bumps in the road (or maybe I should say, some turbulence) now and then, but its chief financial officer is confident the company is solidly on its way to recovery.

Recovery is daunting. There’s $51bn in total debt (more than $34.5bn in net debt), with $5.2bn coming due this year. Production of the 737 and 787 remains erratic. Deliveries are slower than hoped. Certification of the 737-7 and 737-10 has yet to be achieved. Program progress on the 777X is slow. A host of defense programs are in money-losing positions.

But orders picked up nicely for the 737 and 787. Even the 777X won 10 orders, from Air India, after a long, long drought. Debt, huge though it is, is coming down. Revenues are up at Commercial Airplanes and Global Services, though down at Defense.

Brian West, the CFO, outlined Boeing’s outlook during an appearance at a Cowen Co. investors conference last week. There was little new since Boeing held its own investors’ day on Nov. 2 and the 2022 earnings call on Jan. 26. But there are always a few nuggets to come out of these appearances.

Cash flow

“It was an important milestone to generate positive cash flow,” West said at the top of his discussion—highlighting the No. 1 priority of the investment community and by extension, the Boeing C-Suite. “We still feel momentum coming into this calendar year. In terms of where we’re at with recovery, we know where we’re headed.”

But, West said, there are two top priorities for this and next year in the recovery stream. “A couple of two really big, important things that have to happen. The inventory of the 737 and 787 has to unwind. We have to relieve production of all the rework.

“It’s going to get bumpy. We will have lower February deliveries, in the low 20s. Then deliveries will accelerate throughout the year,” he said. Boeing guided 400-450 MAX deliveries this year from the factory and inventory. West expects seven MAXes a month from inventory, gradually increasing to 10-12 a month. Although Spirit AeroSystems, which makes the 737 fuselages, is planning on a production rate of 42/mo by year-end, West is sticking with a top rate of 38/mo this year.

“What’s important is that the factory space is there, the tooling is there and the labor is there. Getting there is the function of the supply chain and the skilled labor force,” he said. The supply chain is still unstable but getting better.

737 line sold out

Sales slots for the 737 are sold out through 2026, West said. The 787 sold out through 2025. As international traffic begins to recover, “we are seeing a pickup in conversations with customers. Last year, we had 200 widebody orders, the most since 2018. The trans-Atlantic is back to pre-COVID levels.” Trans-Pacific and Asia traffic is gaining momentum, he said. Boeing announced it is adding a fourth 737 production line in Everett (WA), the site of all its widebody production. The North Line, as the new one is called, has an operational target date of 2024. The 737s with unique or complicated configurations (the 737-8200 and 737-10) will be assembled there.

“We’re very fortunate to have Everett as an option. We’ve got the space and we have the skilled workforce. I won’t guess beyond 50. The fourth line will start with handling the more complicated configure airplanes and Renton will be very reliable. This bodes well for the near term and for the long term.

The day before the Cowen appearance, Boeing and Airbus won orders for 500 aircraft from Air India. Asked about what to expect for the Paris Air Show this June, West said only, “stay tuned. We really enjoyed yesterday.”

All the indicators bode well for long-term demand, West said.

518 Comments on “Pontifications: Bumps ahead notwithstanding, Boeing sees steady recovery

  1. With Airbus’ a220/320 pretty much sold out until end of decade, Boeing have an opportunity to mop up short/medium term orders going forward. Disadvantage of a duopoly is when there’s no availability at one, it’s a pseudo-monopoly at the other. Anywho… Not a BA management fan but good luck with their recovery.

    • And yet Air India just committed to more A32X than MAX, so maybe availability isn’t as big a factor as you’re suggesting?

      • Think aircraft manufacturers reserve slots for “key customers”, the rest has to hope for other customers not taking up their slots and can get a few planes now and then or wait for years (the price then increase by the price escalation clauses in the contracts). The leasing companies of cause tries to fill those gaps too keep demand up for their fleets hence the aircraft manufacturer needs to hold them open as long as they dare keeping everybody sort of happy.

      • “Airbus is sold out at a production rate of 65/mo through 2028. Even boosting the rate to 75/mo doesn’t help. The lines are still sold out through 2028. Only by boosting the rate to 83/mo—something Airbus is studying—do a few slots open in 2027 and a few more in 2028. Not until 2029 do an appreciable number of production slots open.”


        What’s not always seen in order reports but OEMs know, some orders are deferred or will be cancelled. That leaves some room

        • “Airbus is sold out at a production rate of 65/mo through 2028.”

          If that were true, how do you explain this:

          Air India Finalizes Order For 470 Jets With Airbus & Boeing

          ‘Some planes will start to be delivered in late 2023, though we’re told to expect the bulk of deliveries starting in mid-2025. ‘

          The Air India order came after the Leeham article.

          • “Most likely some orders were deferred opening up slots.”

            Who are the likely suspects? Everyone is scrambling for aircraft AFAIK.

          • This years Air India will receive:

            Six cancelled Aeroflot A350-900s that have already been built.

            A number of A320s & A321s that were acquired from lessors in December 2022. Four A321s for AI are currently in production at Hamburg Finkenwerder.

    • Dr. Fergal Sherlock:

      Well put. Boeing is a huge part of the economy as well as exports.

  2. It seems a good idea to relieve the Renton 737 FAL from the off standard -10 work. And strategically, keeping Everett resources vibrant.

    It seems 48 787 have been delivered since x-mas 2020. A330/A350 are ramping up. The UA 100 787 commitment, tankers and freighters are nice, but don’t let stakeholders get seduced again. Work to be done or “WB dominance” will be history soon.

  3. I wonder if Boeing’s relative position to Airbus was actually strengthened by COVID. COVID forced Airbus to cut production while Boeing could not produce or deliver its two best-sellers (MAX and 787) anyway. Now Airbus can’t fill the demand since production ramp up takes time.

    • It is easier to accelerate from 60km/h while you are moving at 30 km/h. or is it easier to get to 60 when you are standing still?

    • That and it got the MAX crashes off the news. If one was cynical, the timing could not have been better for Boeing.

      • > That and it got the MAX crashes off the news. If one was cynical, the timing could not have been better for Boeing. <


    • Walter Faber

      Reports are that Airbus forced Airlines to take their orders, Boeing was in a position to be generous as everything came to a halt on the MAX and 787 (the big ticket sellers).

      Hard telling how that may play into the future.

      • The backlog of A320neo family vs the 737 MAX tells me everything I need to know.

      • Too bad the MAX was grounded and FAA halted 787 delivery, that’s
        why BA was not able to enforce most of their contracts.

        Mid 2021
        FG: Scherer says almost every customer contract was reviewed and 80% of aircraft slots were amended.

        • replace “enforce” with “fullfil”, obstacle was on the B-side 🙂

          Why again was the MAX grounded?
          ( MCAS was a Boeing own goal )

          FAA was forced to introduce some sanity
          ( Sad thing the FAA needed coercion! )

  4. I get his point.
    Boeing will get massive cash flows in once they get their stock Max and B787s off. That should ease things up double: On the balance sheet and in production, as the workers that are refitting Max and B787s are missing in production. It needs time and a lot of capacity.

    But on the other side, Boeing isn`t getting any better. Max still doesn`t have an answer to A321neos. And Max10 not yet certified doesn`t make that better.
    For now, Max 9 and 10 combined have 1200 orders. From the 900 Max 10 ordered, none is flying. While A321neo has more than 940 in the air.
    And almost 5000 orders alone.
    So for ever Max 9+10 sold, Airbus has sold 4! A321neos.
    And it`s not that the A320 neo is selling worse, we didn`t even talk about the A220.
    Boeing announced that they won`t do a NSA or MOM.
    While Airbus will sooner or later bring the A225.

    Boeing has a strategic problem in the SA market, where they are dogs.

    And it doesn`t look like the WB market is a clear win for Boeing.
    Yes the B787 is selling great, and they won United as a sole modern WB, but with all the troubles and the hefty discounts Boeing offers they will have a hard time to make money.
    Airbus has almost sold 1000 A350s already and is catching up in deliveries.

    The B777x still is very dependend on the gulf carriers and unless GE provides a killer engine, will have a hard time to sell. Around since a decade, still not in the air while everyone buys B789 and A359.
    Airbus A330neo isn`t doing much better sales wise, but with a freighter incoming, and higher interest rate thus higher capital cost, it should get some more orders.
    And while Boeing has a idk, 10 bn. $ ticket on the B777x meanwhile, Airbus has a 2 bn. $ ticket on the A330neo.

    Boeing might do better financially, but it`s in a strategic dog situation. Loosing in the SA, and maybe on a draw in the WB market.
    Hard to come out of it if you don`t spend R&D and have not much in your pipeline.

    • Sash said:

      “Boeing will get massive cash flows in once they get their stock Max and B787s off. That should ease things up double: On the balance sheet and in production, as the workers that are refitting Max and B787s are missing in production. It needs time and a lot of capacity”.

      Will they, though? They are having to spend on those frames to get them fit to deliver and that is going to eat into their margins, and on top of that there are the ongoing storage costs as they wait their turn in the rework queue. And the cash flows are unlikely to be massive if it takes another two years to clear them, more of a steady flow at best!

    • “Boeing will get massive cash flows in once they get their stock Max and B787s off. ”

      In summ that will be less than they would have had with regular uninterrupted deliveries.
      Stopping production was more expensive than reducing production (AB).
      Turning stored frames into deliverables seems to be expensive and resource intensive.

      After a long drought a rush in of money. Overall it will stay a dry spell.

      • @Uwe: of course, but that`s sunken cost and past.

        Once they get their planes out and to the customers, they`ll recover a lot of money that`s now in the balance sheet.
        It will ease up their financial situation a lot.

    • Sash:

      It was unclear to me by what you meant as a freighter coming in when it was linked to the A330. The A350 is the freighter model. A330-300 are being converted.

      • there`s rumors that Airbus will bring a A339 based freigther, to replace B767 and B777F when they are going out of sales in 2027.

        It should be quiet a cheap development, regarding an A330F already exists.

        I don`t think that everyone will need the 70m A350F or B777xF.
        Might be a market for smth smaller and cheaper. Seems like Airbus is making a case if it makes sense vs. A333 conversions and B777F.

        • Durability of Trent 7000 is still far away from what RR promised. This is a lack to promote A330-9F.

          • I think the claims that RR Trents engines including the 7000 under performing are exaggerated and based on old news stories by a lot of folks in this forum. At the Airbus press conference last week https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZwMEjrt3S4 (see link), Bjorn of Leehamnews asked a very specific question (59:23 minutes in) with regards to the performance of the Trent 7000, and Airbus CEO’s answer was that it was performing well, no worse than any new engine used in Airbus’s current programs.

            I think it is time folks in the forum update themselves on the performance of the Trent engines instead of quoting from 2017, 2018 (pre-Covid) articles.

          • They all get their “tar” from the original Trent1000 failures.

            Next step is to paint all other newer RR engines with that stuff. ( Trent1000TEN, Trent6000, TrentXWB )

    • Max 10 is a like for like match to the A321 line ( except for the different weight and wing XLR)
      Max 9 is also much larger than A320 (the Max 8 is also) that the 9 and 10 group can be considered the A321 target markets

        • For only a portion of routes which will be a smaller part of 321 orders and deliveries. Any airline not needing that range (aka only the range of any ceo) will be perfectly fine with a -10. I believe once it’s certified we will see many upgauges and some new orders for it. If nothing else WN and Ryanair will take a few hundred each not yet ordered

          • Seriously?? What’s the chance WN would go for MAX 10? 😳

          • The 737-10 vs. A321neo logic was Boeing Chicago as most US domestic routes was ok with the 737-10 that is cheaper and lighter with a more modern wing. Still the world will use the A321neo’s up to its performance limits and thus be a bigger new and used plane market. Like the original UAL 777-300 vs 777-300ER.

          • > Any airline not needing that range

            I suspect that the A321neo range of 4000nm up to 4700nm (XLR) is not so needed for US airliners but it will be a game changer for many airlines across the world.

          • Qantas switched from B737 to A320neo family;
            Air Canada, which has switched from A320 to 737 MAX (at a pretty hefty price to BCA/BCC – they took in AC’s E190 several couldn’t be remarketed and had been scrapped!!) ordered 30 A321XLR recently;
            UA ordered 50 A321XLR and 70 A321.
            The limited market to place MAX 10 will hurt lessors’/financiers’ willingness to step in.

          • A321 neo range isnt 4000km – that would be the xtra fuel tanks LR. its 3200km in its standard version with 1 extra tank to match max 10 internal fuel

        • A321 XLR is specially excluded , its still in development ( major reason was it just didnt have enough internal fuel and aux tanks meant it had no room for a full pass load baggage)
          New wing flaps because the plane was getting runway restricted and extra weight because of all above.

          • “A321 XLR is specially excluded , its still in development”

            But but but … how ’bout the MAX 10? 🤔

          • “.. how ’bout the MAX 10?”

            a large number ( something like less than 10 ?)have been wing joined.
            That is completely different thing. You can see that, its obvious?

          • From the same poster that
            fantasized about a MAX 10 LR. 😄

            Are you trying to make stuff up, AGAIN??

            The XLR is said to have more room for cargo or baggage than the LR.

          • XLR is excluded because it needs a new certification above the standard A321 and is thus a new variant completely. Surely you know this
            Thats delayed for some *reasons*

            Remember to even have the *same* internal fuel volume as a max 10 the standard A321 needs 1 ACT belly tank… Thats doesnt require a new certification.
            Glad to help in your upskilling

      • Get you brain correct.

        None is flying. It`s not in service. Not certified.

        Every day more A321neos get to happy customers, while Boeings customers are waiting for a subpar product.

        Lol, and the simpleflying link, great, then i understand which level you`re on.

        • Sash….. You wrote, and the quotes are there because I copied you IN CONTEXT “For now, Max 9 and 10 combined have 1200 orders. From the 900 Max 10 ordered, none is flying. ”
          You were quite specific, you said no -10s were flying. You didn’t say in service, you didn’t say squat about certification, you said FLYING.
          I posted an article showing UALs first 737-10 FLYING. My brain Is CORRECT, I know that a picture of a 737-10 climbing out in UAL colors means that they ARE flying just as its headline says. If you wish to now change what said, thats fine, but be intellectually honest to admit that 737-10s are flying, because they are
          Again…. Here’s the pretty picture https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-first-boeing-737-max-10-flight/

      • ” A large number of -10s ”

        Can you qualify that into a numerical value?

        ( production list I could find don’t go beyond 10 known frames. Only two ( test aircraft, Boeing seem to be finished/in use )

    • The $50billion debt simply reflects the fact that Boeing have had the inferior product line up for far too long.

      To have ended up with that level of debt despite having sold a ton of aircraft over the past few decades points to the fact that none of their aircraft programmes have been profitable. The only reason large numbers of deliveries turns into debt, not profit, is because they’re being sold too cheaply. This in turn suggests that their products won’t sell at higher prices.

      It’s as basic as that. And, Boeing seem resolved not to do anything realistic about their product line up for the foreseeable future. Again.

      • The debt rise came in mostly since 2019 as for 2018 FY they had earnings of $10.5 bill and long term debt of $10.6 bill

        Without real facts your claims are baseless

        A ton of aircraft over the last few decades have made them a ton of money

        • “Without real facts your claims are baseless”

          @Matthew is correct.
          We get the “real facts” every quarter when BA publishes yet another dismal quarterly earnings report.

          • Cash flow last quarter was outstanding.
            Pros concentrate on this measure, which explains why you chose another

          • @ DoU
            Cashflow last quarter came purely from deferred payments.
            Surely even you can see that that trick only works for a short time?

    • Sash says ‘Max still doesn`t have an answer to A321neos’

      Which means you dont understand the Max 10 . Its a near close equivalent to the A321neo ( standard version) Seating is half a row or 3 seats less. Range with same fuel is the same ( the max 10 has greater internal tankage like other max) so A321 needs a belly tank to match it.

      What you might consider isnt matched is the long awaited A322 version also known as the A321XLR , its a major new variant which required new fuselage section and new wing flap system plus a bumped up gross weight ( wonder how different the engines will be ?)
      its clearly got first to market advantages for the airlines rushing to make single aisle long haul for 8-9 hours ( ive flown 5 hrs in one) and fills the gap where A321 neo cant do transcontinental full load flights

      • “A321 neo cant do transcontinental full load flights”

        “Looking at routes operating between now and December, long A321neo services are hugely about Europe and North America, with Stockholm to Chicago – some 4,272 miles – the longest. Operated by SAS, this connects two Star Alliance hubs. It will be served from September 1st until the end of October, and it has a block time to the USA of nine hours and 15 minutes (!).”

        “Some 11 of the top-50 routes are from Lisbon, including five with TAP to northern Brazil. This nicely demonstrates how the 32Q can be used on longer and thinner routes that don’t need the capacity of widebodies in exchange for a much lower trip cost.”


  5. *“It was an important milestone to generate positive cash flow,” West said at the top of his discussion—highlighting the No. 1 priority of the investment community and by extension, the Boeing C-Suite.*

    This is the key statement and Scott has picked it up, out of the clutter.

    Not a word about margins and delivering profits. These are the previous fours years at BCA and their margins:

    2019: (6,657)
    2020: (13,847)
    2021: (6,475)
    2022: (2,370)

    Boeing commercial has generated a $29.349 billion loss from operations, over those 4 years. Those losses are sitting on the balance sheet and are now called debt.


    A thing about liabilities;

    Another point Scott brought up, was the long term debt going down, moving into short term.

    The current liabilities went up dramatically, year over year. (Anything over 10%, you ask yourself why?)

    Total current liabilities 90,052 81,992

    Obligations….are obligations. You owe them to borrowers, suppliers, employees and others – no matter what you call them.

    Total liabilities 152,948 153,398

    Total liabilities essentially did not change, dropping some $450 million, YoY.


    • Just because you know the financial business of say commercial property or from working at a company making chocolate bars your commentary doesnt give context from just copying bare numbers.
      read the full commentary and financial notes ( or get an aerospace sector financial analyst newsletter) and tell us why Boeings liabilities have increased by the amount mentioned, is that too hard ? but instead you fall back on your wisdom – ‘liabilities are liabilities ‘…thats it.

      • Given Boeings position and the fact that much of it was shorter term maturities it seems entirely reasonable portions of LT debt are now ST to be paid within the year. That’s the importance of the deliveries to free up cash but a lot of this was covering the unsold inventory investment which should come down as deliveries increase. I haven’t checked the financial notes but the people who make a lot more than me have taken these into account or have revolving credit they can cover a shortfall with.

      • My my – aren’t we triggered.

        Do you really need a re-hash of the past 4 years? You need me to tell you why BA is in this mess and why liabilities have increased?

        The nuanced point I was trying to make, but I guess I’ll hit you over the head with the hammer, is that you can shift obligations around the liabilities section, you can roll expenses into the Inventory account to puff up assets, but at the end of the day – you still owe what you owe.

        Those last four years have shown that while BCA delivered 1,357 aircraft, it cost them over $29 billion.

        Yes, I know you love to focus on cash flow – but at the end of the day, if you sell something for $45 million and it costs you $45 million to make, you are just marking time. Mind you, if BCA could break even on those sales, they’d be a lot better off.

        Don’t hate me, Hate the numbers.

        • Everybody with a real grasp of company financials focuses on free cash flow.
          if you dont we might assume something else about your knowledge.

          • My impression:

            That much touted “free cash flow” thingie is a last straw metric to lipstick enhance a dying pig.

          • Sigh. No Duke.

            “In corporate finance, free cash flow (FCF) or free cash flow to firm (FCFF) is the amount by which a business’s operating cash flow exceeds its working capital needs and expenditures on fixed assets (known as capital expenditures).[1] It is that portion of cash flow that can be extracted from a company and distributed to creditors and securities holders without causing issues in its operations. As such, it is an indicator of a company’s financial flexibility and is of interest to holders of the company’s equity, debt, preferred stock and convertible securities, as well as potential lenders and investors.”

            But hey – there you go again, attacking the messenger when you don’t like the message. Very revealing at just how much you don’t want to discuss the actual financial situation and how desperate you are to change the narrative.

          • Frank, indeed free cash flow is a measure of whether a company is on the way up, or on the way down.

            Still, $50billion is a long way down, but not as deep as can be. What I have just found to be illuminating is the Wikipedia page “List of Most Indebted Companies”, which lists the top 20 most indebted companies for 2014, 16 and 19. Boeing’s $50billion barely makes it into the top 20, and is less than 1/5th the debt that General Electric had in 2014.

            I suppose the interesting thing to consider then is that GE, having topped the list in 2014, were half way down it in 2016 and off the list altogether by 2019. That’s quite a large clear-out of debt. Boeing’s $50billion is smaller, and it is not unprecedented for companies to come back from deeper down.

            Question is, will Boeing manage it? I don’t know why Boeing are saying there’s no big jump in engine tech coming up. There is – RR’s Ultrafan looks pretty good, and it could be being offered on all Airbus wide bodies inside a few years. If that’s anywhere near half-way good, it’ll be worth putting on every aircraft that it can power. Boeing’s pessimistic outlook (no new engines, no new aircraft for a decade) seems to suggest that they’re going to spend a long time reducing that $50billion debt pile.

            Question is, will Airbus build a decisive lead in the meantime? Boeing is giving them a lot of opportunity to do that. If Boeing are relying on their current order book to clear the debt decks, they could end up debt free but with no new orders and no customers.

            I trust the maxim, “develop, or die”. Boeing probably should acknowledge it too.

          • @Matthew

            Free cash flow. What every investor loves to hear. Why? This is from the 2018 (Boeing’s best year ever):

            ‘Record operating cash flow of $15.3 billion; repurchased 26.1 million shares for $9.0 billion’


            How’d that work out for them?


            On GE:

            GE got into trouble by acquiring a bunch of things (amongst other reasons) – but the silver lining was that they had things to sell, to pay off debts.

            Do you think Boeing is about to sell off things to get out of debt? Do they have a bunch of things they can sell?


            On the debt pile:

            Let’s say that BCA is responsible for about $40 billion of the debt they currently hold. In 2018, they had about $10 billion in debt, so we’ll use that as a starting point.

            In that year, BCA produced earnings of $7.879 billion, on sales of $60.715 billion. They delivered 806 aircraft, that year.

            Boeing needs ~5 years just like 2018, in a row – to get rid of that $40 billion in debt.

            4000 aircraft delivered.
            13% margin.

            (Considering they are paying an additional $2.5 billion in interest payments per year, that number is probably higher)

            Do you see that happening?


          • Since you are fact free in your claims on liabilities here some
            $50.3 bill of the liabilities is actually because Boeing has such a massive future order stream and thats the advances and progress payments
            Advances and progress billings [ FY 2022] 53,081 [FY2021] 52,980

            On the other side of liabilities theres inventory of FY2022 $78 bill

            you would think anyone with some accounting “credentials” would be able to find this sort of background information in a flash….

          • @DoU
            The inventory won’t help at all if margins are too thin to generate earnings.
            We’re seeing that every quarter — e.g. Q4 2022: 154 deliveries, yet $600M loss.

          • Operating cash flow 4Q 2022 was $4.3 bill. Free cash flow was $3.1 bill
            The losses you talk about mostly just accounting adjustments,
            future pensions etc and of course they are still making capital investments which are spending money

            Cash flow is king as that can be used to pay debt
            And it gets better , not just a single Q bounce from timing but each quarter from here on to FY 2025 $10 bill of free cash flow and around 10% BCA operating margins

            Backlog is $400 bill orders with $50 bill in down payments already

          • GE once had a big finance portfolio under GE Capital (think of it like a bank running under an industrial company).

            Jan 2016 Reuters
            -> U.S. conglomerate General Electric Co said it signed $157 billion in transactions in 2015 as part of its efforts to divest most of its finance business, GE Capital.

            2018 CNN: Everything is shrinking at GE except its massive debt
            -> Almost everything about General Electric is getting smaller. That includes its business empire, its profits and, of course, its stock price.

          • Oh boy, Duke.

            You just ignore everything you don’t like to see and run down those who point it out, huh?

            About that YUGE amount in Inventory (here we go again…)


            From BA’s latest 10Q

            “At December 31, 2022 and 2021, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 737 program: deferred production costs of $2,955 and $1,296 and unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs of $626 and $617”

            “At December 31, 2022 and 2021, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 777X program: $4,059 and $3,363 of work in process, $1,330 and $652 of deferred production costs, and $3,774 and $3,521 of unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs.”

            “At December 31, 2022 and 2021, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787 program: deferred production costs of $12,689 and $11,693, $1,831 and $1,907 of supplier advances, and $1,722 and $1,815 of unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs.”

            Let’s get a calculator out to help you along:


            In deferred production costs. NOT sellable inventory

            $6,122 in tooling.

            $23.096 Billion of fluff in Inventory, that you’re trying to push on us as aircraft to be sold.

            So all of your sudden, your Inventory is actually

            $78,151 – 23,096 = $55,055

            Unearned Revenue of $53,081

            Yes – I was able to find this information. Not the first time, I’ve presented it to you, either. You seem to keep forgetting, each time I do.

            But it’s always such a pleasure to hear from you…

          • Again Duke, no….

            “The losses you talk about mostly just accounting adjustments,
            future pensions etc and of course they are still making capital investments which are spending money”

            Once more, from the 10Q

            “Abnormal production costs in 2022 were $1,753 million, including $1,240 million related to the 787 program, $325 million related to the 777X program, and $188 million related to the 737

            Abnormal Production Costs.

            Doesn’t sound like accounting adjustments, pensions and Capex, does it?

            But they explain it, further down in the comments. I guess you were too busy to read:

            “In April 2022, we decided to pause production of the 777X-9 during 2022 and 2023. We implemented the production pause during the second quarter of 2022, and it is expected to result in abnormal production costs of approximately $1.5 billion that are being expensed as incurred until 777X-9 production resumes. During the year ended December 31, 2022, $0.3 billion of abnormal costs were period expensed.”

            “We are currently producing at low rates and expect to gradually return to 5 per month in 2023. In the third quarter of 2021, we determined that production rates below 5 per month represented abnormally low production rates and result in abnormal production costs. We also determined that the inspections and rework costs on inventoried aircraft are excessive and should also be accounted for as abnormal production costs that are required to be expensed as incurred. Cumulative abnormal costs recorded through December 31, 2022 totaled $1.7 billion. During the fourth quarter of 2022 we adjusted the total estimate of abnormal production costs up to $2.8 billion with most being incurred by the end of 2023. At December 31, 2021, we were expecting to incur approximately $2 billion of abnormal production costs on a cumulative basis. The increase was primarily driven by a decision in the fourth quarter of 2022 to slow down near-term production due to supply chain constraints and increased inspection and rework costs. We continue to work with customers and suppliers regarding timing of future deliveries and production rate changes.”

            “737 Program. We increased the production rate to 31 per month in 2022, and expect to implement further gradual production rate increases based on market demand and supply chain capacity. We expensed abnormal production costs of $188 million and $1,887 million during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021.”

            Abnormal. Production. Costs.

    • All West can say is: let’s put all the bad numbers aside … trust me, there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (2025-26″ish” slipping from 2025).

      • Pedro said…..
        All West can say is: let’s put all the bad numbers aside … trust me, there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (2025-26″ish” slipping from 2025).

        I can see why BA is so upbeat on positive cash flow, there is NO OTHER NEWS that doesn’t look like crap. Make no mistake, When I say Boeing has turned the corner, I understand just how long a trip they are on and perhaps I should say they have stopped the bleeding, but they haven’t done that either. I don’t trust the messages from management and here’s why. BA is so upbeat on positive cash flow because there is NO OTHER NEWS that doesn’t look like crap. There are over 100 737s and 787s in their respective parking lots. The 747 just ended production and the 767 will have production ended by law in 2027. The 737-10, 737-7, 777X ALL are hung up in a much delayed certification process. Airforce One is a black hole of silent writedowns. BA STILL insists that the globalization of Engineering is the future path to recovery. The next new product is undefined and has no timeline. In the light of ALL this crap, its exceptionally difficult to say BA has turned the corner, thats a semantic argument for a different day. Has BA started to improve their lot in life. I see little things that make me hopeful, but a management tool banging the table saying there is positive cashflow make me a lot more nervous than I was. I don’t trust BA any more. And for me to feel that way should tell you guys a few thngs.

        • @Pedro

          Yah – this guy is hardly anti-Boeing.

          If he’s not believing the corporate speak put out by West, then you can take it to the bank that he feels uneasy with the current direction of the company.

          Boeing has a mountain to climb and one has to wonder if the current crop of leaders are in for the long haul, or are just looking to get paid before heading for the door.

          • $400 bill of existing orders ( $40 bill alone last year) and $50 bill of down payments. Thats not a declining business

            You’re no CPA , maybe high school accounting was your glass ceiling

          • Duke

            Blessings from the Pope! Thank you.

            Those are YUGE numbers. The biggliest, most perfect numbers, ever…

            I suggest you take ever penny you have and invest it BA stock.

    • -> U.S. 10-year real yields are climbing again, now at the highest since early January

      Can BA repay its debts fast enough?

    • any special reason?

      IMU it is a complex and expensive makeover to get closer to A321. It also got more interest than the -9(00), a better fit for customers.

      • You said it: complexity, piled high and deep. Too much of it, IMO. Tempting the Gods..

      • Its not closer – its exactly like for like to A321 neo ( standard model) , except carries more internal fuel without belly tanks

        Dont take my word for it , read the Leeham 1st take analysis ( now out of paywall)

        space :”The 737 MAX holds three seats (a half row) fewer than the A321neo”
        range :’This means both aircraft are just passing 3,200nm without becoming limited by the fuel amount.”
        Thats ‘modelled’ as of course the Max 10 MTOW isnt officially released yet

        Costs of flights : ‘Our model shows them to be close on this dimension as well.’

        • Now why does buyer interest not reflect that metric?

          Airbus could satisfy the sliding window interest of buyers ( A321 xyz sells like sliced bread ) and Boeing could not. Sales gravity for Boeing still is at the MAX8 size slot.
          If the MAX10 is really like for like offer matching the A321: why are MAX10 sales not 50+% of MAX sales?

          • There is nothing quite like a well formed and posed question. Thank you.

          • Timing . One has a customer base going back to the early 90s and the neo version was miles ahead too. The Max 10 of course hasnt yet entered service.
            Just dont confuse ‘capability’ where they are like for like and market share, where they arent.
            The Max 9 and 10 are the ‘same market’ as the A321 so the numbers should be aggregated. After all the smaller A320 neo is ‘cross shopped’ ( by the commentators) to larger capacity and longer range Max 8.

          • @DoU

            I posted a chart from Jon Ostrower showing how BA’s SA in-flight market share has been eroding, rapidly in recent years. You can’t explain away by “customer base”. BA once dominated the market.

          • Market share A321neo vs Max10:
            Airbus: 4596 orders
            Boeing: 920 orders

            The Max10 is not yet certified. It won’t be before 2024 either.

            The A321neo order was so important to Qatar that a comparison with was favoured. The Max10 wasn’t good enough for the airline.

            The figures show that Boeing has almost completely lost this market at 200 places.

            The A321neo in particular generates maximum profit for Airbus. With a market share of over 80 percent, this is no wonder.

        • How many time have this been debunked? Laughable that it’s the only fig leave you can show up with.

          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

          • And the Max series can be packed out too.
            The LNA analysis is for fairly standard airliner configurations and seating arrangements
            battery farming flights are always an outlier

            never heard of the max8-200 ?
            The 200 is number of seats…..in. a. max. 8 !

            A max 10 could be packed out as well, You heard it first from me

            So you choose to ignore all the other usual comparisons that LNA experts ( no you arent one) have decided there are a ‘very close match.’
            Ignore those ‘possible’ capacity numbers for Sardine Air
            And Im sure Boeing might spring some surprises in capability once its EIS- as they have plenty of time for design tweeks

          • You know, how many passengers can the A321neo have max out? And the MAX 10??

          • According to LNA who base their numbers on cabin length and allow for galleys and toilets the Max 10 is only 3 seats short of a standard A321 . number of emergency exits comes into it , but they have been added to the Max 8-200 already

            Wizz Air does pack in 239 in its A321 neos so Max 10 is going to be around the 230+ number

          • Apparently an A321neo with 196 seats is NOT max out! Seven more seats than the MAX 10 according to LNA! These are the facts you chose to ignore in your rantings.

          • A321neo (ACF Version) max 244 Seats
            Max10 max 230 Seats

            = +14 Seats for Airbus by more Range.

          • LNA said the Max 10 compared with a similarly eqipped A321 is *3* seats difference ( half a seat row)
            Where did you get 6 seats from. It hardly matters anyway

            Airlines with much more seats need extra exits , Max 10 in normal version doesnt have those ….but wait can be adapted for that as the A321 sardine version does.

          • Pedro and Duke.
            Context Gentlemen.
            Pedro has it right. A standard MAX10 uses a type B mid cabin exit door to save weight. Weight on the -10 is critical because the gas or people tradeoff point is less advantageous than the AB. In order to add seats, you need exit capacity gained by using the wider class A mid cabin exit door. This door is 4 inches wider, weighs a lot more and allows you to have exit capacity to be legal at the extreme end of seat count. That weight costs you fuel and range. Ultimately you get 2 aircraft that are very close on range/payload until the MAX runs out of divert fuel before the AB does. If the differences really matter is up to the route structure the customer fly’s BUT when you sell the airplane without a customer, as leasing companies do, The AB is simpler to sell as less config management needs to be done.

          • Scott , the Max 10 like all maxes has greater internal fuel than the Neos (it came from its new wing for the NG)
            To match the fuel , a neo has to have 1 ACT , its a removable tank which is extra dead weight

            And you are worrying about a exit door that is 4 in wider having extra weight.
            A321 doesnt get a sardine capacity without extra width doors too, theres the slimline toilets also used to squeeze space some more.

          • How come the MAX from BA also follows with slimline toilets, for “sardine capacity”?? 🙄 (AAL for example.)

          • Duke. The -10 lacking belly fuel , at high seat configs runs out of divert fuel before the Airbus. It has less range. That is an indusputable fact….. BA tries to get some of that range back by installing lighter mid cabin escape doors as standard allowing more fuel to be loaded.. Remember there is a crossover point where you carry either gas or people, not both, the Max10 hits t¹his point before an Airbus. If you look at the range payload charts, it’s obvious what’s going on. The Airbus with 1 belly tank does lose out on belly cargo space. All airplanes are compromises, the Airbus may be more easily configured but each operators specific route structure makes each decision different. Ultimately the decision comes down to a mix of things including those beyond strictly aircraft performance. Please quit arguing that the 321 is inferior to the MAX. It isn’t necessarily so.
            The 2 aircraft are close enough that either could be the correct operator choice and that aircraft performance alone is not the only deciding factor. Think bigger and work the Equation not the elements inside it…

  6. Boeing missed out on buying Bombardier C series and instead wasted money on lawyers!

    • > Boeing missed out on buying Bombardier C series.. <

      Boeing, to their arch-competitor: "Here, take it! All yours, and for [essentially] free! "


      • No one paid $1 for $100% of Cseries business
        Airbus didnt want it either at the same conditions offered to Boeing.

        The government in Canada ( both Ottawa and Quebec city) didnt want the other rumoured buyer on Bombardiers terms which was Comac and they knew Airbus with its multi country plants was the only viable choice.

        Special deal was C$1 for a part share in only the final assembly line and all the planes IP.
        The production sub assemblies plants in Montreal and Belfast UK ( complete wings) were bought for a a considerable sum plus cost new FAL in Alabama.
        Bombardier sold separately its DHC line and the CRJ support business and retained the business jets ( Lear in Wichita has just closed)

        • If Boeing had bought it they would not need Alabama, so that was an Airbus decision self imposed burden.

      • Boeing would have taken in for a bonfire.
        Boeing is a scavenging entity. Just like the US wrapper.

        • Boeing was more interested in another manufacturer , remember.
          Was that going to be a bonfire ?
          Anyway like the Embraer JV , any buyout of Cseries would be a JV with Quebec pension fund , which is like a golden share, so you cant break it up

          • Embraer JV, bonfire.

            My guess is that Embraer as a “high quality functional unit” would not have survived the experience.

          • Embraer is the poster child for globalisation of manufacture which you rail against, now its a ‘highly functional unit’ ?

            Hardly any of the E series major structures are made in Brasil – there is a plant or two owned by a global aerospace businesses who do the work while Embraer does mostly final assembly only
            Some assemblys were even made in Everett, yes that one

          • “.. global aerospace businesses who do the work while Embraer does mostly final assembly only”

            And without any major complications.
            ( Same is valid for Airbus.)

            See, my “RAILINGs” as you so nicely put it are about US/Boeing style ( trying to shaft every one else) globalization.

          • Not the same as Airbus – who own plants around the world

            Broughton wing- Airbus owned
            Hamburg- Airbus owned,
            theres multiple other sub assembly sites in France Germany and Canada – all Airbus subsidiaries

            Embraer only makes the nose section
            Japan is even in on the design production ,Kawasaki does entire wing structure for E190/195

      • Yet they still haven’t made any money on it and continue to wrap dollars around each delivery. Disregarding the whataboutism of talking about the cseries in a Boeing post, it’s far too early to take a victory lap on this one. Even if they become positive cash per plane they still have an aircraft that’s not harmonized with the 320 from a cockpit, Mx or operations standpoint.

        • Many here have no idea about the difference between cash margin and profit/loss. My two cents.

        • Yes, most likely does Airbus need to launch the A220-500 just to renegotiate all supplier contracts and drop the A220-100. Most likely with an engine option. The A220-500 should then be a cheaper A220 with a few rows bigger cabin with a new wing that UK pays Belfast to make. Then the A220-300 can be dropped unless it can be made cheaper than the -300. It depends on how much of the optimal -500 can be carried over to the -300 in a Block update. Now Airbus is a bit stuck in old contracts, the -500 would change all that with Airbus jetliner engineers getting bored just doing cost/productivity and weight optimization work.

    • They couldn’t buy it because it’s too modern and would make the Max look bad. And no yoke; real airplanes have yokes!

      • Dan F:

        And don’t forget positive feedback from said control items and throttles not bump steering.

      • DanF

        Because the 787 and 777’s are not modern according to you?…
        Any other more relevant comments please?

  7. Sash,

    S.”…While A321neo has more than 940 in the air.
    And almost 5000 orders alone…”

    I’m afraid you’re wrong, The parity of the A321neo is roughly equal to the A320neo. It is simply impossible that there are 5.000 A321neo orders out of nearly 7.000 gigantic entire A32Xneo family order

    S.”…Boeing announced that they won`t do a NSA or MOM.
    While Airbus will sooner or later bring the A225…”
    So as late as possible. I find it hard to imagine Airbus cannibalizing one of their best-selling products. However, I would see the A220 cross section being reused for a possible replacement of A320neo around 2035 with CFM Open-Fan Next-Gen Engine. Then reuse cross section of the A32Xneo for something like very efficient A321 or A322X size for the replacement A321neo

    But for now I see both Airbus and Boeing having to put positive cash flow on the table in this decade before moving on to something “fairly new”

    S.”…Max still doesn`t have an answer to A321neos….”
    With the solution of a simple stretch and simple development derisked,
    thé 737MAX-10 is the downhill answer to the market
    +1000 orders in 4 years, including 2 years of uncertainty that held back MAX’s orders before recertification in 2020 is not bad at all.

    S.”..While A321neo has more than 940..”
    in the air…”
    Perfectly logical since the A321neo was launched in 2010, while the MAX-10 “only” in 2018, adding 2 years of grounding with that one.

    S. “…Airbus A330neo isn`t doing much better sales wise, but with a freighter incoming ..”
    Nothing prevents the competitor from doing so with its 787-F, although nothing has been heard about an A330neo-F…



    • We are moving away from prop jobs, not towards them.

      People do not like prop jobs (I love them but that is me).

      Ak Airlines (Horizon) has dumped its Q400 fleet and is going all jet.

      CFM is selling the snake oil that in 12 years there is no improvement in jet engines as well as getting free money from Europe to develop a core and a gear box.

      Its called throwing sand in the gears while they try to catch up.

      Or, as the cartoon used to say, Is a Bird, its a Plane, no, its Superdog.

      • US isnt the typical world market ( much bigger country than most and mostly more competition) the market is further distorted by the scope rules which have a max 76 seats or weight. Thats right in the TP sweet spot.
        Other countries that use regional jets like their seating around the 90 range and TP for the next size down

      • Trans.
        Turbine engines have been bumping up against metallurgy limits as they try to run hotter in order to run leaner mixtures and lower SFC. the push has been to smaller hotter gas generators. They have been at the point of diminishing returns for quite a while. The other way to improve things is with geared fans, or ultimately UDFs. We may finally be to the point where “props” become the norm,

        • P&W had not pushed those limits like GE, they had the GTF.

          So P&W not only can improve the GTF end, they can go more exotic materials and get more.

          I don’t buy the Open Rotor.

    • > ..nothing has been heard about an A330neo-F… <

      See Aviation Week here:

      "..Faury hinted that Airbus is nearing a decision to launch a freighter version of the A330neo, now that it has started dFaury hinted that Airbus is nearing a decision to launch a freighter version of the A330neo, now that it has started development of the A350F. “We have to choose our battles,” he said. A launch of an “A321neoF” was “not very likely” for the time being. “You can draw your own conclusion about the third [A330neo] platform,” he said.evelopment of the A350F. “We have to choose our battles,” he said. A launch of an “A321neoF” was “not very likely” for the time being. “You can draw your own conclusion about the third [A330neo] platform,” he said… "


      Quite a thorough article, for those in the evidence-based community.

      • Yes indeed the announcement of the A330neo-F is very recent and ignored.
        Take note.


        • I had not seen it either though it says they are looking at it vs are doing it.

          We are seeing a sudden drop off in Air Freight and or more accurately a shift to belly freight with international wide body routes getting back into the swing.

          I like the full honesty on next years narrow body production. They should have done that in 2022 rather than act like Boeing.

          9 a month of A350 seems excessive. Historically the average for that size is more like 7. 787 might be able to do 9 (if they can get there) but it was totally unrealistic at 14 just to chop the produion and that was before the joint issues came up.

          And the RR issues are not going away soon.

  8. MAX10 has been stated to be certified in 2024. So that is off the table for this year. Makes sense to have it up in Everett as noted.

    The MAX7 should be built this year. There are also P-8 and Wedgetail production. Those are supply limited not production limited. They also are not normal production so like The A330CEO, that has impact on the costs or profits on them.

    Defense side will be moving up and probably a lot. The Wedgetail is the only near or medium solution to the AWACs decline.

    The MAX10 competes fairly well against the A321 (high and hot and the rotation limits). It does not compete against the A321XLR but that is a niche product as you get the range at a cost in Pax load and the tank situation is not resolved yet.

    Boeing needs to stabilize itself. Clearly it is barely managing current production (finally) let alone new.

    The 777X has not even begun official FAA tests and it needs to reach that milestone.

    • TransWorld

      “…CFM is selling the snake oil that in 12 years there is no improvement in jet engines as well as getting free money from Europe to develop a core and a gear box…”


      I don’t understand your disappointment about CFM.
      They have powerful, robust and reliable engines.

      It is normal that they look to the future when they could catalyze the development of new aircraft for Airbus and Boeing of the 2030+, with Open-Fan engines.

      Who would do that now?

      • Its not disappointment with CFM, its that anyone would believe the line of BS that is being spun there.

        Open Rotor has been ballyhoed since (early 80s?). Its always just 10-20 years away for success. Its always morphing when they figure out how bad and non viable the current variant will be.

        So they get free money to play with because the EU has a prop program, not because it has merit. By doing so they get to develop a new core and gear box.

        Its not going anywhere like it always has not gone anywhere. Oh, let build an airplane that has a captive engine market and risk a face plant on a prop job.

      • Duke.
        The hold up was caused by the late evaluation of public comments coming back off the derivative regulations. These were changed as a result of congress passing the aircraft cert and safety bill….. the late completion of that reg has a cascade effect where the manufactures have to rewrite their internal processes to be in compliance before they can do cert flights. You cant get TIA until MIDO and Flight standards agree on the path forward……. Airbuss’s integral tank is also hostage to this process…. In any case, it matters little under what reason you test fly because there is so much flying not related to actual cert flights that needs to be done……. You are fighting windmills

        • “Airbuss’s integral tank is also hostage to this process….”

          Which was intentional:if Boeing must reform also hamper Airbus in the process. Leveling the table so to speak.

          Just like inventing FAA ETOPS vs just going with ICAO extended times.

          There are more examples around.

          • ICAO is just an airlines centered group not a regulatory agency

            The FAA was first to allow 180 mins ETOPs from EIS for 777 in 1990 They already had 180 mins under strict conditions from 1988

            The JAA, as the european agency was known, disagreed ( included many non EU nations in Europe)

            Of course back then etops was only for twins and most over water longhaul was done by tri and quad jets

          • So the ICAO is little more than a trade association?? 🙂 Have a nice day.

            This is what a so called international “rule-based” system is treated when they don’t like it!

          • Ask Qatar about ICAO rules which are supposed to stop Saudi Arabia/UAE from black listing its overflights until recently
            The Saudis just thumbed their nose at it.
            ICAO doesnt have a regulatory function, countries can follow their rules or not, they arent some sort of super rules maker like you erroneously claim
            Its airline centric as the phrase ‘civil aviation’ means what ?

            My main point was the FAA led the way in Etops changes while the europeans dragged their feet.

  9. There are already 30 MAX 7 and MAX 10 in the inventory.

    Last but not the least, the 737 Max 10 is not as effective in “its overall versatility, performance capacity and passenger appeal as the A321. That’s just the bottom line.” ~ Steven Udvar-Hazy

      • Our poster knows the best. Sadly our poster is much less influential than Mr Udvar-Hazy. I know whom I’d pay more attention to. 👌

        • If I recall , Mr. Udvar-Hazy also predicated the 330 neo will sell at least a thousand units..
          Even the so called experts cannot accurately predict future aircraft demand …

        • @Robert:

          It’s still early days my friend.
          LNA: ” … the A330ceo family has the broadest operator base, and there are still almost 1,000 units in passenger service.”


          -> …except that in much of Asia, “medium-haul” works a bit differently. There are a lot of very high-demand routes, where aircraft the size of the 767 and the A330 have been very appropriate. This region has seen more sales of the A330 than anywhere else in the world. Its replacement in the Airbus lineup is the A330neo. And unlike the larger A350, the A330neo is financially viable even for such shorter, medium-haul routes.

          The 787-8/9 is the closest thing that Boeing has to an A330neo. So far, Cathay Pacific hasn’t placed an order for this type. But like the A350, the 787 is better suited to the “long and thin” routes that Boeing designed it for. It is not clear if it could do the kind of medium-haul work that Cathay has in mind. And this is where Boeing’s current aircraft lineup reveals its mid-size aircraft gap, in practice.

          • medium haul for Cathay with A330 type …..is from Hong Kong to Europe. ( 12 hrs for HK to Paris)
            Works well for Chinese airlines too to various European capitals and such.

        • No I dont claim to know best
          I rely on experts like LNA published estimates , while you rely on twitter , dont read Boeings financials – hence cant see the unit/program accounting numbers

          You need to get better intel from your ‘balloons’

  10. OK, so let’s say your losses are up, but your free cash flow is also up, what does that mean? In Pacioli’s equation where A=L+E there are some limitations. The numbers on the books only reflect those things where can be measured using monetary values, and either they have been through an arm’s length transaction or there is some generally accepted method for valuation and two independent teams of accountants can be expected to come up with similar values. So, there are things in each of the three top clades of the equation which are not on the books.

    Everyone knows this about the assets and the liabilities. Typically in any company dealing with some sort of technology product or service, its most valuable assets walk out the door at the end of each shift. Similarly, there may be risks that are potential liabilities. These may or may not show up on the books. If they do, they are typically there in the form of reserves in the equity section.

    Hidden equities are things that are required to satisfy Pacioli’s equation. If there is an asset that is not on the books, who owns them? In the case of employees, they own themselves and represent a key part of the equities. This routinely shows up in healthy companies in the form of employee’s showing that they deeply care about the place and doing above and beyond what is nominally expected.

    OK, so how do you monetize as a loss things that are not on the books? Clearly this is what would have to happen to have positive cash flow, declining debt, and increasing losses (Pacioli’s equation must be satisfied). This is actually quite easy. One quick method in a case like Boeing’s would be to get rid of qualified people, replace them with unqualified people, thus dramatically increasing the costs of production, while at the same time your sales are drawing down the inventory.

    This would have the same effect as a switch from one one of the other methods of inventory valuation to FIFO, without actually showing it on the books. If you have a whole lot of expensive buffer stock in inventory, this works. Your inventory valuation goes down faster than sales, while your cost to produce goes way up. Does that shoe fit Boeing – maybe on the commercial side of the business? Just saying …

    As an aside, there are several other tried and true ways to monetize things that are not on the books and have them come onto the books as losses. None of them are good for the health of the firm. They all amount to liquidation activities.

    Maybe it would be better to ignore what the c-suite folks in Boeing say and instead only look at the results of what they do.

      • I just don’t think we should pay any attention at all to what Calhoun and others in Boeing’s c-suite say on any topic about the business. What we should do is only look at what they do, and construct behavioral models that fit their actions. Then we should use those models to talk about what is likely.

        I think we spend way too much time talking about intent, which assumes some rationality tied to our assumption that they are there to nurture the “going concern” assumptions about Boeing and it’s future, and that just maybe that motivation has nothing to do with what they are about on a daily basis.

        Ostensibly, this discussion is prompted by what Scott wrote about Brian West’s comments. I’m just saying that maybe we should just ignore West’s words, and only look at where he is getting that free cash flow while at the same time he is piling up billions more in deficits in the equity section of the balance sheet. The talk here is as if he thinks he is in the airplane business. What if he thinks he is in the Boeing liquidation business? Which of these assumptions would be a better fit to his actions, ignoring what he says?

        • “.. I think we spend way too much time talking about intent..”

          I’d qualify that further:
          “… talking about PROJECTED intent..”

          so much in your face lying …
          This saturates the domain of commercial and political communications from the US.

  11. I found it quite interesting the 787 for Tata will have GE engines.

    Another blow to RR.

      • This remains a lost market share for RR. Indeed, they are well established in the Asian market…

        Selecting the 787 with GE engines is like stepping into the RR stronghold.
        The A350, I remind you, is only powered by RR engines. AI had no choice. It would seem that the 777-X GE engines don’t mind them…

    • What ‘blow’ to RR
      Air India existing 787 fleet ( 27 units) is all GEnx powered too, it was a slam dunk they would repeat

      • That and what NTU 787 lawndarts has Boeing sitting around? ( how many 787 are idling on the lawn anyway? )

    • TW
      Really no surprises there, considering AI’s current 787 is GE. powered..
      What a massive win for GE /CFM on the Tata order..
      Still a growing list of undecided engine contracts on the 787…!!
      Some major carriers yet to make that decision..
      United , Emirates, and China Airlines yet to officially announce their selection for latest or existing orders.!!
      Hard to believe United would part with GE…
      That leaves Emirates and China Airlines as the major carriers yet to decide…
      Perhaps Rolls has a shot on those orders.!!

      • United no.

        I suspect no on Emirates strongly, they got smacked hard with the over blown claims on the Trent 900 and will pay a price for that (granted they bought into it knowing better)

        China airlines? Again I doubt it. They have exposure to the RR engines and given a choice they will not pick the worst by far.

        What I find interesting is that they have to know the A350 XWB is not giving good service and they buy the aircraft. That is a head scratcher.

        • What overblown ? Its just you repeating the anti RR messages by the GE/PW fan boys in the media.

          The 777-200ER were retired early by a lot of airlines as the PW engines were failing spectacularly
          “Two Boeing planes dropped engine parts on Saturday. Same engine manufacturer as past events.”
          2 in one day … same as past events

          • Thank you @Dukeodurl. Our friend @Transworld is obssessed with parroting the GE/PW diatribe about RR’s poor performing engines dating back as far as 2014 without ever providing updates on current performance.

            For @Transworld I am providing 2 links that are examples of the false news he keeps repeating
            1. Addressing the current performance of Trent 7000 engines as in answer to a question from Bjorn of LNA last week the CEO of Airbus said the engine was performing well as were the other RR engines on Airbus aircraft. See limk immediately below 59.23 minutes in the video where he provides Bjorn with the answer.

            2. This is a flightglobal report from also last week on the current performance on the CFM (GE/SAFRAN) LEAP engines on the A320s, B737s and C919s

            Now hopefully we can start to have an end to unsubtantiated claims of poor RR engine performance in the forum and get some REAL news on the various OEMs, the products, and how well those products are doing or not doing.

            Just a gentle nudge my friend @Dukeofurl, though I enjoy your spirited defence of Boeing and your pushback with @Frank, I just want to let you know that generally @Frank is correct on the analysis of Boeing’s financial state. Small disclosure, I am a finance professional of 40 years plus having practiced in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa and his dissection is generally accurate. Anyway good luck to you my friend.

          • Thanks for your useful information Mr B.
            of course Boeing dug itself a big hole financially but with $400 bill on order backlog and $50 bill already in advance payments ( but listed as liabilities even though almost all wont be refunded) they have a path to improving their performance with a $10 bill cash flow for FY2025 or so predicted.
            Some people just hate it when their doom and gloom for Boeing and its demise turned out ( as some predicted) to wrong

            Airbus has hit deep pot holes too. A400M was expensive mistake (€7 bill for Airbus and billions more for customers) only because the captive customers couldnt walk away.
            The A400 is like Boeings planes , turned out fine …eventually. In the long run of things thats what matters.

    • Uwe,

      …”Sales gravity for Boeing still is at the MAX8 size slot.
      If the MAX10 is really like for like offer matching the A321: why are MAX10 sales not 50+% of MAX sales?…”

      It’s really very simple to understand. The A321neo was launched in 2010, the 737MAX-8 in 2011 and the 737MAX-10 only in 2018.

      As I explain in my review you may not have read. The center of gravity cannot shift to the MAX-10 in such a short time. I don’t see the MAX-10 beating the MAX-8 anytime soon. It will not in the current state of the market and maybe never… Maybe…

      Formerly the A321ceo did not sell as much as the A320ceo but with the “neo” it is ~50/50 and not sure that Airbus expected such sales. However time will reveal things there are too many parameters to take into account. Remember that Airbus must force itself to honor promised deliveries. This has not been done yet and we do not really know when the maximum production rate promised by Airbus will arrive, There will still be 10-12 years if not more (2033-2035+) of production for the A32Xneo and 737 MAX families.
      (!) While I anticipate the launch of their replacements around ~2028 for a 2035-2036 EIS…

      Things should change so let’s not put the carts before the horse…


      …”There is nothing quite like a well formed and posed question. Thank you…”
      There is nothing quite like a
      well-answered and well-formed question

      • MAX10 is a better MAX9 which is a reengined 900NG.

        My theory is that the next bigger frame in a family gets preferential interest when its range capabilities expand over some “magic range” ( that need not be fixed over all times )
        You can follow my theory via looking at A320 family sales distribution over time. After the A319 was introduced it could gather about 50% of interest.
        Over time the A321 went from low interest to 50% while the A319 after its peak in the 2000 years has lost out to near invisibility.

        Boeing could not achieve that for the 900NG/MAX9.
        ( Though with the market gravitiy sitting half way between A320 and A321 the then largest 737 model sitting in that center capacitywise should have flown off the shelves.

        it didn’t.

        MAX10 fares better but not comparable to the A321 success by far. IMU the capacity expansion is hampered by a growing bag of compromised design issues. Its leverage on tech/engine improvements is limited.

        • A321 was also compromised by design issues
          hence the XLR increased weight, new wing flap design and the lack of internal fuel with a novel belly tank structure

          • “A321 was also compromised by design issues”

            The A320 platform has the leeway to make those changes effectively.
            MTOW potential is what the 737 platform lacks.

            The XLR tank is a major change. obviously.
            _and_ it is enabled by that available MTOW headroom and sufficient belly space.

            The new XLR high lift design is a simplification of the existing solution on the A321 IMU it will probably be backported to the smaller frame(s).
            This then is an overall simplification of the production lineup.

            The -10MAX gear leg changes lacks that kind of synergy. more complexity, wrong direction.
            the wing and high lift design is a pimped version of the original 1960ties type start.

          • Uwe wrote
            The -10MAX gear leg changes lacks that kind of synergy. more complexity, wrong direction.

            Your view seems to be focused on the gear leg itself. If you look at the ENTIRE problem, which is getting fuselage clearance for rotation angle, it is the simplest solution there. The -10 uses the same doors, center wing box interface and retraction cylinders as well as swinging in the same trunnions as all other MAXs. The change was limited to the gear leg itself and basically added a pull rod that pulled the lower strut into the upper strut housing. They added 3 parts per side. Its not driven, there is no actuator or system difference between the Maxs. I think you protest too much….

          • ” I think you protest too much….”

            I don’t protest. I observe.
            And I have quite enough engineering background for this to be a valid observation.

          • “The new XLR high lift design is a simplification of the existing solution on the A321 IMU it will probably be backported to the smaller frame(s).’

            Really ?
            You seem to have forgotten
            ‘The A321 has double-slotted flaps while the A318/A319/A320 all have single-slotted flaps, also known as simplex flaps’

            So thats means 3 different actual flaps systems for one family …its getting complicated here. I doubt if the XLR has reused the A320 parts

          • It would be a gain if you could “brain up” on these details before answering.

            The family up to A320 has single slotted flaps.
            the A321 got double slotted flaps for more lift with the longer fuselage limits.
            A321XLR get a SINGLE slotted solution that provides for better lift than the established solution based on improved aerodynamic understanding. ( and pandering to the increased MTOW )
            Talk is that the XLR solution will over time be applied to the smaller models. unifying, simplifying … impact on manufacturing and MX cost … ( depressing required takeoff speeds should have a wider impact too )

          • So you agree *now* that the A320/321 family of planes will have a complicated parts/maintenance system of 3 differing flaps

            And yet it was a big deal the Max 10 had a few parts in the undercarriage that were unique ?
            Just repeating what I had to point out for you doesnt make your point .
            For maintenance reasons , no they wont be changing the ‘basic’ A321 coming off production to the newer system. Thats would spread their complication further for airlines

      • No.

        737 MAX 10

        ‘In October 2016, Boeing’s board of directors granted authority to offer the stretched variant with two extra fuselage sections forward and aft with a 3,100 nautical miles (5,700 km) range reduced from 3,300 nmi (6,100 km) of the MAX 9. Boeing ended the 2017 Paris Air Show with 361 orders and commitments, including 214 conversions, from 16 customers ‘

        Pretty hard to say it was launched in 2018, if in the 2017 Paris Air Show they had 361 orders, huh?

        • ‘Authority to offer’ marketing is only a provisional way of getting orders on a new plane .
          Its not till Boeing made a definite decision to build the plane the next year that the provisional orders became firm

  12. The A321XLR, a niche according to BA, was launched in 2019. How many orders it has? 600 give or take?

    BTW BA discloses its backlog for the MAX 10 is *720* only.

    • Not just according to Boeing, according to some people too.

      But I HAVEN’T seen Boeing say that anywhere. Many make up stories here.

      It’s very funny that for you 600 orders of A321XLR is good but 720 orders of 737MAX10 is bad according to you.

      Just hilarious once again…!

      (!) It is time for you NOW to prove to us the veracity of your statements concerning the sales of the 737MAX 10 to 720 orders and not 1,000 orders. Also include MAX-9 while we’re at it…

        • Uwe

          Thanks for the link (from 2019).

          What do I think of it ?
          It’s still a niche market as I said before and the reason why Boeing canceled its NMA and certainly develop the 737 replacement around 2030+.

          Boeing has repositioned itself on its priorities

          For the moment, it will bring the positive cash flow back to the table…

          (!) Lufthansa also thinks the same thing. https://www.airdatanews.com/for-lufthansa-a321xlr-is-a-niche-product/

      • Hang on a moment! You seem to be comparing sales of the A321XLR to those of the 737Max10 – should you not be comparing sales of the Max10 to all variants of the A321 in the same period, for a fair comparison? I don’t know what the exact outcome will be, but I suspect the picture would look rather different!

        • Roger,

          Yes they are two different aircraft one is complex in development and different compared to the A321neo variants, and the other is a simple strech of the 737-8/-9 MAX’s

          If they are compared both it is just because they were launched almost at the same time for 1,000 orders of 737MAX-10 and 600 orders of the niche market A321-XLR

          • Then the comparison you should be making is sales of the standard A321Neo vs the 737-Max10 over the given time period. I cannot tell what the answer actually is, but my suspicion is that it will not fit your narrative!

          • Bingo! 🙂

            (Hey, you know BA, and I repeat AGIAN, said there are only *720* backlog for the MAX 10.)

          • You have to add orders for Max 9 too. As it has no direct comparison to other planes but is way bigger than the A320 ( even max 8 is bigger/better)
            The A321 has some runway advantage because they gave it new double slotted faps carried over to neo ( and different again on XLR)

            heres was LNA take on how great the Max 8 is over A320
            12 more seats , 2.5m longer cabin, better range on standard internal fuel. ( 3500nm)
            So we have the max8 compared to A320 yet its 12 seats less. But it is what it is, so lets do the same with the Max 9 , compare to the A321 neo which only has 15 seats more ( on LNA seating comparison)

            The Max 7 is bigger again than the A319 neo ( which seems to be dead in the market)
            LNA-‘ A319neo has 126 seats in our normalized domestic cabin, the CS300 132 seats and the 737 MAX 7 138 seats.’
            A220 leads in many ways compared to other types but its a completely different family

  13. Scott is sending out positive signals about Boeing recovery, as Boeing does. Let’s hope for a healthy competition later on.

  14. Not much point in selling aircraft if there isn’t enough margin on them to make a (meaningful) profit. When did BA last post a positive quarter? Why is BCA consistently losing about $600M per quarter, despite good delivery figures?

    BA’s debt is only going down at a snail’s pace, so there’ll be crippling interest payments for quite some time to come.


    • “Free Cash Flow” in Boeing’s case is a seeming perpetual-motion machine, but with several pesky leaks.

    • Bryce
      There is a point you are missing. Aircraft built with minimal margin are still beneficial to the enterprise in that they paid their chunk of the facility overhead. When you are as tight as BA is, it is better to build/sell minimal margin aircraft and pay the fixed expenses than not to.
      You ARE correct that spinning your wheels on low margin products doesn’t allow you to grow in a healthy manner.

  15. Pedro

    …”Pay attention: I’ve said *many* times before, Boeing SEC filing 10K
    Could you please be more explicit. We are still waiting for your disputes on the 1,000 737MAX-10 orders…🙄

  16. Pedro

    “…The backlog of A320neo family vs the 737 MAX tells me everything I need to know..”
    What is the purpose of this please?

    We can also write the thing as follows,

    “…The backlog of Boeing widebody aircraft vs the Airbus widebody aircraft tells me everything I need to know..” 😉

    • Add to that the BBJ variants far outsell the ACJ versions and then we come to freighters ….. and guess what ?
      Business is business.

      Its like some of these commenters have found some ancient talisman which they clutch as though their life depends on it … but its not some work of ancient craftsmen , instead it just a few words on it that are repeated over and over to appease a deity… the god of single aisles , apparently

  17. Pedro,

    …”Not much point in selling aircraft if there isn’t enough margin on them to make a (meaningful) profit…”
    And yet the frustration of M. O’Leary, Rayanair CEO proves you wrong…

    …”O’Leary said he was still interested in a large order for the MAX 10 – the largest member of its best-selling single-aisle airplane family – but that Boeing had NOT offered ATTRACTIVE enough PRICING yet…”


    …”We would hope eventually they will get there,” he said.
    O’Leary may be waiting an eternity, obviously….

    (!) “Ryanair last year walked away from negotiations with Boeing (BA.N) for 200 of the MAX 10”


      • Your (lack of) logic is stunning.

        Ryanair already got 69% on its last order…maybe it was looking for 80% on the MAX-10s, for example?
        69% is still unsustainable.
        65% is breakeven.

        154 deliveries in Q4 2022, and still $600M loss for BCA –> unsustainable pricing.

        • Bryce,

          …”Ryanair already got 69% on its last order…”

          Still with the lack of evidence and lack of source…?

          …”maybe it was looking for 80% on the MAX-10s, for example?…”

          “For example” ? If the example goes hand in hand with your pious wishes then yes .. “for example”…
          …”69% is still unsustainable.
          65% is breakeven.

          154 deliveries in Q4 2022, and still $600M loss for BCA –> unsustainable pricing….”
          Strawman argument development regarding a price, *for example*, without *source*. As I already repeat like a mantra. Boeing sticks its head out of the water. 2023 will be better than 2022, which was better than 2021. You are out of context and repeating the same straw man argument,
          which goes against Scott’s article

          Change disc things have changed

          • While I agree to a degree – you still have Calhoun in charge and his consistent MO (so much so it looks like its in his DNA) is to do stock buy back and dividends. A minnow does not become a flying bird.

            We don’t know until enough debt it paid down that there is discretionary money and then we see.

            Like a Shark in the water with blood, you expect predictable actions.

            The Leopard has not changed its spots.

        • I do not understand your comment Duckeofurl,
          you seem to say that the order 200 Max-10 does not exist?

          That’s not what the article you shared says….

          • “Simple English”:
            There is a large order for MAX8200 from RyanAir.
            There is no large order for MAX10 from RyanAir.

            There is Interest from RyanAir in the MAX10 but O’Leary is not satisfied with the offer from Boeing, deferred.
            all as of Sept. 2022

  18. “….Boeing sees steady recovery….”

    My first thought is, that’s good news for shareholders, but does it make a dimes worth of difference for anyone else? Once they have positive cash flow it will go to share buybacks and dividends. I suppose if they are able to increase production rates it creates a few jobs in production support.
    My second thought is, that this news comes from Boeing management, not exactly an unbiased party. I want to see a headline someday, “Boeing CEO sees intractable problems with no solution, Recommends Selling the Stock Immediately”

    • john:

      It much like a ship that has been torpedoed and they were able to counter flood, patch the holes and the ship is stabilized.

      Its not a win, its a hold, you are still down in the water, can’t function, major damage and you limp or get towed to a dry dock and face a long recovery.

      In Boeing case they have a lot of debt to pay down.

      While I believe what Calhoun will do as soon as he can get away with it is to start buying stock and or pay dividends, we only know right now its not happening.

      Kind of like watching the Dallas Cowboys, you want them to win enough they don’t do anything about their organization.

      The best for Boeing will be enough money coming in to deal with the debt and not so much that they can do something smart while we wait for Calhoun to ride off into the sunset.

      • “In Boeing case they have a lot of debt to pay down.”

        I see! The ship is now “flooded” in debts. Too bad, in better times, the owners and the capt(s) decided to take out all safety measures like extra war chest, life boats, water pumps and sold them for scraps to enrich their pockets.

      • I don’t think replacing Mister Calhoun- who is merely
        a highly compensated functionary- will make much difference, as he takes orders from way above. BlackRock™ types.. RTF’s comment from the other day is worth re-reading.

  19. I’m going to throw out a question which is a bit, but not a lot, off topic:
    How is it that the GE cliques in the C-suite has been able to keep itself in power for 20 some years?
    Stonecipher, McNerny, Muilenberg, Calhoun: 3 out of 4 were direct disciples of JW (Jack Welch himself) and Muilenberg was so thoroughly trained by McNerny that he can be considered a disciple via the doctrine of apostolic succession.

  20. John

    Agree with your point.
    Your comment is excellent and usefull.

    If the safety culture has been reinstated, there are still gray areas regarding decisions that could actually be altered by this kind of practice unfortunately.
    But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse.

    Because D. Calhoun patiently ticked a lot of boxes to put Boeing back where Stonecipher, Mc Nerney, Muillenberg have led Boeing for over 20 years.

    Unfortunately, even Condit was seduced by Welsh’s practices. He could have believed a lie and thought it was a mistake today and Calhoun seems to have recognized that too, he’s done a lot of good things since then…

    We will see next.

  21. I see tons of hope. Boeing delivering what they promised yrs ago is sold as new strategy. I’m afraid they’ll be pushed around for some time. On WB’s too, looking at portfolio, backlogs, deliveries and customer base. I would love to see new vision, from Boeing.

    No suitable new technology has become an favorite excuse to avoid investment & save short term free cash for the last decade. And related executive bonusses that do not reflect company performance or real strength.

    • In all fairness to BA Pedro – in December there is a big push by both OEM’s to make y/e targets. January is a catch up month, with even the employees running away on accrued vacation time, to avoid the winter chills.

  22. I suspect BA, rather belatedly, found out they priced the 737-8200 too low (as they plan to have a separate FAL for these “unique”/complicated configurations) and it becomes a major obstacle for Ryanair to place a major order (after asking their most experienced workers to go).

    • If an airline wants to acquire one or others models of aircraft, it only has to put its hand in its pocket that’s all…

      Airbus and Boeing are only asking for that!

      The rest is just speculation…

    • What then did we see in the week before last week:

      “RR on the ropes, no products, no profits, no future.”

      My guess at the time was that this was another case of the
      media protective shroud protecting GE.

      • > My guess at the time was that this was another case of the media protective shroud protecting GE. <


  23. Uwe,

    …”My guess at the time was that this was another case of the
    media protective shroud protecting GE..”
    Lol! Are you serious with this? The media protecting GE?
    Why would he?

    Maybe you just don’t recognize the obvious difficulties that RR went through ?

    It is certainly due to the order of IA who put butter in the spinach…
    A happy circumstance for them and that’s good!

    • Its not that RR issues shouldnt be covered by GE had major issues with its new GEnx at the time and is doing the same with the GE9x ( a section had to be redesigned at the 777X test flight stage)
      hardly covered at all except in more specialised outlets

      I see it as GE Aviation is only covered in depth by Bloomberg who are then syndicated widely for the general media. If Bloomberg dont do a story ( mostly their stories are puff pieces as exclusives from management, useful but …) then nothing much else is published

    • For those 2 years Qantas was only running skeleton international services.
      They wouldnt have taken delivery/paid for even if they were ready
      ‘Qantas has confirmed that it will take delivery of three further Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners as early as next year, after *suspending* deliveries in May 2020.’

      • Haha. As you regurgitate old news, let me remind you what happened:
        December 2021
        Qantas will also take delivery of three new Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners during *2022*

        • And what about those airlines who have missed delivery of Airbus planes this January as only 20 made it
          On average they *have* to deliver over 50 pm to meet even last years low number compared to what airlines were promised.
          Apparently CEO Faury is blaming others

          • Obacht!
            They may have got them early in the December “Broom Out” already :-)))

            Apropos with a nod to B deliveries in January:
            Who got into wailing lament that Airbus was cooking the books with high Dec output and low Jan deliveries 🙂

          • Delay of months is comparable with delay of years?? No kidding 🤣

          • ‘…got them early in the December’

            Please try to keep up
            Last year was a bust too, so you think they were over delivering last year when the numbers say they were well down on their ( revised ) guidance
            720 revised down to 700 when December was down it was 661.
            Thats almost 60 planes *missing* from customers deliveries over last year
            Its getting worse not better with now below monthly deliveries for Jan 2022 (30)

      • No situation makes a person an idiot.
        But there are those situations that allow idiots to expose themselves.

        a bit of google foo would have allowed you to avoid this trap.

        WSJ reports that FAA has issued a “no go” on paper trail issues.

        • ..some kind of non-sentient entity, I think.
          Very strange syntax and word choices (not just non-native speaker).

    • Might be time to look aluminum lithium fuselage for 787 (keep the composite wing) Advance the technology to reduce the number of drill and fill fasteners There were studies showing a new design could reduce fasteners count by 25% on AL LI fuselages

      Wonder if the 787 fuselage molds have advance wear and the parts are out of tolerance

    • Wow.
      Lightning never strikes the same place twice, right? 🙄

      -> Deliveries will not resume until the FAA is satisfied that the issue has been addressed,” the agency said in a statement.

      • -> “The FAA is working with Boeing to determine any actions that might be required for recently delivered airplanes.”

        • -> “Boeing temporarily halted deliveries of 787 Dreamliners after notifying the FAA that it is conducting additional analysis on a fuselage component,” the FAA said in a statement.

        • BA discovered an analysis error by a supplier related to the 787 forward pressure bulkhead.

  24. A theory:

    IIRC the C-Suite boys of Boeing were in NY (about a year ago?) quietly inquiring about an equity sale to raise some $30 billion. Their valuation of the stock price didn’t meet expectations, so they were told no.

    $50 billion in debt is an awful big pile of money to pay back and the road back, if they try to do it from operations, is a long one.

    What if the goal is to get the share price back up into a region that is palatable (they’re never going to get that $400 price, they bought shares back at…), where they don’t look like complete knuckleheads at that decision, to raise $30 billion and take a chunk out of the deficit.

    Every year that they generate free cash flow, Wall Street will be on them to issue dividends and re-start buybacks. So;

    Get the share price up.

    Bite the bullet and rip the band-aid off in one fell swoop.

    Pay off 60% of the LTD.

    • My take (for now) is quite a bit different, though the evidence is sketchy: that company appears to be getting the Sears – K-mart – Montgomery Ward treatment, but in *slow motion*.
      Forced dismantling, while claiming there is no choice..

      We’ll see how it goes.

      • Boeing has existing commercial orders worth $200 bill plus and new orders last year alone of $41 bill.

        $50 bill of its ‘liabilities’ are actually down payments ahead of delivery…. I think those airlines are locked in !

        The facts dont agree with your high school level claims

        • Hmm 😒 …… WOW!!
          What more can I say!?! 🤣🤣

          “$50 bill of its ‘liabilities’ are actually down payments ahead of delivery”

          @Frank: any book recommendation for “beginners”?

          • He complained ‘liabilities’ are increasing for no particular reason !

            Its because the order book is *increasing *( its more like $400 bill not the typo of $200bill I put) and down payments are increasing accordingly with the $40 bill on new orders this year
            he couldnt even explain that simple explanation in accounts.
            As with airplane contracts, depending on circumstances, deposits mostly arent refundable

            Any luck finding the Boeing figures where they put unit and program accounting numbers side by side ? Its not that hard, strange that you refute they even exist
            A sneak preview for your education
            Program Accounting (859) (242) (643) (626) (2,370)
            Unit-Cost Accounting * (1,245) (503) (1,144) (1,812) (4,704)

            And this was the FY2018- their best ever cash flow year
            Earnings from operations
            Program 7,830
            Unit 8,828
            Showing that rather than puffing their accounts , the program number was LESS than the Unit number

          • Oh Duke – why do you do this to yourself?

            From the Q4-2018 financials:

            Advances and progress billings 50,676

            From the Q4-2022 financials:

            Advances and progress billings 53,081

            A whole ~$2.5 billion more in deposits.

            $116,949 to 152,948 in Total liabilities

            Yah – must be those deposits, huh?

            You’re embarrassing yourself, here.

        • Pay attention to these numbers:
          (2022) 5,190; 51,811; 11,846 (2021) 1,296 56,806

    • I am inclined to agree with @Frank. Looking at Boeing’s situation, with few readily available saleable assets, I have been thinking that an equity sale looks like the way out of the debt trap.

      Off course current shareholders wont like it and it will also impact somewhat on management bonus payments to themselves. This however is the cleanest and quickest way to off load a large part of that US$50 billion debt overhang. Looking to clear the debt and develop new products simultaneously without a cash infusion, looks nigh impossible in the current situation Boeing finds itself in.

      Off course large military orders for existing equipment that need no developing would help, but Boeing just announced its closing the F/A-18 line in 2025 due to lack of orders and the F-15EX sales look like they have stalled beyond the initial USAF orders. maybe more Pegasus Tanker orders etc., might help but I still don’t see how Boeing gets out of its debt jam within the next decade without some sort of equity infusion that will allow it to then start developing and marketing new large ticket products, both commercial and military.

      Alternative is for Boeing to find a suitable (for regulators etc.) sugardaddy with deep pockets that will buy it and inject new cash. Problem is , I can’t think of one right now other than some large hedge fund that will take Boeing private and probably end up gutting it.

      • What needs to be assessed is Boeing cleaning up its programs and the 777X is the one left that needs that.

        The other is you don’t do share buy back or dividends until the ship is fully righted and a new aircraft is been paid for.

        There will be a large order of Wedgetails coming on as well as extending the KC-46A contract for another 170.

        The defense side is in a lull but that is going to change. Israel is going to buy another 25 F-15EX type. The USAF is going to have to look at Continental US defense again.

        The T-7A will hit serial production and then the follow up including a need for a modern adversarial fighter.

        The 787 is clearly proving itself to be THE widebody of choice (supplemented by A350/777x)

        Boeing can pay that debts down, its just a matter of will.

        • @Trans

          All three programs still have issues. 787 will have abnormal production costs through 2023. Cleaning up both the 787 and 737 Max inventory will also cost them margin.

          Check out the neat table on Program Development, page 34, of the 10Q from BA:


          The 777X and the 737Max 7 now are tied for longest development to EIS time of 12 years.

          SWA placed their first order for the Max 7 in Dec 2011.

          After all this time, you think SouthWest is going to pay a lot of money for those aircraft, or BA is getting bent over backwards on them?

          The timeline you are talking about, to get debt under control, will take them into the next decade. You think Calhoun wants to stick around that long (along with others) nursing a wounded animal back to health?

          The only will they have, is to get paid.

          • There’s a reason Mister Calhoun was recently
            awarded a $5,300,000,000 bonus- and it’s not
            because the ruling class are unhappy with “his”

            cui bono ?

          • Tell me how much Boeing had to write off/charge off for those defense programs? Shrugged.

        • @Trans I don’t if you are aware, but most Israeli military orders are paid for by the USA taxpayer, estimated to be around US$5 billion annually. Also 25 F15EX orders aren’t going to do much for Boeing if intent is to generate massive cash injection quickly to pay down the US$50+ billion in debt that the company is servicing.

  25. Qantas exercise purchase right options for 9 A220-300 aircraft,taking the total number of A220s on firm order to 29, for FY26 and FY27

  26. No need to be condescending with those who give their opinion, it is not in this way, unfortunately for you, that you will gain credibility. 90% of the time unfounded arguments, out of context, nonsense based on pious wishes, and non-objective reactions. So please put away your childish smileys and chat like an adult. THANKS…

    • “90% of the time unfounded arguments, out of context, nonsense based on pious wishes, and non-objective reactions. ”

      you don’t have to sign your confession with an Ad Hominem.

  27. Bit by bit, skeletons are marching out of the closet?

    -> When Boeing obtained approval from the FAA to restart Dreamliner deliveries, the company said it was required to outfit those 787s with a modified version of the forward pressure bulkhead that would resolve previous quality problems.
    That version of the component was given a temporary operational limit of four years, providing Boeing time to update its documentation.

    • More

      -> Deliveries of 787 are the main drivers of the $1.7 billion of year-on-year cash flow growth Boeing projects, Seifman said.
      “While there are puts and takes around cash flow timing, if we simply remove any more 787 deliveries for the rest of 1H23, the cash balance drops to $6.7 billion at June 30 after $3.75 billion of upcoming debt repayments, lower than any point since the start of the MAX crisis.”

      • AW:
        “Boeing subsequently discovered that the fatigue analysis for the bulkhead had been based on incorrect thermal loads. The fix required updated analysis, new limits on inspection intervals and a redesign—most of which was released to engineering by late May 2022. The fixes required the calculation of an updated airworthiness limitation, which will reduce the inspection threshold at which the bulkhead should be inspected from the current 44,000 cycles to an as-yet unspecified number.

        Boeing is also meanwhile tackling another non-compliance issue related to the trim air muffler—part of the environmental control system which helps control cabin air temperature. The company is thought to have discovered quality escapes with the component, which is provided by a sub-contractor to Collins, the supplier of the air system. “

      • Pedro

        Apart from the fact that you know how to “copy and paste” articles , what is your point of view regarding the 787 cessation of temporary deliveries?

        They say it’s just a matter of paperwork

    • “… temporary operational limit of four years …”

      Does the holdup now indicate that those 4 years have gone by? ( and without curative action on Boeing’s side.)

  28. Adding: hints can be found in recent articles where the *humans* who build Boeing aircraft and its subsystems- once referred to as employees, or, a bit disparagingly, as “workers”- are now called “laborers”.

    The narrative-shaping is not hard to see. Again: cui bono?

    • Vincent,

      I don’t know what you are trying to prove with your comment. But I think the standards are pretty much the same with Airbus.
      I don’t see aircraft assembly as anything more difficult at Boeing and whether it’s Disneyland or Alice In Wonderland at Airbus…
      It doesn’t seem too relevant to me as a comment…
      Believe me there were difficult working conditions at Airbus, you don’t have to believe me though because I don’t have a source, but it’s hard to talk about “glamour” for this kind of position (assembly) in aeronautics in general.

      But it is a good thing that these people are properly protected. Recently (a few months ago) there would have been negotiations favoring the machinists at Boeing which has been a victory for both parties so far


  29. Talk about paying a small fortune. I thought credit card companies were bad…

    From the last 10Q, pg 43;

    Capital Resources

    (Dollars in millions)…………………………….. Current Long-term Total

    Long-term debt (including current portion) $5,197 $52,338 $57,535

    Interest on debt……………………………………….. 2,266 31,397 33,663
    If they don’t retire the debt early, they’re on the hook for $33.6 billion in interest payments.


    Scheduled principal payments for debt

    ………..2023… 2024… 2025… 2026… 2027
    Debt $5,128 $5,081 $4,306 $7,966 $3,300

    • And they don’t have anywhere near enough cash/earnings to make those repayments.
      So, we’ll probably be seeing debt rollovers to even higher interest rates.

      • Didnt you claim before that existing loans ratchet up the interest during the term. ?
        So which is it, new loans pay more or old loans are on variable rather than fixed rates

        As Ive shown before your numbers are easily refuted by an amateur like me
        From Boeings 2022 10K
        Debt repayments 22(1,310) 21(15,371) 20(10,998)
        New borrowings (22)34 (21)9,795 (20)47,248

        Only $34 mill of new debt last year.
        as for long term debt its reducing (22)51,811 (21)56,806

        A $5 bill reduction long term debt from previous FY, those numbers you have for repayments easily achieved on this basis

        • Poor Duke — you’re embarrassing yourself again.
          The $5B reduction in long-term debt has merely moved to short-term debt, because it is due within a year (actually, within 2 months at this stage). Scott even tells you this in the article above.

          Since BA isn’t generating positive earnings, that repayment has to come out of cash-on hand. If/when cash on hand dwindles further, BA will have to consider taking on new debt to fill up the kitty again.

          If you can’t understand the exchanges between @Frank and myself, perhaps you should just stay out of them?

          • Long term is ‘length of term’
            It doesnt become short term merely because the long term ends this year
            ‘At December 31, 2022 and 2021 debt balances totaled $57.0 billion and $58.1 billion, of which $5.2 billion and $1.3 billion were classified as short-term’
            they consider long term debt that is coming due is “current” its not moved at all.
            ‘Long-term debt (including current portion) current $5,197 LT $52,338 Total $57,535
            So its clear even without your car boot accountant advisor you are ‘underwater’ and drowning fast

            Rather than being stung by higher interest expense ( which could happen) its not yet happening
            Interest and debt expense 2022 (2,533) 2021 (2,682) 2020 (2,156)

          • Poor Duke.

            Short term debt is defined as debt that’s due within one year — do you need me to post you a link for that definition, or can you find one yourself?

            If you look back to Q2 last year, you’ll see that long term debt decreased by $5.2B…and short term debt increased by the same amount. That’s how debt gets moved around on the books as its maturity approaches. It’s also the reason why it’s best to look at total debt (long plus short) rather than just long-term debt.

            Why do you do this to yourself?

        • Our poster need to have some basic understanding how those # are calculated!! 😁
          How about an online course for beginners before further embarrassing yourself?

          BA has debt due (in millions)
          In 2023: $5,128
          2024: $5,081
          2025: $4,306
          2026: $7,966

          • So what
            Debt ‘repayments’ previously were higher , much higher $15 bill in 2021

            Debt repayments 2022(1,310) 2021(15,371) 2020(10,998) [totalling $27 bill]
            Your list for next 3 years is only $14 bill, so they had shown over the last 3 years of most difficult conditions that they can repay or rollover double that

            Depending on the interest and the term some will be rolled over as they have even better cash flow than before. Im no expert but longer term might be higher interest rate

          • @ DoU
            Can you give us a link for these “debt repayments” that you’re talking/fantasizing about?

            Because BA’s debt amount has barely budged in the past 3 years — other than moving $5.2B from long-term to short-term debt.
            So, it would be very interesting to know what sources you’re using.


  30. Uwe,

    …”you don’t have to sign your confession with an Ad Hominem….”
    Sweep already in front of your door, before that of others…

    (.. “No situation makes a person an idiot.
    But there are those situations that allow idiots to expose themselves…)”

  31. Pedro,

    …”Bit by bit, skeletons are marching out of the closet?…”
    So far it is reported that it is just a matter of paperwork and it was Boeing who notified the FAA.
    The safety culture was well established by D. Calhoun.
    Let’s hope it’s for the best, and that it’s fast…

  32. Q1 2023 is shaping up to be another miserable quarter for BCA:

    – 787: just 3 deliveries in Jan, 1 delivery in Feb, and deliveries now paused.
    1/2 of these deliveries were from inventory, so they won’t have generated any earnings of note.

    – MAX: 39 deliveries in Jan and 23 in Feb.
    About 1/3 of these deliveries were from inventory, so so they won’t have generated any earnings of note.

    Total deliveries of these 2 models so far: 66.
    For reference: in Q4 2022, 154 deliveries still generated a $600M loss (without one-offs).

    In Jan/Feb, Airbus deliveries currently stand at:
    – A320/A321: 57
    – A220: 6
    – A350: 3
    – A330 neo: 2

    Total deliveries so far: 68
    However: AB doesn’t have $620M in interest payments to cover each quarter, and AB hasn’t sold its soul to the devil using unsustainable discounts.

    No doubt, some commenters here will now tell us how “positive cash flow” will nevertheless somehow save the day for BA in the present quarter 😉

    • Bryce

      Claims without evidence are worthless. I have already refuted your point with the example of Ryanair’s refusal to acquire 737MAX-10. I had argued that the Southwest example was a special case. Please be objective and do not spread such nonsense.

      Are you capable of other things?

      • Dear Checklist,

        I’m guessing that you are referring to the low revenues generated at BCA, right?

        Well, tell us then – good sir, how do you account for the continual losses there?

        There are usually two components which determine whether you make a profit or a loss on a sale; Revenue and Expenses.

        Bryce has a legitimate claim that BA isn’t getting enough for it’s aircraft. Compare the revenue figures in 2018 (before the grounding and covid) and after, balanced against how many aircraft were delivered (including delivery mix).

        The evidence he presents are the 4 years of losses at BCA. The figures are undisputable. Just because Ryanair didn’t get the price THEY wanted on their aircraft, still doesn’t prove that BCA is getting enough for it’s aircraft.

        • No doubt BA had to give WN significant concessions in order to mop up its excessive MAX 8 slots not taken up last year as it “de-risked” itself and dreamed up of delivering 500 MAX. Think about how much customers’ PDP BA could soak up by saying/pretending “500” delivery!!! 🤔

          • Airbus couldnt even match last years Jan deliveries, as this years is only 20. No shortcuts allowed to keep the 6 or so production lines going
            Southwest has always had big orders – and wants delivery- thats how it works. United has deferred a few of its deliveries this year so doesnt sound as though production has been ‘excessive’

            The 737 is already sold out its slots for the next 3 years, so its another fantasy of yours that theres skyline ‘not taken up ‘
            Do try to keep up

          • Haha haven’t you heard that BA has only delivered a total of 66 MAX & 787 this year while AB not only catches up but exceeds that by 2?? 😁

          • @DoU

            You shouldn’t have mixed up 2023 with 2022. You have to rewind to early 2022 and go through earnings conference calls and news reports. Thx.

      • @ Checklist
        You need to sharpen your act.
        In recent weeks, I posted links here for:
        – 65% discount at Southwest;
        – 69% discount for Ryanir;
        – 70% discount at United.

        In addition, as @Frank points out, the consistent losses at BCA — despite decent delivery numbers — point indisputably to excessively low pricing.
        The fact that BCA drew a line for a new Ryanair order doesn’t refute the evidence that the airline’s previous order was at an unsustainable discount.

        • FRANK Bryce and Cheklist.
          Instead of focusing completely on incorrect pricing being the reason for the reduced revenue, let’s widen our perspective. Production costs are up on all lines to the point that charges for reduced production efficiency are noted and taken. Additionally, we know that BA has consumed the normal deposits from customers and diverted them to paying overhead for a couple years. I suggest that the current revenue slump is tied to this more than pricing inaccuracies. It’s probably fairly accurate to say that compared to BA, ABs revenues are also depressed but not to the extent that BAs are and their issue isn’t incorrect pricing either….. Take it from there FRANK

          • Is Airbus ‘liabilities’ from customer deposits and progress payments way in excess of Boeings because of the bigger order book.

            From what my non expert quick scan shows ‘ current contract liabilities’ as around €23 bill .
            maybe they have the payments under other headings but it seems ‘tiny’ for such a big order book in comparison to the Boeings numbers.
            It could be a sign they are ‘cheap to order’ or worse , Airbus itself finances some airlines deposits and progress payments

          • @PNWgeek

            You are correct on the Expenses side of things. Production costs have gone up – as noted in my response to His Royal Highness, the Duke, concerning Abnormal Production Costs.

            Whether revenues are not as high as expected, requires more information than is available, but a good starting point is a comparison to revenues generated in previous years (2018 for example) allowing for delivery mixes.

            Deposits have nothing to do with profitability, as you know. However, I will be replying to HRH in his post below yours.

            Stay tuned.

          • Boeing has moved payments from customers left. ( pay early and you get another % of rebates … )

            My guess is that Airbus takes smaller advance bytes and takes those late in the production process ( when there is actual outlay for the ordered frames?)

            thus Boeing will have more liabilities that are longer on the books too.
            What about subcontractor payments ( those where moved right into the future )similar effect?

          • Duke.

            Now that you’re banging the drum on deposits, we can address this tangent you’ve gone off on.

            Deposits and PDP’s are held in the liability section of the B/S until revenue recognition – the aircraft is handed over to the customer. Final payment is received and the amounts are backed out of deposits.

            But to your point about the massively yuge amounts that Boeing is carrying in it’s accounts, I ask you this:

            Where are the two biggest sources of funds that BA get monies from?

            1) Customers – in your favorite new buzzword, Deposits

            2) Lenders – sitting there a little further down in the Liabilities section.

            So let’s look at what has gone on with these Accounts:

            Advances and progress billings $53,081

            and how much does BA have in it’s accounts?

            Cash and cash equivalents $14,614
            Short-term and other investments 2,606

            We also need to account that BA spent money on Inventory, so the we need to add in the amount in Inventory that is SELLABLE, namely (from the post above):

            So all of your sudden, your Inventory is actually
            $78,151 – 23,096 = $55,055

            So you have:

            Inventory + Cash/Investments: $55,055 + $14,614 + $2,606 = $72,275 billion

            They have in Deposits (as you love to point out);

            Advances and progress billings $53,081
            Long-term debt (including current portion) $57,535

            Debt and Deposits: $110,616 billion

            So Boeing has taken in $110.6 billion in cashola from Customers and Lenders and has $72.275 billion to show for it.

            $38,341 billion short.

            About that Inventory:

            When the actual inventory amount of $55 billion was calculated, removing the deferred production balance and tooling, you missed that this number is a company wide inventory pool. It also has monies attributable to Defense and Services in it.

            Boeing does not have $55 billion in Commercial Aircraft for sale.


            I’m afraid Duke, that all those monies from customers, is long gone. Poof.

        • Discounts for the very largest of orders are usual in business. car fleet discounts are the better known.
          Those sort of discounts mentioned are same as what Airbus offers to its biggest customers , who even more importantly have a steady stream of new deliveries through out the year to keep those production lines stable for the demand end. The supply end of assemblies and engines for final assembly is the problem these days.
          Airbus Jan deliveries for 2023 is half the jan numbers for 2022.
          A ramp up over even last years diminished total now seems out of the question

          • “Is Airbus ‘liabilities’ from customer deposits and progress payments way in excess of Boeings because of the bigger order book.”

            No Duke.

            Boeing uses program accounting while Airbus uses percentage of completion accounting, sometimes known as contract accounting.

          • @ DoU
            Got any links to support your assertion that Airbus is giving similar-sized discounts as Boeing?

            I doubt it: because if it were, AB wouldn’t be making the profit margins that it currently has.

          • @Bryce (and Duke)

            Well – here’s a cursory look at Revenues and delivery mix, from a few threads back:

            2022 Deliveries

            BA: 480
            NB: 387
            WB: 93

            AB: 661
            NB: 569
            WB: 92

            So the number of the higher ticket price aircraft delivered were essentially the same (Boeing had 1 more WB delivered). AB delivered 182 more narrow bodies.

            Airbus 2022
            661 Deliveries
            ~$50.5 billion (equivalent USD) in revenues

            BA 2022
            480 Deliveries
            $25.867 billion in revenues

            So essentially 182 more narrowbodies brought Airbus an extra $24.633 billion in revenues.

          • Boeing does include program and unit accounting in its 10K results
            This is for 2022 by quarter and FY at end
            Unit-Cost Accounting (1,245) (503) (1,144) (1,812) (4,704)

            Its been provided for a decade at least maybe longer ( current 10K shows back to 2017)
            However outstanding liabilities to customers from firm orders has nothing to do with ‘program costs’
            Once a plane is delivered and final payments made then the previous progress payments are removed from ‘progress payment liabilities ‘ item ,thats plane by plane month by month

            has nothing to do with development or production costs , not that you have any clue about accounting

          • I really don’t know what you’re on about, Duke.

            Could you please provide a page number on the most current 10Q.

          • @Frank

            I searched the exact words of @DoU and came up empty-handed. 😏

          • Pedro… not that I’m sticking up for him, but, could he be quoting the shareholders annual report?? Otherwise I have no idea where he drags up his stuff…..

          • @PNWgeek and Pedro

            No, no…

            Let’s see what Duke is talking about. Just provide us with the page number from the 10Q that you are referencing and we’ll see what it’s all about.

          • Holy Smokes, Duke!

            You actually came up with something extraordinary. (But unfortunately, it doesn’t give a good picture for BA….it looks worse, on which I will elaborate)

            I always simply referenced the financials (10-Q, not 10-K, as you call them) and didn’t mess around the BA website.

            Well – onto the details:


            Program accounting:

            For 2022, using program accounting – in which revenues and expenses are supposed to be reliably estimated, along with an expected profit, and divided up over an estimated number of deliveries for the program (the accounting block), BA came up with this:

            Loss from Operations ($2,370)

            So using program accounting, the loss for BCA is $2.370 billion.

            However….as a comparison, had they used Unit Cost Accounting

            (A unit cost is a total expenditure incurred by a company to produce, store, and sell one unit of a particular product or service. Unit costs are synonymous with cost of goods sold (COGS). )

            BCA would have had a loss of $4.704 billion.

            So where is that extra loss, the difference between $2.370 and $4.704 billion, you ask? Well – with everything else, in the deferred production balance in Inventory…where expenses go to wait.

            Meaning the can has been kicked down the road….again.


            (about that) Inventory:

            BA has a nice little breakdown, of what’s sitting in Inventory.

            (Spoiler; It isn’t all aircraft ready to be sold.)

            Long-term contracts in progress 582
            Commercial aircraft programs 67,702
            Commercial spare parts, used aircraft, general stock materials and other 9,867
            Inventories 78,151

            That 78,151 matches up nicely, with what we have on the b/s.

            So BCA has 67.702 billion in Inventory.

            But there is also a DPB sitting in there. We calculated that for Duke, a few comments ago:

            The deferred production balance for all 3 program, along with the tooling (which will be sold for scrap eventually, like the 757 line, in the future) is $23.096 billion.

            BCA Inventory of sellable aircraft is $44.606 billion.



            Thanks for the link, Duke!

    • @Bryce

      Hi. I think JPM analyst has largely written-off any more 787 delivery in 1H 2023.

  33. Reuters: Families appeal ruling that upheld Boeing plea deal for 737 Max crashes

    • Hows the Airbus/Air France criminal trial underway in Paris going ?

      Wonder why its being ignored by the media feeds and you wont mention it because of your bias
      Luckily for Airbus no one is going to upend the plea deals they did for the bribery involved in their aircraft sales… one way to ‘move the metal’ and beat the competitors

        • The appeals court had already thrown out the prosecution dropping the case previously, so using that argument again wont work a second time.

          I already knew of the prosecution favouring the defendants, lets see what the judge says after hearing the ‘other side’
          Not unusual for you to love it when theres a sweetheart deal between Airbus and the prosecution and dispute the same outcome when its Boeing ( who werent even charged with a criminal offence like Airbus is)

          • Got a link for that alleged “sweetheart deal” between Airbus and the prosecutor?

            A prosecutor doesn’t need a deal in order to drop charges…

          • The case was dropped a few years back by prosecutors in a deal , this was overturned by appeals court and led to current trial – when the prosecutor tried again to gaslight the victims families and their case again

            Do try to keep up

          • Still no link, Duke?
            Just like another commenter’s “wing join” rant — a total fantasy.
            Ah well…

          • One issue with these things is that the crash victim relatives don’t really want justice, they want a conviction. There must be touchable cause for their grieve. ( and monetary compensation, for sure! )

            bad luck longer exists in this world.

    • Great piece.
      However, he neglected to discuss the (crippling) lack of funding for anything new.

    • Yes, that was a good Mentour Pilot video, even if he didn’t mention Boeing’s crippling and constraining debt. I can
      think of a rather tidy explanation for Mister Calhoun’s recent statements and actions, but I’m not sure yet that it’s a correct one. Thanks for the link.

  34. DoU has some superb insights upthread, such as “Bigger is bigger than smaller”.
    Myself, I’m still trying to figger out how Airbus is even able to sell their forlorn, apparently uncompetitive narrowbody aircraft..

    DoU is my favorite commenter here, and by quite a margin.

    • “perfect entertainement”
      only if you are in the initial pangs of Alzheimers 🙂

      Boeing is incurring massive out of band ( regular production wise ) cost. rework, storage and warming up after storage, paperwork is not cheap. For the 787 that is a from DayZero issue.

      • UWE.
        Even I find Duke to be an embarrassment at times.
        That should tell you a few things.

        enjoy the day

  35. Interesting that AB continually provides certification updates on its new models — in this case, the link concerns cold weather testing for the A321 XLR — whereas we get no such updates from BA.

    In the case of the 777X, this is somewhat understandable — after all, the plane doesn’t have a TIA, and thus doesn’t have a path to certification at present.

    But, for the 737-7 and 737-10, this lack of info is fascinating…unless, of course, there simply is no progress to report.


    • What is fascinating indeed is that the MAX-8 and -9 have been certified by the MAX-7. The FAA sleeps?

      • The basic MAX line was certified on the early MAX prototypes ( a couple of MAX8 the a 9 ?)

        _MCAS rework_ was recertified on the MAX7 ( afaiu and because the original set of cert objects where sold away?)

        • …And yet the certification of the A321-XLR has been postponed for a year (2024)…
          You overestimate AB too much and lower BA too much, this is not a fair judgment.

          Your problem is that you are NOT objective, and I have already told you…

          • Checklist and Uwe.
            ABs delays on the tank, and the latest pause on the -7 and -10 are BOTH caused by congressional demands that derivative cert basis and major minor changes be rewritten. The new rules were released mid November and the changes to ABs and BAs production systems needs to be brought into conformity and approved by the regulators. Blaming AB for responding to changes forced on them is umfair…..

          • I doubt that you have any incling about the concept of “objectivity.”

            .. and in context of your current reply: I gave tentative reasoning why the MCAS V2 interim solution was done on a MAX7.
            now riddle me your reasoning for your reply content.

      • A MAX-7 testbed was only used as part of the re-certification process for MCAS 2.0 — other than that, the MAX-7 has been in certification limbo for years, and wasn’t involved in the basic cert of the MAX-8/9.

        The problem isn’t at the FAA — it reacted very quickly vis-a-vis AB’s design changes for the center tank in the A321 XLR.

        The problem is at BA.

        • Bryce.
          The MAX8 and MAX9 were certified by commonality with their NG base aircraft. Boeing passed off all the changes by filling out the Major/Minor change forms and ONLY addressing changes. The -7and -10 were caught up in the changes mandated by congress. they attempted to get them done by dec31 and failed. The biggest issue was that BA and the FAA were also racing the deadline for the AC21,12 revision that changed the rules. Airbusses fuel tank was also caught up in the EASAs companion revisions, I listed all that in the other post.

      • Checklist and UWE.
        The FAA revisions to Certification Basis demanded by congress in the Aircraft Safety Act are found starting in AC21.12 which was released in NOVEMBER 2022. This top level document lists a large number of subordinate regulations that required changes. Among these are AC21.8, AC21.15, AC21.23. Of note are the requirements for Australia found AC21-601 and the EUROPEAN changes driven by EASA AMC and GM to Part 21 as well as EASA CS-25 AMC 1309.

        Clearly nobody is sleeping as these revisions went live in November and the internal revisions at Airbus and BA in response to them are in process. Both EASA and the FAA have been the pacing items. The concurrence loop necessary with regulators signing off on the cert basis changes for the -7, -10 and 321 can’t just happen overnight, especially looking at the disruption caused by Christmas and New Year. This is a very large package of work and with a start date of Nov 2022, I wouldn’t expect a lot of movement quite yet……..

        The -7 MCAS update was sold by commonality under the last revision of AC21.12, but questions remain on the impact of the new rev on that package, it may need to be resubmitted but I cant see that being an issue as it should be cleared before the -7 cert badsis is confirmed and issued.

        777X TIA cant be issued by the FAA until all the cert basis changes driven by the new regs are defined, and the FAA isnt there yet. The FAAs past statements saying the 777x isnt ready for TIA were based on BOTH the aircrafts status AND tthe fact that the regulations revision status precluded it………

    • fuselage. damage seems to extend under the top skin.

      mesh reduction was done on the wings and afair slightly later (2019) than this production sample (2018).

    • Bryce, thanks great pictures.
      I always wondered why we expect all lightning strikes to be absorbed without damage. In the real world, you set a lightning energy level that the airplane should absorb without damage AND you design things so on the rare occasion that limit is exceeded, the people stay safe. This looks to be a very very significant strike, the airplane got home and the people were safe, Looks fine to me. Make the repair and move on…… You do have to ask if the upper energy limit in the lightning protection spec needs a look, but the aircraft seems to have performed very well…….

    • more like “Throwing darts”
      ref: “Ruble’s tosses are all about brute strength”

      back in the 80ties we did lecture hall runoffs that went beyond 70 seconds. real paper (sail) planes.
      Never bothered to do the Guinness Records book boasting thing.

  36. Bryce, Pedro, and Uwe, are going down an unfortunately (still) falsifying path. Damage …




    Scott Correa

    …”This looks to be a very very significant strike, the airplane got home and the people were safe, Looks fine to me. Make the repair and move on…… You do have to ask if the upper energy limit in the lightning protection spec needs a look, but the aircraft seems to have performed very well…”


  37. Pedro

    …” Wonder how AAB feels?!…”
    No worse than that,
    That’s why, wishful thinking is ineffective…

  38. Franc

    “Mentour has a good take on things, here:

    90% of what Mentour said, I’ve said before (in the sense that we obviously had a pretty similar thought) including that Boeing will wait until 2026 before making a decision.

    In truth, it will be a stabilization after a few years of cash-flow on the table.

    The supposedly “top secret développement”, has already been mentioned by D. Gates and other journalists.
    It’s just a fantasy…

    • What connections and sources does Mentour pilot have with the plane development industry ??
      I can tell you …none
      While Gates is far far closer than you think , often like the LNA staff they know stuff which is still under embargo as their sources are very very close to the decision trees… both from the design and the suppliers manufacturing side
      Theres been various clues around for years , but often they arent specifically linked to this or that rumoured new plane

      • “What connections and sources does Mentour pilot have with the plane development industry ??
        I can tell you …none”

        He has a lot more than you do 😉
        Plus: he’s a pilot 🙂

        • Not only is he a pilot, he’s an instructor pilot.

          Not only is he an instructor pilot, he’s an instructor pilot for Ryanair.

          Being an instructor pilot for Ryanair, he’s a Boeing NG and Max pilot.

          (Poor guy seems really nice, I wonder what he did wrong in a previous life, to have to work for Ryanair. But I digress…)

          • I know Ryanair pilots who are very happy with their jobs 👍

            O’Leary claims that his average pilot earns more than an average NB pilot at Lufthansa.

          • @Bryce

            Fake news!

            Lol…just kidding.

            (I’m glad somebody – besides O’Leary, is happy over there.)

  39. Bryce

    …”The problem isn’t at the FAA — it reacted very quickly vis-a-vis AB’s design changes for the center tank in the A321 XLR.

    The problem is at BA….”


    …And yet the certification of the A321-XLR has been postponed for a year (2024)…
    You overestimate AB too much and lower BA too much, this is not a fair judgment.

    Your problem is that you are NOT objective, and I have already told you…

    • and YOU are objective?

      But hey, it’s not AB that needed an extension to not install EICAS because they couldn’t get a derivative through on a law that was known to have the last deadline 2 months ago.

      • The law passed by congress already had a 2 yr waiver for ‘under development’ versions like Max 7 and 10.
        The pandemic and other issues with FAA just meant the waiver was extended again- AS WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED
        Guess who was wrong about the waiver not being extended again ?

        Our clueless friends again, we can all make mistakes , but it seems you cant admit it

        • Oh, now you are arguing about semantics with an obvious strawman.

          Ok good they got a waiver, but the ORIGINAL ARGUMENT is about how apparently AB is as incompetent as BA.

          No, AB didn’t need such waivers in the first place.

          That is why no one takes you seriously here.

    • @ Checklist

      “…And yet the certification of the A321-XLR has been postponed for a year (2024)…”

      Not caused by an unresponsive FAA: that delay was caused by the need to take new technical measures to address points raised by the EASA and FAA.
      The FAA was actually proactive and fast in the whole process.

  40. Bryce

    …”In recent weeks, I posted links here for:
    – 65% discount at Southwest;
    – 69% discount for Ryanir;
    – 70% discount at United…”

    Honestly, I haven’t seen any of that. Do not hesitate to give sources for assertions as important as this!.

    • Its vaguely referring to mega orders that get the biggest discounts …yawn

      Thats why China has a central government bureau for orders, they are then allocated like the traditional 5yr central planning process of a leninist- party-state system

    • @ Checklist
      Oh, you’ve seen it alright, but you just didn’t want to read it.
      It’s all there in the Leeham archives — easy for you to go back and find.

  41. Engine reliability ? Who knew that it was still an ongoing problem, and where are the RR ‘Chicken littles’ now

    ‘On Pratt & Whitney’s GTF engine, Hayes [Raytheon CEO] said their reliability has not been up to expectations and that the company was working to fix problems, amid criticism from some airlines over their performance.’

  42. The number of MAXs now “active” at Chinese carriers has increased to 15 [source: Planespotters]

    Carriers such as China Southern (8), Fuzhao (1), etc., have now joined China Eastern in returning small numbers of aircraft to service.

  43. ASD,

    …”But hey, it’s not AB that needed an extension to not install EICAS because they couldn’t get a derivative…”

    Impertinent comment.

    This was a @Bryce reply saying that BA is not doing what is necessary and is not deploying all the means to certify the MAX7 (MAX10 too) by comparing impertinently with AB who would be more candid according to him after I denounced the slowness of the FAA.

    Let’s not forget that the MAX-10 is a simple stretch and the MAX7 a simple stretch with or without EICAS, there is not (actually) the subject here.

    His comment cannot make sense as long as the derivatives of the 7M8 are STRECHING or SHRINKING sections comparing the more complex A321-XLR certification
    I come back again to say that the FAA is certainly sleeping…


  44. *Talking about liabilities*

    Right after A/P, Boeing has this in their statements:

    Accrued liabilities 21,581 18,455

    For those who don’t know, accrued liabilities are expenses a company owes but that have not yet been invoiced for payment. The goods and services have been received, but the money has not been paid for them yet.

    You’ve got to go all the way down to pg 83, to find out what they are. It is $21.5 billion, after all:

    Note 13 – Liabilities, Commitments and Contingencies

    Accrued compensation and employee benefit costs $6,351 $6,037
    737 MAX grounding customer concessions and other considerations 1,864 2,940
    Other customer concessions and considerations 1,102 240
    Environmental 752 605
    Product warranties 2,275 1,900
    Forward loss recognition 4,060 2,014
    Accrued interest payable 599 641
    Current portion of lease liabilities 276 268
    Current portion of retiree healthcare and pension liabilities 494 536
    Other 3,808 3,274
    Total $21,581 $18,455

    A couple of things:

    Forward loss recognition went up by $2 billion. I thought they were done with that?

    They also have an explanation for the 737 Max compensation:

    “The liability balance of $1.9 billion at December 31, 2022 includes $1.6 billion of contracted customer concessions and other liabilities and
    $0.3 billion that remains subject to negotiation with customers. The contracted amount includes $0.8 billion expected to be liquidated by lower
    customer delivery payments, $0.7 billion expected to be paid in cash and $0.1 billion in other concessions. Of the cash payments to customers,
    we expect to pay $0.1 billion in 2023 and the remaining $0.6 billion in future years. The type of consideration to be provided for the remaining
    $0.3 billion will depend on the outcomes of negotiations with customers.”


    • Surely you can work out whats happened with forward loss numbers and enlighten us all.
      But glad to help
      VC-25B and some others

      Also so you dont get confused again between customer progress payment liabilities and program accounting.
      program accounting means they use what in Boeing accounts are called ‘deferred production costs’… for 787 alone its over $11 bill

      • You might express more gratitute, after @Frank pointed out to you a major source of Q4’s free cash flow.

        Postponed costs.

        @ Frank: you’ll also notice that accounts payable increased.

        Poor Duke is going to get an awful shock in Q1/Q2 of this year when the postponement game runs out of road…

      • Duke, my little friend.

        Nowhere in the above post did I mention Unearned Revenues.

        You are bringing it up, trying to muddy the waters.

        Deposits and PDP’s are a cash item. When they get the money in, it is;



        ……………………..Unearned Revenue………………………….$$$$

        It is then backed out, when the aircraft is handed over and a sale is recorded.

        In program accounting, monies are spent. Instead of letting them go directly to the Income Statement (Expenses) as you normally would:

        xx/xx…………….Airplane Parts (e.g)………….$$$$

        (Airplane Parts being an Expense account on the I/S)

        They are put in the Deferred Production Balance, in Inventory


        Please stop conflating the two.

  45. Re United 787-10

    Lol!!! Poor FAA they don’t know what to invent anymore.
    Want or don’t want?
    What impertinence and what absurdity they are showing,
    Maybe bringing down ALL 787 Dreamliners would make more sense to me, wouldn’t it?!

    Just hilarious….👍

  46. (start a new thread here, the old one is getting a little long.)

    Holy Smokes, Duke!

    You actually came up with something extraordinary. (But unfortunately, it doesn’t give a good picture for BA….it looks worse, on which I will elaborate)

    I always simply referenced the financials (10-Q, not 10-K, as you call them) and didn’t mess around the BA website.

    Well – onto the details:


    Program accounting:

    For 2022, using program accounting – in which revenues and expenses are supposed to be reliably estimated, along with an expected profit, and divided up over an estimated number of deliveries for the program (the accounting block), BA came up with this:

    Loss from Operations ($2,370)

    So using program accounting, the loss for BCA is $2.370 billion.

    However….as a comparison, had they used Unit Cost Accounting

    (A unit cost is a total expenditure incurred by a company to produce, store, and sell one unit of a particular product or service. Unit costs are synonymous with cost of goods sold (COGS). )

    BCA would have had a loss of $4.704 billion.

    So where is that extra loss, the difference between $2.370 and $4.704 billion, you ask? Well – with everything else, in the deferred production balance in Inventory…where expenses go to wait.

    Meaning the can has been kicked down the road….again.


    (about that) Inventory:

    BA has a nice little breakdown, of what’s sitting in Inventory.

    (Spoiler; It isn’t all aircraft ready to be sold.)

    Long-term contracts in progress 582
    Commercial aircraft programs 67,702
    Commercial spare parts, used aircraft, general stock materials and other 9,867
    Inventories 78,151

    That 78,151 matches up nicely, with what we have on the b/s.

    So BCA has 67.702 billion in Inventory.

    But there is also a DPB sitting in there. We calculated that for Duke, a few comments ago:

    The deferred production balance for all 3 program, along with the tooling (which will be sold for scrap eventually, like the 757 line, in the future) is $23.096 billion.

    BCA Inventory of sellable aircraft is $44.606 billion.


    • “BCA Inventory of sellable aircraft is $44.606 billion.”

      And, as you pointed out above, nominal loan interest yet to be paid is $33B…though this will climb if debt rollovers occur.

      The company is trapped in a Debt Black Hole.

      • No, no, no, Bryce. You’ve got it all wrong!

        They have over $53 billion in deposits and over $400 billion (company total) in the backlog. They’re in great shape.

        Who cares if what they’re selling costs them more to produce than they receive in revenues? For the last 4 years…

        Look at the cash flow! We’re rich!! Dividends and buybacks for everyone!!

  47. Two 787 to be scrapped after flying for six years. Resale value of 787 looks iffy.

    • please have a little caution and a little restraint. “seems” is just a translation of “pious wishes”. Such a prized aircraft, cannot but have a resale value, think a little …

      How come you haven’t explored other less extreme hypotheses?

      • Perhaps you could enlighten us with an alternative hypothesis — since you raise the matter?
        The lessor who owns these two aircraft seems to back up @Pedro’s assertion that the planes are worth more as spare parts than as whole frames that have yet to undergo a 12-year check.


        With the spectacular discounts that BA is giving, perhaps it’s more lucrative to buy a new 787 than to hang onto a used frame and pay its heavy maintenance costs? Bloomberg suggested that UA got a 70% discount on its recent 787 order…which would put the price of a 787-9 at just $78M…

        “There comes a certain point where airlines realize that the cost of repair is more than the actual cost of the aircraft. This usually happens after two or three D checks.”


        • Maybe @Scott too:

          I haven’t seen anything relevant on cost associated to keeping 787 airworthy.

          The Dreamliner was introduced as providing a major step in cutting down on those costs. Seen no boasting staments from later on.

        • Bryce.
          Its probably tied to 2 things. There is no aftermarket source for parts and there will never be a better time to reduce them to spares AND the costs of returning them to the next customer are very high…….

          • So, you’re basically confirming the general thesis here: these frames are worth more as a collection of parts than they as as flying planes.
            That’s a fascinating situation in the present market climate.
            One expects it for A380s, but it’s surprising fir 787s.

          • Bryce. It’s a bit of a stretch to make that as a fleetwide generality but due to economic timing of the spares market for these 2 airplanes, it gets close. Just trust me that bigger forces are at work……

        • Bryce
          The 2 Norwegian liveried 787s are chronic Rolls Royce Engine AOG viscims, and the lessor threw in the towel on these airplanes. I would think there will be others. This airplane, while relatively young will never fly profitably as long as RR cant get the engine problems under control….. This will probably be a repeated story.

          • If the frames are 10+ years old they must be LN in the fourties to low 50ties. ( 2011:3, 2012:48 frames delivered, solely 788 )
            those weren’t much better than the terrible teens.
            ( issues, overweight, whatnot.)
            It doesn’t really make much sense to “Trent” the parting out reason when there is enough Boeing trouble attached.

          • Uwe
            I don’t invent stories and post then as fact. On this story, I have an absolutely unimpeachable source. Have a great day

      • business.
        revenue from parting out versus revenue from selling.
        ( some A318 shared that fate. )
        depressed interest in the subtype, potentially retroactively upcoming issues with build quality, expensive spares supply.

      • Pedro

        The smileys don’t prove you right it’s just a childish expression of yours

        These 787s are -8s that belonged to Norwegian who stopped long-haul flights at the start of the pandemic in 2020 when the airline industry fell.

        The -8s are not -9s aimed at a gigantic market.

        Saying “2,787” is deliberately confusing. No doubt your lack of objectivity forces you to drown the fish. But we know you very well.

        Credibility: Zero.

        • @Checklist, Bryce, Others: Knock off the personalized insults. Now!


        • @ Checklist
          What point are you trying to make?
          386 787-8s have been ordered, and more than 250 are flying at present — is that not a “gigantic market”?
          It’s 5 times bigger than the present 787-10 market (74 orders) and it’s 2/3 the size of the 787-9 market (580 orders). It’s also larger than the entire 777X order book!

          @Pedro has a perfectly valid point.

          • At a time when airlines are scrambling for new aircraft (deliveries halted/delays) but no willing taker of the 787? Why??


            I read it’s quite likely as a result of BA’s massive discount land-grabbing tactics, the 787 will face a similar fate of the 777 as foretold by Mr Richard Anderson.

          • His point is invalid. The “787 has no resale value” is just an exaggerated term

            The 788 is not the most optimized version

            That’s clearly my point

            This point cannot be accepted

          • Bryce

            The 787-8 makes little difference to the sales of the 777-X. In contrast it is 4 times more than the mediocre A350-1000 sales and the overall A330neo sales. Which historically proves that even a Widebody Boeing derivative always does better than a Widebody Airbus derivative… The highlights are there. The second point is that @Pedro deliberately vaunts without mentioning the 787-8 (the reason why I’m asking you for Sources) by including the entire 787 Dreamliner family to say that it has no resale value . That’s what I blame him for…

          • @ Checklist
            Pedro didn’t say that “the 787 has no resale value”.
            Your machine translator is letting you down again.
            Go back and more accurately read what he wrote.

          • @Bryce,

            …”Resale value of 787 looks iffy…”
            I understand English fairly well…

          • I wonder how valid BA’s marketing about the 787’s super low operating costs ….

      • What I’m *very* curious about is what they’ll do with
        the CF composites.

  48. Pedro

    …”At a time when airlines are scrambling for new aircraft (deliveries halted/delays) but no willing taker of the 787? Why??…”
    The 787 sold at 1,600 orders while the A350 did not exceed the symbolic cap of 1,000 orders. Even the A330neo combined with the orders of the A350 does not exceed the 787.

    If we combine the 777X, we obtain ~1,900 new widebody Boeing orders, that’s almost twice as new widebody Airbus …👍

  49. Pedro

    …”I read it’s quite likely as a result of BA’s massive discount land-grabbing tactics, the 787 will face a similar fate of the 777 as foretold by Mr Richard Anderson….”
    The fate of the 777 was +2000 orders. Far from the A350 family (all derivatives combined) with less than 1000 orders since their launch for almost 20 years (18 years since the A350Mk1 later converted into A350XWB from 2006).

    The fate of the A350 is pretty worrying
    faced with new Boeing widebody products given the factual figures/sales

  50. Wouldn’t be interesting to get a new “third player” if Boeing keeps delaying a new launch of aircraft. The technologies and manufacturing development of the Northrop Grumman B21 Raider can translate into new commercial aircraft launch before Boeing 2030 new aircraft timeframe?

    • Northrop Grumman Commercial Division
      No legacy issues like Boeing has with Renton and Everett 60 year old facilities along with aging workforce
      NG will have leading digital twin mfg. processes in a new plant and younger employees (from B 21 program) and has key suppliers from B21 Raider program (Pratt & Whitney, Janicki Industries, Collins Aerospace, GKN Aerospace, BAE Systems and Spirit Aero systems.)
      Should start a working group with leading global airlines like Delta Airlines for a globally solution for aircraft configuration compared to just focusing on a niche airlines need (Emirates)

      • And another Boeing commercial aircraft legacy issue, will supplier be willing to sign on as risk sharing partners after being part of Boeing supplier program coined by some “Partnership for Poverty”….continuous price reduction and 120 day payment terms?)

        • David. While I love the concept of a flying wing airliner, there are 2 very real problems with it. The first is that a flying wing cannot be stretched to make a family of aircraft and that prevents the reuse of vast amount of tooling adding a fortune in each airplanes separate startup cost. There is also the whole infrastructure issue revolving around spanloaders at the gate as well as wingtip overlaps on the ground.

          • Mr Engineer, sir. I have also heard that:

            1) Pressure vessel (nice round shape of a tube) is a little bit of an issue


            2) When she banks – she banks. If you’re sitting off centreline, you’re going to feel the roller coaster ride.

            But the forward view is apparently to die for.

          • I didn’t see @David Pritchard’s comments as limiting themselves to a flying wing: the fact that he referred to generic aspects of the B21 program (manufacturing processes, engineering pool) doesn’t imply that NG would be limited to such a design for a civilian aircraft.

          • Bryce said.

            I didn’t see @David Pritchard’s comments as limiting themselves to a flying wing: the fact that he referred to generic aspects of the B21 program (manufacturing processes, engineering pool) doesn’t imply that NG would be limited to such a design for a civilian aircraft.

            Well I did see it that way, and that was the basis for my reply, which was a short rerun of the spanloader issues previously addressed.

            Have a great day

        • You know, David – a very well regarded Engineering friend of mine recently extrapolated on exactly that point.

          One of the general points he made was:

          “Imagine you are a sub-contractor. You make parts (whatever they are) for both OEM’s. One hammers you on price, constantly chisels down your margin and pays you in 90-120 days. The other pays you in 30-45 days. Who are you more eager to work for and who will you bend over backwards for – in a time of need?”

    • Pedro

      The “cold war” between the USA and Europe is only a detail. No one believes in hydrogen aircraft. Therefore the US seems to be right

  51. David Pritchard

    I think you mean that?


    I have wanted to see a commercial aircraft builder for over a decade.

    1. Bombardier missed the opportunity due to the CSeries size error

    2. Lockheed Martin doesn’t seem to have the appetite for it

    3. What will be the solution? I am ready in the near future to declare that Airbus will NEVER deliver the A32Xneo family at a promised maximum rate. The market is too big and something urgently needs to happen in around 2030…

  52. So Maximus Aviation in Youtube has provided some info on the current 787 situation:


    Apparently, BA is pointing fingers in the direction of Spirit and Spirit has pushed back (official statements quoted and shown in the video) on that narrative.

    Partnering for Success, indeed

    • So, BA tried to circumvent the original bulkhead tolerance problem by getting creative with paperwork/definitions, that game backfired, and now they’re trying to shift the blame to Spirit.

      Great company to have as a customer 😏

    • There is a wide range very sexy features for fanish suckers.:-)
      BWB, TBW, LEGO-assembly, Barrels, …

    • Seeing as BA has no earnings, it needs income from other sources.

  53. Boeing names Howard E. Mckenzie as head engineer as Greg Hyslop retires

    Amazing that H. E McKenzie, had spent 34 years as Director Of Engineering, in the 777 Program.

    This means that it was already during the preliminary design of the 777 (ex 767-X) in 1988, which will be formalized in 1990 after the commercial launch of the 777.

    (!) People here were spreading false rumors that it was not there would be more experienced engineers at Boeing. Luckily we didn’t believe that nonsense here…


    • “Checklis”t™ said: “People here were spreading false rumors that it was not there would be more experienced engineers at Boeing.”

      1) What exactly might that sentence mean? Maybe DoU or TransW can help us.

      2) If that commenting entity has examples of “false rumors” provided by others here, why does it
      not provide them **specifically**, so they can be examined for their veracity?

      • Vincent

        Don’t pretend not to know about the supposed lack of engineers at Boeing. You have a short memory…

    • from his Biopage:
      “McKenzie joined McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, now part of Boeing, in 1987 as an engineering intern.”
      born mid/late 60ties?

      Thus his Boeing vita will have started after the merger ( 97 )
      more from his Biopage:
      “Previously (before his current position), he served as vice president and chief project engineer for the 777 program”

      Nothing that says he got that job back when he started as a McD intern ( born late 60ties? 🙂

      Is this something manic,compulsive?
      Having to invent facts from whole cloth?

      • Uwe

        .. “Is this something manic,compulsive?
        Having to invent facts from whole cloth?…”
        Didn’t you check his LinkedIn page? He joined 777 development as early as 1988. If you have another source. Please share

        • See his Boeing Bio page.
          _> Joined McD in ’87 as an intern ( just finished uni ?)
          If we ignore that:
          I don’t think a guy starting as intern in ’87
          gets a highly qualified jobs after a year and _then
          sits on that_ for 35 years.
          If you actually make that jump in the first year
          you are obviously crafty enough to go up the ladder fast.
          data input error would be my assumption.
          turn ‘8x into ‘9x ( i.e. the merger moment )

  54. Vincent
    Don’t hold your breath. I’m still waiting for Duke to continue the discussion of the mid cabin exit door and trading weight, fuel and seats on the Max10 and how it hits divert fuel use before the 321. He can’t seem to figure out that it has less legs when the seats are full…….. There’s lots of smoke and mirrors here.

    • > Don’t hold your breath. <

      I understand and agree, SC. "Muddying the waters" seems to be a job description for a shifty and curiously inarticulate minority here. All one can do is point that out, and let time do its job.

      • Vincent

        Don’t be so condescending,
        Everyone has the right to be wrong here. I saw 2 people here talking about anything and everything with proven nonsense about Boeing and topics thrown around without objectivity.

        Where were you to do their trial? Why did you attack Ducke, x, or y for exemple ?…

        • “Everyone has the right to be wrong here.”

          but not ten Duckies in a row.
          That is Munchhausen stuff 🙂

    • Scott Correa

      Can you make an effort to write and stop provoking Ducke please? Are you talking about the A321neo or A321ceo? Can you be clear about the 737MAX10? What’s wrong with the middle exit door?


      • (1) Who’s Ducke?
        (2) Why don’t you go back up through the comments and read the discussion of the middle exit door if you want to get involved in the topic? Just like the rest of us do.

          • Oh, so you can interject in an exchange between @Scott Correa and @Vincent, but others aren’t allowed to interject in your exchanges — is that it?

            Really consistent 😉

          • Not a matter of consistency, just preference.
            (No offense)

      • Checklist.
        Nothing is wrong with the mid cabin doors. I never implied anything as such. What I did say was that there are 2 choices for the mid cabin exit door. The Type A or B. One is 4 inches wider and weighs significantly more than the standard issue door. The standard issue door has an exit rating of fewer people than the larger door. This would limit max seat count to less than a high density LOPA config. The MAX10, like all aircraft, is a gas or people airplane at the right side of its payload range chart. Boeing allows the MAX10 purchaser a bit more range by saving door weight and limiting seat count. Boeing also allows the operator to sacrifice range for seats by upgrading the exit doors to a heavier wider door allowing for higher density. That swap was what we were discussing, and when he didn’t like what facts were he dropped the subject, which is his MO. As to your questions. I was comparing the MAX10 to its logical AB counterpart, a 321 neo. The 321 has better legs than a MAX10 because as designed, the MAX10 is shorter on gas, and it gets a tiny bit worse when you opt for the big mid cabin door. The MAX10 will bingo earlier than a 321, meaning, the MAX10, exhausts mission fuel first and then bumps into divert fuel……..

        Lastly, my previous post was really clear about this, perhaps you should look at it again, Thanks.

        • Well explained.

          ‘The MAX10, like all aircraft, is a gas or people airplane at the right side of its payload range chart.’

          For those of us who lack the aviation engineering background, could you perhaps explain what a payload range chart is (with maybe a link to an example) and how it is used?


          • Pedro
            Ryanair stuffs their airplanes.
            They always config at the top end of high density LOPAs. Their routes are usually short enough that the bag of gas is sufficient in a BA product to meet their needs. For instance, look at the Ryanair airplane that’s going to be assembled in Everett on line 4 next to the 10s….

          • Frank, my canadian friend, happy to.
            The Payload Range chart explains why the MAX10 sells against the 321. SO MANY people here say that the 321 is the better plane because it has more range and seats more.thats not necessarily the case. On the Payload Range chart, you get to see HOW the airplane performs at any stage length. The MAX10 is functionally equivalent to a 321 on all stage lengths not constrained by fuel. When you fill every seat, you cant carry as much gas and the MAX10 hits that gas or people point on its chart sooner than the 321. The point where this advantage to a 321 becomes useful is on stage lengths that are not very common in actual service. SO, while the AB 321 is better on paper, sort of, at the extremes of the payload range chart, not many flights are scheduled there. Is the 321 the better airplane, yes IF you have the route structure to fly beyond and ECONOMICALLY utilize this advantage. In the real world, its a consideration, but not a huge one. So many other things need to be considered. That list is long but suffice it to say that operators consider aircraft performance on the payload range chart as one element of the selection problem. This gets us back to the saying, WORK THE EQUASION, NOT THE ELEMENTS…..
            Give Pablo a hug for me………

          • “MANY people here say that the 321 is the better plane because it has more range and seats more. Thats not necessarily the case.”

            type . . . . . . .OEW. . . . . . MTOW P+F
            A320NEO . . 44.3t. . . . . . .79.0t . . . 34.7t
            A321NEO. . 50.1t. . . . . . .97.0 t. . . 46.9t
            MAX8. . . . . .45.0t. . . . . . . . 82.6t. . . . .37.6t
            MAX9 . . . . . 48.2t. . . . . . . 88.3t . . . 40.1t
            MAX10. . . . 51.4t. . . . . . . .89.8t . . . 38.4t

            My tentative guess (Looking at the 800 to 900 delta and the heavy new gear ) is that the MAX10 will be heavier than a regular A321NEO
            and that same A321NEO is roomier, has more belly space and 9+t more (payload+fuel) for a maximum of 25t payload to MZFW.

          • Use.
            When flown in service. I expect the MAX 10 to be functionally equivalent to a 321 until its fuel constrained. As we progress further to the right on the payload range chart, the 321 gets better IF YOU CAN EXPLOIT IT.. That’s the big question, and this is only looking at the performance element inside the decision equation. If airplane performance was the only thing you look at, you have a very strong case for never selling a 10. But there are so very many other decisions in the aircraft selection process beyond just aircraft performance. That was my point, not the specific aircraft numbers that in most cases in a non fuel constrained mission are functionally interchangeable….

          • As we progress further to the right on the payload range chart, the 321 gets better.

            Look at max payload the charts begin with on the left. i.e. OEW to MZFW.
            Boeing hasn’t yet divulged wothwhile numbers for the MAX series beyond the -8
            but my guess is that the MAX10 will not touch 25t

          • Uwe, sorry about butchering your name last post…

            If you are correct about the MAXs payload, then the 321 will be better sooner on the payload range chart as the 10 becomes fuel constrained sooner…. As we already noted the 321 appears to be more flexible and has remained on the right side of the chart. In a 2 horse race that’s the nature of things. We do need to remember that aircraft performance is only 1 element in the selection process and somehow as inferior as the -10 appears, a not so insignificant customer base has voted with their wallets.

          • @ScottCorrea
            butchering is OK. getting inventive with miss-spellings less so.

            The advantage starts from zero miles.
            More revenue Payload from the getgo AFAIU.
            ( and belly space to actually place that stuff.)

          • Uwe.
            On the payload advantage on a 321 maybe. The 321 has less volume in the cargo bays due to the aux tank, so while it can carry the weight, it will cube out before the 10. As I said, I really think that operationally they are very similar and functionally near identical below the fuel constraint point. Be a little more flexible here, I’m a BA career guy and I’m telling you the AB 321 is better at the right hand side of the charts if you can exploit it….. That’s the key to the discussion if you can exploit it…. It’s very route dependent and further influenced by load factors…… If the airplane lived or died on performance daya alone, it gets harder for BA. Lastly aircraft performance is only 1 element of the downselect process, it’s important but there are so many additional think points….

        • Scott Correa,
          I agree with your point about the 737MAX10 door. Type A and B doors have been around forever. There are also the same options on the 757 and 767, and 737 since previous generations.

          Recently, on the 777-9X, we have seen the 4th door smaller and lighter for the same practical reasons.

          When it comes to the performance of the 737 MAX-10, a lot of people are making a huge mistake.
          I don’t think it’s a matter of legs. It’s just a fanboyism fantasy !

          In truth the MAX-10 does better than the MAX-9 in terms of seat differential. See how the 7MAX-8 already has 2 additional rows of seats compared to the A320neo. The gap between the A320neo (2-class 150) and A321neo (2-class 185) is 35 seats, where there are “only” 26 seats between the 7MAX-8 (2-class 178) and MAX-10 (2-class 204).

          It’s the reason why the 7MAX-10 sells better than the 7MAX-9, (or why the 7MAX-9/-900NG) sells much less is that the latter only offers a 15-seat differential (2-class 193).

          Also, we observe this same phenomenon on Airbus widebody aircraft.
          The A350-1000 sells poorly because the seat differential is too small for this category of 2-class +300 seat aircraft. Just as the 7MAX-8 is larger than the competition, so is the A350-900.
          Indeed airlines have long been accustomed to the difference between the 777-200ER and -300ER. In other words the A350-900 and -1000 aren’t real game changing where the 777’s were are.

          (I’m not talking about the 777-8 vs 777-9, which is a different case to expand on the 8X-F)

          In sum, you cannot develop in the +300/400 seat area of thé market and beyond, an aircraft that only have a meager of 6 meters
          Just ask yourself why the A350-900 is 67 meters long where the 777-200/-ER/-LR are 63 meters long while the stretched 777-300ER/A350-1000 are both 73 meters long.

          If the 737MAX-10 sells at a different scale than the A321neo there is no reason to say in a relevant way that it is “bad”.
          On the contrary it is very efficient aircraft and it is the best on several scenarios.

          But the MAX-8 is big enough and IS the centre of gravity of the 7MAX familly to be almost halfway between the A320neo and A321neo because with the same 32″ seat pitch we get 2-class 150-seat, 162-seat and 185-seat A320neo, 737MAX8 and A321neo respectively. is also the reason why the MAX-8/A350-900 have been the center of gravity on all the 737MAX/A350 families.

          But with the 737MAX-10, Boeing is a winner because it will eventually (around 2035) see its market share to swell to 5-7% while offering a more competitive portfolio ever before whith the 7MAX9/-900NG and before the replacement of the 737MAX, when it will carry out its EIS around 2035.
          Draw your own conclusions!
          And don’t be carried away by the lack of analysis of the emotional mass who usually share unfounded things about the aeronautics industry, in this case Boeing, without analysis and without hindsight…

          If Duke has not answered you, it is surely that he left it at that and that this discussion is closed…


          • Checklist.
            1) You don’t close my discussions when others are still commenting.
            2) If you want to address my previous post, and reference me by name, please stick to the points I commented on and put the rest of the non relayed material in a different post as to not hijack it.


          • @Checklist

            A little market analysis for you;

            Looking 20 years out, both Boeing and Airbus have estimated the market to be about 40,000 new aircraft. About 30,000 of those are going to be narrowbodies.

            A 50/50 market share means you sell ~15,000 aircraft.

            Each percentage point means ~300 aircraft.

            5-7% share means 1,500 to 2,100 planes.

            Those are the rough estimates.


            So the race is on to 15,000.

            Boeing has ~5,300 orders total.

            Airbus has ~9,700 orders total (both A320Neo & A220)


            By your estimates, the Max 10 will top out at over 2,000 orders, (with some 900 ordered?).

            The A321Neo has ~3,700 orders, ~900 delivered and in service, today.

            The entire NB order book for this replacement cycle and for all OEM’s sits at around 15,000 aircraft. Halfway there.

            The A321 line has 25% of that market.


            Those are the conclusion, using your numbers.

            2,000 orders at best (7% market share) over the next 20 years, while the A321Neo (if the 25% share holds) will have sold 7,500 units.

            I think the A321Neo market share will be closer to the 9-10k range.

            Is that too emotional for you?

          • With the A320 family production announced to 75/mo by 2026, a time when Boeing has targeted 50/mo for the 737, Airbus will have a 60% have by production rate–not 50%. The A321 will have about 55% of their production or ~41/mo. You might use those numbers, Frank.

          • @Scott H

            Yes, sir – I agree.

            I was trying to explain that under the most conservative Airbus extrapolation and the most positive projection for Boeing (being
            a 50/50 market share between the two) is a huge stretch, under the current numbers.

            If 15K orders is the goal to ensure an equal standing in the market, Airbus has a very healthy lead. 5 to 7% (which was the quoted ‘order swelling’) for the Max 10 is not going to do the job.

            40 – A321Neo’s a month, is ~500 a year. Four years work for Airbus, at the expected ~2000 aircraft the Max 10 will sell, over it’s lifetime (at the 5-7% number given.

            It looks even worse, when you factor in the info you have provided. If things go as planned (and yes, that can always change) and Airbus gets to 75 for the A320Neo family and 14 a month for the A220 family, it gets even worse.

            I was hoping to gently lead the horse over to the fountain for a drink, rather than sticking the prod up it’s….empennage.

            (it looks really bad for Boeing, using your numbers)

            Question for you:

            What is the window for the next big round of orders? It seems that they come in ebbs and flows, sometime dictated by economic events and other factors – who is going to place the orders that will drive the next 15,000, in the race to 30k?

          • I think there will be a lot of orders at the Paris Air Show.

          • The “Ruining Russia” US project will have low impact in your view?

            They are playing with matches!
            the range of potential outcomes will cover a wide range. from nothing to see upto to glowing in the dark.

          • On the subject of new orders, any comments on India?
            After Air India’s recent massive order, now IndiGo is talking about an even bigger order (500) and Akasa is talking about a new “three-digit” order. Although I wish our Indian friends well, isn’t this starting to look like too much…?



  55. Pedro

    …”I wonder how valid BA’s marketing about the 787’s super low operating costs ….”
    Ask the stupid airlines that have ordered 1,600 787 Dreamliners to date and you’ll get an answer….

  56. Lufthansa have just announced an order for 10 x A350-1000 (and another 5 x A350-900)so that’s 44 for the -1000 so far this year = not bad for a slow-selling version – and who would bet against that total growing further at the Paris Air Show. But no 777X orders this time…..

      • Bryce,

        …”Good policy to get some A350-1000s ordered before cancelling the 777-9s 😏…”
        Pious wishes, based on emotional writing once again, peremptory assertions.

        Sorry to disappoint you but the A350-1000s are only replacements for the A340-600s, where the 777-9 retains its role as a 747-400 replacement at Lufthansa.

        Formerly Lufthansa operated an “all-Airbus fleet” except for the 747, many years ago with A330’s, A340-300, A340-600.

        Today with the 787 Dreamliner in their fleet, there is a widebody Boeing breakthrough never seen before and the introduction of the 777-9 will be a first for the 777 passenger ans a milestone for the entire 777 program.

        The breakthrough of widebody Boeing at Lufthansa is quite worrying today

        • Essentially the whole 777X order book is in ASC606…with the Lufthansa order near the top of the list, together with names like Cathay and Etihad 😉

          • Bryce, Bryce, Bryce ….

            Do you think you’re going to brandish your ASC606 Joker card every time you’re beaten on your fallacious arguments by introducing an argumentative doubt as a “strawman” technique?

            Well done, but with me it’s a bit different, it doesn’t work like that.

            I am extremely convinced that the 777-X are still there not because they are pious wishes, but because they are genuinely good 747-400 replacements for Lufthansa.
            But congratulations to Airbus for the A350-1000 order, the program needed that one and for Boeing ,

            The 787 order further proves the phenomenal momentum of the Dreamliner’s impact on the market.

            Simply colossal!…

          • Well…in order to calculate where they are:

            The entire 777 order book is officially 440. You then have to do two things:

            1) 777 Classic orders are 87, so they have to be removed.

            2) ASC adjustments are 127.



            So you’re left with 226, for the 777X line.

            (On a side note; producing aircraft means nothing, if it costs you billions to do it and you lose your shirt. BA has written off $6.5 billion on the 777X program and at least that much on the 787 program.)

            At this point they’ll probably be getting pennies on the dollar from airlines, to keep those orders intact.

          • Franc

            I don’t know what the purpose of your intervention is except that it obviously makes people extremely sick that Boeing is making a huge breakthrough in the WB aircraft market through the 787 and 777… I’m sure there is something similar thing for Airbus if it’s true what you say. The behavior of airlines for changes, postponements and cancellation of orders for economic reasons, bankruptcies or difficulties encountered is the same rule for any aircraft manufacturer.

          • Checklist,

            Extremely sick? Yes – but not in the way you think. I’ll keep it really simple for you.

            Let’s just say, the market for a particular segment is 2,000 aircraft. You can either:

            1) Sell 1600 units and lose billions

            2) Sell 400 and make a small profit

            Which choice would you make?

            (That is essentially the 787 and the A330Neo market, give or take.)


            Breakthrough, you say?

            The 777 Classic is the #1 selling WB of all time. Followed by the 747 and the A330Ceo.

            It’s sold over 1,700 units since 1989.

            The accounting block for the 777X is how much? 400? So they went from selling 1,700 to selling 400, and you call it a break through? Wouldn’t that be more of a breakdown?


            Sick? Yes. Because the company that gave us such great aircraft as the 707, 747, 757, 767 & 777…is being destroyed to squeeze cash out of, by bean counters.

    • > Lufthansa have just announced an order for 10 x A350-1000 (and another 5 x A350-900)so that’s 44 for the -1000 so far this year = not bad for a slow-selling version <

      Interesting! Thanks for that info.

      • Vincent

        …”not bad for a slow-selling version
        Interesting! Thanks for that info…”
        Strange comment.

        Where then one should not use “not bad” a thing which does not sell can only be “BAD”…

        It leaves me speechless

        • “It leaves me speechless”

          if wishes were kisses….

          any of sarcasm, irony, …? :-)))

          • Nothing in sarcasm, his point is strange. It’s like I said “Not bad for the 737MAX7, Southwest has ordered hundreds”… The fact of having relativized the facts seems strange to me.

    • Uh-oh.

      In 2022, Airbus delivered 569 NB’s. (mind you, the A220 is in there, so let’s chop out 69 for that).

      If they deliver as many as they did, that means Airbus will account for 1,000 engines alone, leaving 700 (or 350 aircraft) for Boeing.

      • On the other hand, about / at least one third of the NBs that BA is currently delivering are from inventory — and (most of) those already have engines. So, in that regard, and with an eye to lower line rates, BA’s share of the 1700 will possibly be 1/3 or less…

        • On the other hand, about / at least one third of the NBs that BA is currently delivering are from inventory — and (most of) those already have engines. So, in that regard, and with an eye to lower line rates, BA’s share of the 1700 will possibly be 1/3 or less…”

          ……. and some of the Airbus production will be P & W-powered. Even if it is a 2:1 ration that could then be 750 frames/yr – I think they’d be happy with that!

  57. From the LNA Twitter Feed:

    “First flight of Universal Hydrogen de Havilland Dash 8-300. Overflight on H2 electric motor with other engine at idle. Liftoff @0841 local time Moses Lake, WA. We’ll have full coverage starting Monday.”

  58. Checklist.
    1) You don’t close my discussions when others are still commenting.
    2) If you want to address my previous post, and reference me by name, please stick to the points I commented on and put the rest of the non relayed material in a different post as to not hijack it.


    • Technically, an order in favor of Boeing and its 737MAX.

      The rest is just controversy and frustration…

    • If that’s the going rate, makes me wonder how much MOL is willing to pay??

      • According to various analyses, MOL got 69% discount on his previous order, and United recently got 70%. So maybe he’s pushing for 75% on the MAX-10s? Nice, round number 😏

        I bet AI got mouthwatering discounts on their recent order.

        IndiGo is cleverly playing the 2 OEMs against each other in a similar way –> discount bonanza guaranteed 🥳

    • “His total compensation, which includes longterm incentives that have not yet vested, measured $22.5 million in 2022, an increase from about $21 million the previous year.”

      Nice compensation for the captain of a drifting ghost ship…

      • Lol! Do you care about the bonuses and salaries of CEOs around the world?

        Boeing and its CEO are not outlaws.
        Who are you to decree it?…

        • @Checklist

          Nothing like rewarding poor performance with an increase in pay. 4 years of losses in a row.

          I think that is called ‘failing upwards’

          • @Franc

            What would you have done in his place?

            I don’t understand this mentality to strongly criticize something that neither concerns us

            In truth, I don’t know a single person, not even an Airbus CEO as G. Faury, being Boeing, CEO successfully ticks the boxes and declares to the shareholders this:

            “No thank you for the bonuses, I am a moral person and do it for posterity”…

            Let’s be serious, this is sarcasm

          • Checklist wrote

            I don’t understand this mentality to strongly criticize something that neither concerns us…..

            Checklist, when I look at Franks work, he is numbers based and quite factual. I note that Calhoumn HAS in fact lead BA to 4 years of losses. That’s on the record not sarcasm.. Not granting the bonus is the correct thing to do. You jump in to deflect the direction, again, painting an overly rosy picture of improvements. It isn’t so. Your objectivity fail’s you at times, like now.

          • @Checklist

            I say something, because it is my preference to do so.

            Perhaps because you are relatively new here, you have not been a party to previous discussions about Senor Calhoun, but:

            1) Since 2009, he has been on the BoD at BA, so he bears some responsibility for the mess they are in.

            2) When he was offered the top seat, he NEGOTIATED a $7 million bonus to get the aircraft re-certified into service. Despite being there when the mess was created.

            3) In 2020, Boeing laid off 30,000 workers. He got $20 million.

            How many times during the Max fiasco did Boeing say

            i) The Max is safe
            ii) Foreign pilots
            iii) Shouldn’t be grounded

            As the senior member (read: Pulling the strings) on the board, Muilenberg was taking direction from him. He said so, in filings.

            As @PNWgeek pointed out – BA has had horrible losses. Cut the work force. Lost talent and market share.

            It’s a 2 horse race. The comparison is really easy. Where do they stand, in contrast to Airbus?

            You wanna blame the planning engineers for the mess they are in?

          • PNWgeek

            “…I note that Calhoumn HAS in fact lead BA to 4 years of losses. That’s on the record not sarcasm…”
            Just to agree. D. Calhoun received bonuses with the approval of shareholders.

            Keep in mind that debt was not one of the checkboxes. The 3 last years of debt were the legacy of the long 737MAX grounding from the beginning of 2019 to the end of 2020. This grounding was a colossal mess, Boeing and its industrial partners lost a lot of money, mainly for Boeing

            Then came the 787 “grounding”…

            This man cannot have a magic wand and erase the debt from the slate with the snap of a finger.

            According to an article above, he just missed the 777X delivery target for 2025.
            In short, since 2020,

            – He put the 737MAX back on delivery,
            – Reinstate the culture of safety. – Obtained waiver for MAX10 certification.

            Time flies but things get done slowly especially with the FAA asking Boeing to stop the 787 for paperwork errors recently

            The CEO D. Calhoun said himself that the debt will not return to an acceptable level before at least 2026-2027 and everyone knows it.

            Debt did not allow the demise of Boeing either. So, again, how does this relate to us about Boeing’s debt?

            So what I call sarcasm is the untimely criticism which is not really objective in my opinion…


          • Checklist wrote

            “Just to agree. D. Calhoun received bonuses with the approval of shareholders.”

            You cannot agree with me on something I made no comment on. Your long winded comments weren’t on point as a reply to what I wrote. If you want to reply to me using my name, at least be on point enough that a discussion can occur. Every time I read your stuff, it reinforces my thinking that you are now the leading BA fanboy……

          • @ PNWGeek
            I don’t think that “fanboy” is accurate in this case — something like “deflection bot” might be nearer the mark.

          • Bryce.
            Respectfully, I , of all people here, should be able to identify a Fanboy when I see one……

            I cant believe Im actually telling you that….

            Our world has been upended.

            Have a great weekend.

          • PNWgeek

            What I write is not long. This is just a factual summary of things. If you’re not ready to hear it that’s your problem but respect my thoughts. Why do you say I’m a fanboy? ‘Cause I don’t step into your boeing bashing game.

            So which Fanboy do you qualify for?!

          • Contrary to what’s posted above:
            1) No. The shareholders haven’t approved Calhoun’s 2022 bonus.
            2) Regarding BA’s debts – if BA could clear most of its 737 MAX inventory within two years as Calhoun and others had said repeatedly back in 2020 (because that’s the only way analysts would maintain BA’s investment grade credit rating), the debt burden won’t be such an overhang.

        • D. Gates has to use sarcasm like any self-respecting journalist.

          He does not justify a healthier salary by practicing gossip, But of course some are fond of that,
          Boeing is American after all not european, Canadian, or chinese

          That’s why D. Gates makes this kind of article…👍

      • OTOH, about two weeks ago, the board of BA awarded Calhoun over $5 million incentives to “stay”.

        The forfeiture is more a symbolic gesture.

          • Why Bingo?

            I have already explained the successful goals of D. Calhoun. If you don’t want to hear them, that’s not necessarily our problem…

        • Your link missed a few:

          -Returning a profit: FAIL
          -Sustainable margins on sales: FAIL
          -Clearing MAX backlog: FAIL
          -Preventing brain drain: FAIL
          -Maintaining good supplier relationships: FAIL
          -Starliner: FAIL
          -New Air Force One planes: FAIL

  59. Lol! Do you care about the bonuses and salaries of CEOs around the world?

    Boeing and its CEO are not outlaws.
    Who are you to decree it?…

    • I think Embraer would be the MOST reasonable choice in terms of security and know-how.

      Even if in the political scene, India is not an enemy of Russia…

  60. Another article labeling the F-35 as a failure (no surprises there).
    Of interest is the quote:
    “For example, the Air Force is buying as many as 200 F-15EX Eagle II jets, which will be the backbone fighter of the force, manufacturer Boeing says on its website.”

    One wonders if BA will make any money on this model, which costs $100M a piece. According to Wikipedia, the USAF has only 144 of the plane on order (not 200), and there’s talk of reducing this order to 80.


    Australia is also openly unhappy about the F-35:

    • Bryce,
      The USAF is shopping a replacement engine for the F35.
      Some think the airplane is a turd. The official feedback is that the US loves the connectivity and stealth, but the real war in Ukraine is showing the world just how hard it will be to fly anywhere is a defended chunk of airspace. Just as armor seems to be on the decline on land. Manned aircraft may be the dinosaurs of the near future. Close air support doesn’t happen in Ukraine but smart artillery shells sure do. Drones are the newest thereat and Ukrainian drivers have innovated a lot. I dont see the F15x as the air forces solution to dominating the battle space, and with that tankers become less important. The future belongs to the missile armed foot soldier, and with that, a huge shift in warfighting needs.

  61. Selling to India can mean meager pickings for western OEMs:

    “Manufacturing of over 13,400 detail parts, 4,600 sub-assemblies and all the seven major component assemblies will be undertaken in India, along with tools, jigs and testers. Also, 96 per cent of the total man-hour work per aircraft that Airbus employs at its manufacturing facility in Spain will be undertaken in India by the Tata Consortium.

    “Various systems such as engines, landing gear, avionics, EW suite among others, will be provided by Airbus Defence & Space and integrated into the aircraft by the Tata Consortium.”


    With the recent — and coming — big aircraft orders from India, one wonders when AB will open a FAL there. BA seems to be “allergic” to foreign FALs (with only a completion center — now disused — in China).

  62. PNWgeek

    Respectfully, I , of all people here, should be able to identify a Fanboy when I see one……

    I cant believe Im actually telling you that….

    Our world has been upended.

    Have a great weekend…”
    Lol !! .

    Do you think that by finding the support of some fanboy here you will have some credit for calling me a fanboy?

    Are you reduced to this?
    Look what kind of fanboy you are first?

    I have ONLY related the facts at Boeing concerning the collection of the debt which will take place around 2026 according to D. Calhoun.
    It’s not me who says it or that he invents it.

    I also mentioned the boxes ticked by the CEO such as exemption for the 737MAX-10 which is factual! While that of the 777-X was not.

    Also factual!

    Safety culture too. This is Why am I a Fanboy?

    Lol ! And you? What kind fanboy or anti-Boeing are you?

  63. Brice,

    I wonder what the anti-US propaganda is doing here? (F35) Lol!

    Although I’m not a fan of the USA, I understand your intention to share links and criticize everything that is American and of course including Boeing.

    It all makes sense.
    While all this politics, anti x or y propaganda is not supposed to figure too. But it doesn’t matter you have PNWgeek who is fond of all this, 😉

    • (1) Who’s “Brice”?
      (2) In the F35 post above, I asked a question about BA’s ability to generate earnings from the F-15EX… linguistic challenges evidently prevented you from registering that.
      (3) Who’s anti-American? Referring to a failed program from a US manufacturer doesn’t make one “anti-American”.

      Do you ever check your posts for internal consistency…?

      • Bryce,

        “…Who’s anti-American? Referring to a failed program from a US manufacturer doesn’t make one “anti-American”..”
        I’m afraid I don’t have a short memory….

  64. Southwest Max 8 has autopilot and trim system, issues.

    “24-FEB-2023. A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 (B38M), registration N8844Q, performing flight SWA9017 / WN9017 from Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, AZ (USA) to Houston William P. Hobby Airport, TX (USA) during climb out of Phoenix Sky Harbor reported trim issue and autopilot issue, declared an emergency and requested return to the airport of departure.”

    ATC conversation


    • Good thing the 737MAX has become safe and MCAS on its way to becoming proven ?

  65. @Franc,

    …”A little market analysis for you;…”
    Thank you Frank for meditating on my predictions. But there was a misinterpretation on your part because
    I was not clear/precise in my thinking.

    The 5-7% I mentioned is the addition of the 737MAX market share if the MAX-10 would not have been launched in 2017 nor certified if it would not have obtained its waiver for its next certification.

    There was NEVER any question of the 737MAX-10 beating the A321neo.

    My point is that Airbus today holds ~65% of the NB’s market against ~35% for Boeing today.
    Adding the 5-7% will raise BA to 40%-42% market share until 2035 against 58%-60% for AB. There was my point.

    @ Mr. Scott,

    Airbus foresees a stellar delivery rate/month (75) but it is becoming more and more utopian given the difficulties encountered in the supply chains including AB and BA.


    • “My point is that Airbus today holds ~65% of the NB’s market against ~35% for Boeing today.
      Adding the 5-7% will raise BA to 40%-42% market share until 2035 against 58%-60% for AB. There was my point.”

      market share is not a stastic thing.

      Looking at the historic developement ( continual loss of B NB market share ) the MAX10 may be nothing more than a stop gap against further loss of market share. for a while.

  66. @Checklist

    ‘I was not clear/precise in my thinking.’

    – understatement of the year, right there.

    But let’s humour you and have a look at your predictions, and see how they line up.

    I’ll remind you of what the previous post said:

    Total estimated market for NB is ~30k.

    Boeing has ~5,300 orders total.
    Airbus has ~9,700 orders total (both A320Neo & A220)

    Now using your speculative numbers, BA with a 40% share equals 12,000 orders at the low end and 12,600 at the high end.

    Boeing has to more than double the amount of aircraft they currently have on order, to obtain that. (On a side note, you do know that Boeing delivered a total of 7,100NG’s, right? So in your mind they are going to sell 5,000 more Max’s than NG’s? )

    To obtain the ratio you are talking about, Boeing needs to sell another 7,000 Max’s.

    If you say so.

    • @Franc

      That’s not what I meant but that’s ok.

      And the estimates of AB and BA are slightly overstated IMHO
      Also, AB is now mixing A320’s with A220’s. Strange, but that’s ok…

      • ‘AB is now mixing A320’s with A220’s.’

        Why is that strange, in your mind? Is it not an aircraft that competes in the commercial market? It sells to airlines and is considered a ‘mainline’ plane. It is also part of the financial results of Airbus.

        I know Boeing would love Airbus not to have it, but wishful thinking doesn’t get you very far…

        • Lol ! Nothing to do with wishful thinking.

          Now people who are unaware or ignorant of things will think that there were thousands of A220s sold.

          It’s still strange. At the time there were also the A330/340 which were also counted.

        • I would also like to add that at the time the 717 was not mixed with the 737 in the table. So no wishful thinking. And come to think of it, the 777X shouldn’t also be mixed with the 777 classic!

          Too bad your message is not well intentioned…

          • Too bad you have to reach so far.

            The estimation by both AB & BA is 30k narrowbodies, over 20 years.

            The 717 is not being sold, is it? If it were, we could include it.

            The numbers are, what the numbers are.

Leave a Reply

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