Pontifications: One step forward, two steps back for Boeing

By Scott Hamilton

March 14, 2023, © Leeham News: There is a phrase in the US about the politician’s dance: one step forward, two steps back and a sidestep.

I couldn’t help but this about this dance step in connection with Boeing in recent weeks. For every step forward, Boeing seems to take two steps back.

The delivery suspension of the 767/KC-46A line—none has been delivered since the first of the year—was the first step back.

Then, for a second time, deliveries of the 787 were suspended. While the 767/KC-46A deliveries remain “paused,” to use Boeing’s favorite word, the Federal Aviation Administration last Friday cleared Boeing to resume deliveries of the 787.

I recall that Boeing CFO Brian West recently said a month ago that there will be some bumps ahead on the way to Boeing’s recovery. He didn’t allude to the 767/KC-46 issue at the time and the 787 was being delivered then. But as these issues emerged, Boeing once more seems snake bit.

It’s Boeing’s name on the side of the plane

In the case of the 767/KC-46A, Boeing supplier Triumph changed how it painted the center fuel tanks. It was later discovered that paint chips flaked off. Potentially, these could block fuel flow. (Think of the British Airways Boeing 777 that crash landed in London a few years back. Ice developed in the fuel lines, blocking flow to the engines just as the 777 was on its final approach to Heathrow Airport. Fortunately, only a few injuries resulted.)

Boeing was quick to point the finger at another supplier with respect to the 787. Spirit AeroSystems makes the forward fuselage, called Section 41, including the pressure bulkhead. Boeing claimed flaws in the paperwork were discovered and Spirit was to blame. Spirit said, Nope, it wasn’t them.

Boeing still has a credibility problem stemming from the 2019 grounding of the 737 MAX and all that was discovered in development of the plane. Credibility was further damaged with production flaws on the 787, which “paused” deliveries for more than a year. The FAA still retains authority over signing off on deliveries of the 737 and 787—concerned over Boeing’s credibility to return authority to them.

While Triumph appears to be responsible for the 767/KC-46 pause, Spirit isn’t willing to accept the blame. Given Boeing’s credibility issues, I’m inclined to side with Spirit.

And in Congressional testimony last week, the FAA said it is increasing its oversight on Boeing.

That’s the two steps back. (Three, really.) And regardless of who is responsible, it’s Boeing’s name on the side of the airplane.

The sidesteps

Among journalists and aerospace analysts, Boeing is well known for sidestepping issues and questions. Boeing is very, very good at parsing words. It’s also very good at giving statements that avoid answering questions that are asked. Either way, it hurts credibility with the press and Wall Street. It’s clear that Boeing is, on balance, okay with this, for it’s been going on for years. What’s more important is that Boeing’s credibility with regulators remains damaged. And it’s not at all clear when Boeing can fix this problem.

285 Comments on “Pontifications: One step forward, two steps back for Boeing

  1. The article never clarified what the “one step forward” was 😏

    Any candidates?

    • The cancellation of KC-Y? Thus Boeing can get a head start on the KC-Z stealth refueler. Hope they don’t fool themselves and just scale up MQ-25. Have Wright Field decided what upgrades to the B-52 re-engine is required to USAF certify the whole aircraft? See Nimrod 2000 history.

      • Could an a330neo based frame address the Z contract or does it need to be stealthy?

        • The USAF has been caught completely off guard by recent developments in weaponry/warfare, and doesn’t seem to know what it wants.

          Regarding “stealth”:
          – Do we have any objective data on real-world stealthiness of so-called “stealth” aircarft?
          – A group of German researchers recently showed that F35s could be tracked using a simple passive radar set-up: they did it from a horse box at the Farnborough air show.
          – How stealthy will a “stealth” tanker be if it deploys a refuelling boom. The F35 is under-ranged and under-armed — but, the moment you strap on external fuel tanks or weaponry, stealth gets flushed. A big boom hanging from a tanker will surely have a similar effect: once it shows up on radar, how quickly can it be taken out with a hypersonic missile?
          – To what extent will “stealth” remain relevant in the age of high-resolution visual/IR satellite imagery with motion detection software?

          • The primary value of stealth is in asymmetric situations. Fortunately, that still applies to some of the more dangerous regimes on the planet. But yes, at some point it stops being a viable strategic solution. But, even once it has lost its strategic value, it can provide a small edge in tactical situations.

            This is where the war in Ukraine is providing some really interesting insights into the leveraging of small tactical opportunities. There is a striking similarity between that conflict and the American Revolution. Neither the Ukrainians nor the Americans should have had a chance.

          • Ukraine is aided by all the ISR support from US/NATO assets.
            This has changed fast death to slow death for their soldiers.
            Add in that Russia by choice mostly targeted military relevant stuff.
            Civil damage is to a large part due to failed Ukrainian anti missile operations. ( either deflected RU rockets or UKR duds.)

            Ukrainian recruiting seems to be in the “Volkssturm” phase.

          • Stealth is really a bad term for it, Radar Signature Reduction is what we are talking about.

            There are all sorts of claims on detecting a true RSR aircraft. What is not stated is it has to be TARGETING quality and at this point, that is not possible.

            Yes, certain frequencies can get a low quality return on an F-22, F-35, B-2 (no other aircraft require that, target radar will pick them up at combat distances)

            In basic terms, an F-35 can get within 25 miles of any target radar and not be picked up. An F-22 within 15 miles.

            A Radar Reduced tanker operation out at 200-300 miles from a target radar would need far less reduced signature.

            The Air Force has a problem with the boom which is a violation of Radar Reduction (the probe on the F-35B and C folds into the fuselage)

            Unfortunately the USAF management is ego driven and they change their mind daily about the future plan.

            Currently KC-Y is cut to 75 (from 140 or so).

            Last week it was 80 F-15EX, this week its 104.

            Don’t hold your breath because next week it will change and congress looks at current capability not pie in the sky Next Gen Dominance fighters that the USAF swears is the final answer.

          • Increased spending without raising debt limit? Good luck! 🤔

        • Think USAF want something more like the B-21 as tanker than an A330. The war in Ukraine shows that things visible from space does not have that great life expectancy against modern robots/radars unless massively protected by anti-air robots and HARM missiles knocking out radars.

          • An A330MRT sticks out like a sore thumb though only more so than a KC-46A.

            Space observation has nothign to do with low radar signatures and all the Ukraine aspect are ground targets.

            A lot of Ukraine is SIGNET aircraft finding targets.

    • I am a candidate.

      At Boeing.

      – Restoring the safety culture is a major step forward.

      – Getting the 737MAX10 certification waiver is another major step forward.

      – The resumption of testing of the 777-9 is a step forward.

      • Can a waiver be deemed a step forward?
        If not a step back it is “lingering in the past”

          • If you need testing : yes
            ( obacht: testing vs qualification flights! )

        • Uwe

          One step forward.

          No more than last December people predicted that it was over for the MAX-10. And the exemption had occurred overnight as if by surprise while a last desperate attempt by Sully and Co. to derail the exemption…

          You forgot that one apparently…

          • Your are creating a completely standalone reality in LaLaLand.

            Boeing was dragging their feet to pressure politics into a waiver. Everybody saw that.
            Going from history the expected path to be taken.
            In the (not taken) legal conformance case
            the -10 would not have vanished. it would have had a more modern and better User Interface.

            Boeing is still busy trying to top the various authorities. current success may be turn out to be its undoing.

          • Actually not. There are previous stated reasons not to mess with the MAX cockpit. Congress took the correct actin, the same congress that has stepped in and dealt to a major extend with the FAA (funny how the FAA changed is it not)

            So the same actions that are good are bad, interesting hypocrisy. Those same people ignore all the NG and 737-8/9 flying with the old reliable proven cockpit.

            Equally the MAX7 is not certified and the MAX10 is at best slated for 2024.

          • @TW

            “Actually not. There are previous stated reasons not to mess with the MAX cockpit”

            There are also previously stated reasons why the MAX cockpit badly needed to be updated.
            In the end, politics won.
            Dollars before safety!

          • Comment exactly as expected from someone who does not understand aviation let alone piloting.

            If the -10 Cockpit is a problem then so is the -8/9 as well as ALL THE NG and Prior 737s.

            How about a solution? Of course not, you have to work to solve things.

          • @ TW

            No need to get all sullen 😏

            Standards change…and there’s always a cutoff date when a new standard is introduced.
            The 737 cockpit is a dinosaur.

            Are you still using Windows XP? Sliderules?

          • 1) Hasn’t FAA mandated sim training for the MAX? What’s the difficulty to implement small changes in the MAX 10’s cockpit? 🤔

            2) Still using a laptop from the 80s/90s?? 🙄

          • Yep, XP was the best Windows ever. Granted it was not nearly as good as CPM (well it was the descendant of CPM being stolen by Gates)

            Slid-rules work, don’t need power. I have half a dozen I use from time to time.

            Your world was built using slide rules, back in the day we actually worked at things instead of pushing buttons. We know what the rough result should be and knew when it was not right.

            But again you offer no solutions let alone even answer if a -10 is a problem why are not the NGs and the -8/9 the same problem?

            I have listed the many reasons why its better to leave as is and why your vaunted modern cockpit checklist stuff is not an answer either.

          • “…if a -10 is a problem why are not the NGs and the -8/9 the same problem?”

            The NGs and the -8/9 ARE the same problem…but they were lucky enough to be across the finish line before the deadline.

            5 crashes…

    • New step forward: 787 deliveries resume: last night a 787-9 was delivered to Lufthansa D-ABPE. Enjoy.

  2. It would genuinely be interesting to hear your opinions about how Boeing can dig themselves out of the deep hole that they have dug themselves into. Yes, they need to get a grip on production instead of the enrichment of shareholders and board directors, but it’d make a fascinating article with a 10 point plan for Boeing’s recovery… even if it is effectively free consultancy (they will ignore it anyway 🙂 )
    Maybe I’ve missed such an article in the past, in which case apologies.

    • I’ll play…a bit. I’ll let the airplane guys correct me, if I’m wrong on the airplane side.

      1) BA needs capital. Lots of it. Either debt (not a good idea) or equity. Sell those shares they bought. Pay off the debt. $2.5 billion in interest is bad.

      2) Clear the decks. Get rid of the DPB in inventory. Expense it and take the hit.

      3) Launch a solid program. The market seems to be weighted towards the A321 niche. IMO – do a dual certification (like the 757/767) with as much commonality as possible. The need one to really compete with the A321Neo/LR/XLR line and a 767 replacement that everyone seems to want.

      Truss braced and open rotor sounds nice, but that’s 10-15 years out.

      4) Get competent engineers in and listen to them.

      5) Once the 757/767 is going, attack the bottom of the NB market. If truss braced, folding wing tip, open rotor is ready, fine. The need a new product to compete with the A220-300/A320Neo niche. Commonality with the 757/767 replacement is a plus. They can’t survive 35/65…or worse.

      6) Start work on a 787Max. Listen to the engineers and do it properly, this time. Learn from your mistakes. If folding wing tips have proven themselves on the 777X program, then go.

      7) Forget about stock buybacks. Be fiscally responsible.

      8) Sunset everyone who worked at GE.

      9) I think there is also a market there, for a regional jet to replace all the older scope clause compliant Rj’s & Ejets. Cockpit commonality….

      Make it so a pilot could transition from a BARJ, to a mainline NB, to a 757/767Max, with minimal training.

      10) Did I mention the bean counters and Wall St types?

      • This is a pretty good summary. On the point about hiring some competent engineers, there is a total morale problem that needs addressing. Everyone I talk to that still works for the company makes that point. It’s not a very pleasant place to spend 40 hours per week.

        Also, lying in status reports needs to be made a firing offense. And this needs to have teeth such that the lying stops immediately. The only way to do that is to make the rule apply from top to bottom, and then have all status reports submitted to an internal audit organization setup for the purpose. The watermelon charts are a disease that must be cured for the company to even have a chance.

        Also, the new leadership team that replaces those that are swept out needs to understand that you don’t manage an aerospace full scale engineering development program using budgets and burn rates as your primary, or even secondary management tool. Schedules and quality are everything.

        In order to restore the company to a point that it can create leading edge aerospace transportation equipment on a sustaining basis, it has to always be doing that. It can’t be done in pulses with lapses measured in decades. If you don’t do, you lose the ability to do.

        As for the capital needed to clean up the mess, there really is only one source – the US Treasury. So a political decision needs to be made through the country’s elected representatives. Do we as a country want to have the ability to to produce the kinds of products that Boeing used to? There needs to be an up or down vote, and then if it is up, that needs to include a recognition that the price tag is in the 11 or possibly even 12 figure range. Cleaning up this mess is not going to be cheap. Recovery will cost a lot more than the greed driven value of what was taken out.

        • ‘As for the capital needed to clean up the mess, there really is only one source – the US Treasury.’

          Then you’ll never get the GE guys out. If they can get their hands on that kind of public funding, they’ll do everything they can to stay in power.

          • Boeings problem is that they just hired GE finance guys not engineers and program managers. At GE they were somewhat balanced and I think the chief engineers office had last say on critical issues. So without balance and a mighty chief engineers office the Boeing ship capsized on several programs, not all.

          • I recall McAllister was quickly ousted in Act I, by the you-know-who gang in charge.

        • It is a small change, but the order should be ‘Quality and schedule’ since the time necessary should be provided to enable the level of quality desired.

        • That Boeing “couldn’t figure out” how to retain
          all those experienced engineers late last year
          due to the “pension snafu” (sorry for the scare
          quotes, but I’m cynical wrt that company) tells
          me that it’s same-ol’ same-ol there.

          Why should the .gov support Boeing when they offshore every job they can?

        • If Calhoun wanted to finance a new plane he could do it tomorrow by issuing more stock. This would effectively take back a portion of the $62 billion paid to shareholders in dividends and buybacks over something like 8 year period before the Max disaster.
          Since this would dilute the equity of current shareholders, Calhoun would never, ever seriously consider this.
          Boeing of today lacks the capacity “to develop leading edge transport vehicles” not for lack of capital, but for the more fundamental reason that executive management has no interest in this business. Maintaining staff for this is expensive, and cuts into free cash flow, which is all that matters.
          Management wants to be the lowest possible cost (highest cash flow) producer of legacy programs. This goal is not compatible with being a “developer of leading edge transport vehicles “.

          • Boeing let their experienced engineers go.
            I’m not an expert, but that does not seem
            like what a forward-looking (other than financializing) entity would do.


      • Frank,
        In starting to recognise a frightening similarity between the partisan “discussions” about how deep boeings debt hole is and the women on Real Housewives of New Jersey screaming at each other about who was doing who where……..

        • @Pnwgeek

          I would be really careful on how I would let it be known, that the women on Real Housewives of New Jersey scream at each other.

          Not a conversation to have with someone over at the range:

          “Hey – did you see what she said to her after she came home from sleeping with her daughter’s boyfriend? I nearly died. Pass me that clip, will ya? Thanks.”

      • You don’t get great engineers, you train them under great managers over decades on several programs using better and better tools and standards.

  3. Apart from a single 777F delivered (to China) in March, the only BCA line that’s delivering at the moment is the 737MAX line — and it’s going at a snail’s pace, with just 13 deliveries so far in March (including 3 from inventory). Does anyone know what the problem is?

    The situation over at AB is not much rosier, with just 17 frames delivered in March so far (7x 320, 8x 321, 1x 350, 1x 330neo). However, AB doesn’t have to cough up $620M in interest payments every quarter, so its slow deliveries are less critical from an immediate financial perspective.

    Is there a (new) bottleneck with CFM engines?

    • …”AB doesn’t have to cough up $620M in interest payments every quarter, so its slow deliveries are less critical from an immediate financial perspective…”
      What would be the use of Airbus to collect ~8,000 NB’s if they cannot deliver…

      • Just curious;

        When BA had the 737 Max grounding for 2 years – and didn’t deliver a single aircraft, were you saying the same thing about Boeing?

        When BA couldn’t deliver a 787 for about a year, were you again saying the same thing?

        So now – when both OEM’s are having problems delivering aircraft (and I believe that this is what Bryce is referring to….why are both not able to get deliveries going)….are you asking the question:


        What would be the use of Airbus to collect ~8,000 NB’s if they cannot deliver…

        What would be the use of Boeing to collect ~3,600 NB’s if they cannot deliver…

        (and BTW, just to be correct; Airbus has ~6,100 A320Neo’s in backlog, having delivered ~2650, for a total of ~8,750. Not sure where 8.000 comes from…)

        • Here’s another question for you, Frank:

          What’s the point in having a backlog of any size/type if, as you deliver it, it doesn’t generate enough money to return a (meaningful) profit?

          Unless, of course, BA now considers itself to be a non-profit organization…

          • C’mon Bryce…

            That’s what credit cards are for. Every 18 year old girl knows that…

          • Oops. What would be the use of Boeing to win fixed price contract at a loss if they cannot deliver ….

            -> “A problem discovered late last year prompted the Air Force to defer the launch of low rate initial production on Boeing’s T-7 jet trainer into the second half of 2024. Pentagon Budget documents show the delay will push the LRIP kickoff to fiscal 2025


          • Frank:

            Every kid over 8 knows what a CC is for!

          • @Trans

            Yes – but it’s only when you mature that you realize that you have to pay it off and minimum monthly payments aren’t going to cut it.

          • Frank:

            LOL, I know an elderly very mature person who is up into his Neck in Credit Card debt.

            Of course mature has more to do with mental reality than age.

            But seeing as how they keep giving the guy Credit Cards, I am wondering who has the right take? As up to his neck as he is he keeps getting offers for new ones!

            You just have to love unrestrained capitalism. If they had to take the hit for bankruptcy the CC companies would change their tune.

    • February delivery:
      Airbus more than doubled to 46 while Boeing crashed to 28 – almost down by a third from January.

  4. Most people have no idea what it actually takes to turn a company of 150,000 people around. Let alone a company that has been as you all say going in decline since MCD merger, what was that? 20 years ago?, add that to the MAX crisis and Covid – in which a lot of talent was lost not just at boeing but the industry, you have to retrain that talent etc etc. Boeing only really started to do some self reflection after the max. that was 4 years ago. IMO boeing is in a much better position than they were then. There is a much increased focus on production quality and safety. (and for those that want to argue this point, most of the production issues you see now, all existed in one or another back then but Boeing didn’t give a F**** if it meant the bottom line was going to be hit) Yes its a stop start but given the circumstance it was hardly going to be easy, the heightened focus from regulators does not give boeing much wiggle room. The Max is delivering, so is the 787. Last year they reached over 450 deliveries, this year they target 500 deliveries.

    People say yes but the recovery is slow. How wont it be slow? When is it ever fast. This is a highly regulated industry. again they did not get here overnight so why do people think the recovery will magically happen overnight?

    All the money boeing has been is being ploughed back into the company to achieve production quality and stability

    You guys say Boeing is only interested in quarter to quarter results? well they have been horrendous for the past 4 years, but overall an improvement each time. You guys say Boeing is only focused on wall street, well they miss top and bottom line every time.

    The max 7 will be certified by the middle of this year it seems with Southwest frames already doing boeing flights and the latest communication we have from Southwest’s CEO, thats good. Keep it moving then you get the max 10 out hopefully in 2024 and then you deal with the 777X in 25. There is a plan to get out of this but in between that there will be bumps, there will be small setbacks, boeing does not operate in a vacuum. The boeing before 2019 would never stop or halt production to deal with non-critical issues because they did not have to. they cannot self-certify things anymore for example. A luxury that airbus enjoys.

    Now let me ask you all a question, The level of the surface degradation on the A350 that we saw, knowing what we know (given it was not a saftey issue similar to the 787s) the FAA would probably have stopped the 787 deliveries till boeing had an answer, that was not the case with Airbus, deliveries of 350s continued.

    Then again, the regulator and the manufacturer have the same principal thats a discussion for another day

    Even in a well oiled machine like airbus they have set backs, A220 has production quality issues, they’re struggling to ramp up a320neo production/delivery etc etc.

    Overall, the picture has improved from 3-4 years ago and thats how i look at it. Its naive to think there won’t be problems and it shows.

    Look i’m sure Richard Aboulafia and Ron Epstein are great at what they do but there’s a pacific ocean of difference between being a “consultant/Analyst” and running a damn organisation the size of Boeing or ANY OEM for that matter. So whilst i’m sure their opinions are highly respected at the end of the day its just sits ontop of a pile of words that offer no help and actually give zero detail, you know why? because it cannot because they don’t know what it actually takes, and its no shade to them, its just the fact of the matter and they speak like some visionary leader coming to take over boeing will fix their problems and thats again how you know, they don’t actually know what it takes.

    Now on the demand side, Boeing’s issues have clearly been over exaggerated as with most things journalists write. on the 87 alone, they are about to close a deal with Saudi for 80 jets, they’ve sold 20 jets to AI, 100 jets to United, 5 to EVA, 7 to Lufthansa thats over 200 787s in 3 months. in that same time Airbus has sold 40 a450s but nobody wants to have THAT conversation, Boeing’s widebody backlog/ordberbook continues to outperform Airbus’ by a country mile. On the narrowbody front yes airbus is the market leader but since the max came back into service they sell pretty much about the same. The only thing that gave the NEO an edge last year was China, and that had to do with politics not the air frame. If you take out china, the MAX outperformed the NEO last year in sales. But the sales rubbish has reduced because there’s not much to back it up.

    Then there’s the inundation with launching a new aircraft which is even the most naive of them all because if you look at boeing right now and you think for one minute in this state they should launch a new aircraft, then truly you are naive. the business case for NMA has been weak from day one. Nobody has really stepped into that space with anything new because people with business sense realise you don’t spend 20 billion for that kind of tight market. Its stupid money. the 321NEO does very well in that space? Imagine if it was its own family and did not have commonality with the 320NEO family. Thats what you people want Boeing to launch, against an aircraft that will slap on new engines and wings, maintain commonality with its powerful family. Goodluck to that horrendous idea

    Thanks for coming to my extremely long and controversial ted talk lol

    • @nnaeto

      Well stated and spot on. Especially about launching an expensive new project now.

      • Nnaeto:

        While you have some valid points, you ignore the ones such as the share buy back scam and paying dividends while not funding their future.

        The only reason we got the 787 was BCA did a great BS job that the suits bought into that you could get something for not much (which in turn cost the 3x as much as if they had done it the old fashioned way).

        And they did borrow (13 billion?) to pay a dividend when the company went into the crater.

        Its the same people in charge and they have been fixing Boeing for how long now? Paying down debt they have no choice and Wall Street is punishing them for it. If you don’t rip up your company and gouge it then we don’t want your stock stinking up our board).

        While I don’t think you knee jerk out a new aircraft, if they had done what was right the 737NG would have been the last of its kind, even a me too A320 would be future viable.

        So yea, people doubt Boeing because its the same people in charge that got them into the mess. Mr. I did not know what was going on is now the CEO.

        I don’t pretend to know how to clear up the mess of Boeing but Ford set an example.

        • I accept Boeing has made massive errors in their past. Do they deserve to be where they are? Absolutely they do. They have nobody to blame but themselves but it’s split milk. I think the discussion now needs to focus on okay what do we do to move forward and IMO Boeing has gotten most of it right and I know that will be unpopular but put any other leader in there what else do you think they would’ve done now that Calhoun has not done?

          Is it reset the relationship with regulators?

          Is it throw money at production and quality issues?

          Is it stop buybacks?

          Is it get the max back on track and the 87 delivering ?

          Is it deliver record breaking sales of jets EVEN whilst you’re in a hot mess

          I just think people take for granted the task that is at hand for Boeing right now and are swayed by headlines which IMO are not even that bad these days.

          We are forgetting for about 2-3 years Dominic Gates had a bad headline about Boeing almost every other Thursday evening. Those have faded out.

          So for me it’s we are complaining but for me it’s naive to have expected a different outcome for a company this size in an industry that is highly regulated where there’s no playbook for a turnaround like this

          • Nnaeto:

            The problem is, its the same group that put Boeing into the pit that is in charger.

            I see nothing that says they learned any lessons, but are forced into the current actions. Fixing one program at a time just to see it break again.

            The 777X is not even started TIA flights.

            We know Bo0eing can’t do share buy backs or pay dividends.

            What happens if they manage to get out of debt.

            If Calhoun was a leader and not just a suit, he would be making weekly visits to Charleston, St Louis, Everett, Renton to check in on progress ans see what the holdups are.

            Boeing sold its corporate offices (Renton I believe) and the BCA management just floats around. You can’t function without a solid base of operations.

            Where I do agree is a new single aisle category aircraft program may not be the right move. Sadly the time to have done that was 15 years ago.

            The MAX matches the A320 performance wise though an A220-500 will eat the -8 lunch (and the A320).

            Calhoun will be long gone before there is a program let alone Boeing out of the debt trap. But you do judge people by their past performances.

            I hate to see Boeing failing, I would love to see a turn around, what I see is one gimpy step after another and a stagger back.

            While I hate Calhoun and all like him, Boeing as a company is near and dear to my heart which is why it hurts to see them in the dire straights they are in and its all Management inflicted.

    • Reality check:

      “The Max is delivering, so is the 787. Last year they reached over 450 deliveries”

      But still no earnings being generated: 12 quarters of losses. BCA’s 154 deliveries in Q4 last year resulted in an operating loss of more than $600M.


      “…well they have been horrendous for the past 4 years, but overall an improvement each time”

      BA’s loss in 2022 was even bigger than its loss in 2021.


      “…. If you take out china, …”

      Why would one want to do that? It’s the world’s fastest-growing aviation market.

      We can similarly say: If you take out North America, MAX orders since re-cert have underperformed the NEO.


      Could the rabbit hole get any deeper?

      • “The max 7 will be certified by the middle of this year it seems with Southwest frames already doing boeing flights and the latest communication we have from Southwest’s CEO, thats good.”

        How come WN CEO said the airline doesn’t incorporate the MAX 7 in their plan for 2023?

        • Because it takes 6 months from delivery for them to bring into actual service. That’s what he said. His words not mine

          • Did BA come out to say the MAX 7 is going to be certified by the middle of this year? Who said that??

            All WN CEO said basically is the MAX 7 not going to be certified any time soon.

          • “Because it takes 6 months from delivery for them to bring into actual service. That’s what he said. His words not mine”

            Someone is spreading false news.
            This article has a very different quote:

            “But Jordan explained that Southwest needs around six months from the point of certification until taking delivery of the planes and putting them into service.”


      • Because North American orders are barely politically motivated. China is extremely politically motivated and I know you’re smart enough to know that so don’t make such a weak comparisons.

        Again you join the massive list of people who don’t have what it takes and complains endlessly about matters you actually don’t know the root cause, how to fix and how to drive them forward.

        The work they put in, you don’t see, you complain about the headlines and stories you’re told because that’s obviously all you CAN do and that’s also fine. It’s expected.

        • “Because North American orders are barely politically motivated”

          Alaska planes carry the slogan “Proudly All Boeing”…

          Sulking about commentary from others won’t in any way bestow merit upon your own wishful thinking.

          • So having a slogan on your aircraft that says proudly all Boeing equates the political motivation? ALASKA?! You didn’t even try a bigger airline. They’re literally not even top 4 in the US. That’s your example of a politically motivated airline?

            Your sense of judgment is extremely poor but that’s obvious anyway

          • As for you. Airbus’ Minister of Propaganda in case you didn’t know some of us have facts. The world agrees that chinas orders are heavily politically motivated. If American orders are politically motivated why does JetBlue, frontier, spirit ALL operate all airbus fleets.

            If it was politically motivated would they not force them to buy all Boeing?

          • @ Naeto
            Getting into a temper and calling other commenters names won’t help your poor arguments…

            If Chinese geopolitics is to blame, then why did the MAX re-commence flights in China during a period of **worsening** relations with the US? Given that any thought?

            Ever occur to you that the Chinese might want to order planes from a program that isn’t plagued by one issue after another?

            As regards Alaska: forgotten the big MAX order that they placed since re-cert?

            In addition to Pedro’s remark about Delta, do we need to start a discussion about the “Buy American” campaign before the penny drops?

          • @bryce Who is calling you names? Because what you spread here is akin to propaganda. I’m just showing you how you look everyday

            But back to the issue. You must really need help here. Okay follow me carefully:

            “iF cHinA GeOpOlitiCs aRe to bLame tHeN wHy diD thE mAx reCommeNce fLightS in chInA”

            Uncle, there’s a massive difference in paying your political rival hard cash for jets and resuming flights for jets YOU already own.

            Can you not just think for one minute. If the plane is deemed safe to operate for your own citizens, why can’t you allow your airlines take delivery of it? It’s very simple.

            OFCOURSE they will order more airbus they have airbus jets to replace. But let’s get real a jet that you’ve permitted to fly, you can’t allow airlines to take delivery. Your all boeing customer Xiamen airlines now goes to order airbus because obviously they cannot get deliveries of their jets because of politics. Is that the only reason why they ordered ? Of course not but let’s not play down the INFLUENCE of the politics here. It will add to he heap stack of naive things you’ve already said in this comment section.

            As for Pedro your deputy. What the two of you are saying is meaningless because okay Delta talks about a buy American campaign AMIDST HAVING A MASSIVELY LEANING AIRBUS FLEET. Okay but wow politics. Delta having only ordered the max 11 YEARS after it was launched. Can we all get our heads out of the ground.

            Meanwhile, you dodge and dither when I ask you a simple question

            If I needed American orders are politically motivated then tell me why JetBlue frontier spirit operate ZERO Boeing jets.

            But I don’t expect you to give me an answer to that because it might be even worse than everything you’ve said today

          • If you can tell also WHAT other choice Chinese airlines have when the government has REFUSED to allow them take delivery of their MAX jets and won’t enter negotiations with Boeing?

            Where else should they go? Or are you manufacturing aircraft?

            So politics is the basis is the foundation on which that order was built. Let’s not kid ourselves.

            I see you on this website everyday, I avoid interaction but sometimes your propaganda is too much

            I believe Airbus makes excellent aircraft and they’re market leaders but when I think Boeing does something right I will also call it out. When Airbus does something wrong, I will also draw attention to it. And vice versa. But you see this one let’s face the facts and drop the misinformation. Politics was heavily involved in that order. It’s not a dog at airbus. The same way politics was invoked in the recent saudia-Boeing deal.

          • And even more widely speaking. You can never see good news from boeing and have anything positive to say about it. You must always bring something to discredit it or disenfranchise it. Some times with things that are not even true or you actually have no information on But if it’s airbus, you will be the first to make the most noise. Does that not sound like propaganda?

            I don’t know whether they’ve done something to you personally or, I don’t know you so I cannot answer that question and you will come back with a line that is swimming in more propaganda like “I don’t hate Boeing”. Yeah sure. But you can’t say that because it just devalues everything you say here because it’s really no longer objective.

            But I don’t think anybody needs a Probate investigator to deduce that

          • What da temper tantrum! What I see is cooler heads prevail! To be emotional gets you no where.

          • @pedro deputy. it’s not a matter of emotion. You clearly have nothing else to say which is why you’ve come with a random statement that adds no benefit to the conversation. In your usual fashion. I’m just here calling it as it is. Bryce should give us his or her disclosure of bias so we understand the place the comments are coming from we know how to respond. You have the opportunity to do the same

          • @ Nnaeto
            More name-calling, and an impressive rant of epic proportions — all because you can’t abide the fact that others haven’t subscribed to your (completely unrealistic) portrayal of BA.

            Things must be getting particularly desperate in Seattle / DC…

          • @ Nnaeto
            “…tell me why JetBlue frontier spirit operate ZERO Boeing jets.”

            When/if you’ve managed to compose yourself, go back up to my original comment and note the words “since re-cert”…

            P.s. a Chinese airline (Greater Bay Airlines) ordered some MAXs last week, and China also took delivery of a 777F just a few days ago. BA gave a 60% discount on the MAXs, according to a broker with knowledge of the deal. So, at least one airline in China is prepared to take some (very discounted) MAXs…

          • “Chinese Geopolitics”

            The political side of this was activated by the US. China being coy about buying Boeing is reactive.

            I am aware that US Americans invariably perceive such blowback as unexpected and strongly unfair.
            In that respect I see the necessity if reeducation.
            ( seems to happen just now. 🙂

          • @Bryce

            Reality check:

            The recent massive order is “politically motivated”, no kidding but you’ll never hear any complain from those who mantra is Boeing was Great, but it’s even better now!

            -> ‘ One European source called the outcome of the plane order “totally political,” but a U.S. official denied there had been any diplomatic trade-offs.

            “Saudi Airlines is a government-owned airline, and so there are politics involved with this,”

        • How come DAL’s CEO was holding his nose because of “political and industrial risk in not having U.S.-made Boeing jets on order”?? Because that’s how the game is played in Merica?

          • You unfortunately are worse than Bryce…

            Southwest CEO literally said we expect to put the aircraft in service in early 2024…it takes us about 6 months from certification to get the aircraft into service.


            Read this article and read it well. Read it slowly. And then again do the calculation SLOWLY.

            If it takes 6 months between certification and eis for southwest and they say early 2024 is their best guess.

            6 months before that is between June to September 2023 that is what will land you in a time frame of “early 2024”

            Pedro it’s very simple. Have a good evening.

          • @ Naeto
            On the subject of slow reading, perhaps you should go back and slowly read through all BA’s earnings reports from last year?

            That might help prevent further “Yellow Brick Road” posts…

          • Jeez I can’t help those who are sloppy.
            Unfortunately September is far from “the middle of this year” (your exact words), at least not according to my calendar! How many months a year has?? Roll eyes.

          • Oh Pedro, you’re right about that one. I meant between June to August. Because 6 months from august takes you to March. I think august still sits around the middle of the year. But at the end of the day you don’t want to admit you said rubbish and spread even more propaganda by saying SW said the max 7 won’t be certified this year.

          • @Bryce

            Sales from China have to be taken out in order to build a false narrative that MAX is actually competitive!

            “But the sales rubbish …”
            Unfortunately BA’s Comm division has not received the memo, they are still talking up the massive 787 order 😢

          • “the business case for NMA has been weak from day one. Nobody has really stepped into that space with anything new because people with business sense realise you don’t spend 20 billion for that kind of tight market. Its stupid money.”

            So the smartest one in the room want to let us know all BA talked over the last decade or so is nothing but a head fake?? Nice try!

            At least that’s an (unintentional) admission that AB was on the right path all along 🤣

          • I admit there must a special place on earth (or in hell) that from January to December are considered to be the middle of the year 🤭

          • Strangely another poster fail to read when it’s convenient and tried to put words in my mouth. No I never said that “SW said the max 7 won’t be certified this year.”

            Prove me I’m wrong if you can but apparently you can’t.

          • @Nnaeto

            No need to lie when you are caught with your pants down.

          • Waiting for Godot?

            Sloppiness has overwhelmed BA from the top down.

            Dec 2021
            -> “Boeing has told the carrier to expect certification “in the next month, or two or three,” Chief Operating Officer Mike Van de Ven said. “In my mind, I’ve got it sometime in the first quarter.”

            Boeing had earlier indicated the plane would be certified by *mid-2021*, Van de Ven said. A Boeing executive said last month the company was performing certification activities and expected to deliver the first Max 7 jets in *2022*.

            September 1, 2023
            Boeing Co (BA. N) expects the 737 MAX 7 will be certified by the end of the year and the larger MAX 10 in the first half of 2023

            September 15, 2013
            Boeing Chief Executive Dave Calhoun said Thursday there is still a chance U.S. regulators could approve the 737 MAX 10 before the end of the year and he thinks the company will win approval for the smaller 737 MAX 7 in the coming months.

          • @ Pedro
            Looks like some people will go to any length to push a pro-BA narrative…it seems to be like a “life and death” thing to them.

            P.s. The commenter in question also asserted/fantasicized that Dominic Gates had become less negative about BA. Had you noticed such a phenomenon? I certainly haven’t — I see DG articles posted here every single week…

          • From the LNA Twitter feed, in response to the Southwest interview:

            “Leeham News and Analysis

            Mar 9
            How in the world Boeing was unable to certify the MAX 7 in 2023 is just astounding”

  5. The British Airways 777 engine icing problem has absolutely no connection with Boeing but with Rolce Royce engine.

    Nothing to do with paint…

    • Nobody said it had anything to do with paint.
      And, believe it or not, the fuel for the engines comes from the plane: the engines were operating just fine, but their fuel supply was interrupted by a blocked filter.

      • Bryce

        …”And, believe it or not…”

        Lol !!
        Of course I don’t believe it,

        No it wasn’t a clogged filter. Rolls Royce was forced to modify a certain part for this rare effect to be eradicated.

        • It was ice crystals blocking the fuel filters that caused both engines to fail.

          The point being, it clearly illustrates the dangers of contamination in the fuel, which dodgy painting of the fuel tanks might cause. Maybe understand the situation better rather than get all butt-hurt on Boeing’s behalf?

          • Stealth66,

            The part has been widened so that the ice shavings can not clog the conduit where the fuel passes.
            The investigation had led Rolce Royce to modify its part despite the fact that this phenomenon of ice shavings was rare.

            It’s in the name of truth not Boeing !

          • This particular engine part is designed to cool the oil. That’s why on some aircraft it’s called a fuel/oil cooler. But at the same time it cools the oil it also warms the fuel before it enters inside the engine and this would normally allow ice crystals to melt because fuel always contain a certain amount of water due to condensation inside the fuel tanks. The problem with this particular RR engine was that the “fuel/oil cooler” was not properly designed for extremely cold conditions and at the engine fuel entry point sometime there was not enough heat coming from the oil to melt the ice crystals in the fuel, thereby blocking the fuel flow at the entry point. Bear in mind that fuel and oil never make direct contact here because this part acts like a heat exchanger that transfers heat via metal conduction.

    • Think it was the new owner who bought the plant from Triumph that notified Boeing. There is a risk that Boeing need to seal up the tanks, wetblast them clean and flush, dry, then reapply the correct primer/paints and test.

    • Cklst
      Respectfully. The fuel filter system is not a part of the Rolls SCD drawing at Boeing. It was not delegated to Rolls, or GE for that matter. The engine strut drawings where the filter resides are Boeings responsibility. They own the Strut Assy drawing family.

      • I didn’t know this ( until now ).

        It explains why the NTSB/FAA?) implicated RR at the time with out of band messaging.
        i.e. bypassing the primary investigator.
        ( afair you should find an article covering that here on site.)

      • PNWgeek:

        RR clearly was the designer of the fuel oil cooler and took care of the problem.

        First was a throttle push when OAT was below what they thought they wold see. Then a permanent fix.

        Franky it had nothign to do with RR any more than the Ice Crystal issue had anything to do with GE. Atmosphere is changing, their design was susceptible to it but that is a coin flip thing.

        GP had an issue with a bolt embrittlement on the GP7000, no one even knew that condition existed let alone how to design to deal with it.

        But a common clogging of screens or passages is critical to be avoided as it affect all engines.

  6. I found the reference to Boeing’s public and official responses to issues a very perceptive insight. As mentioned, it’s a strategy that’s been going on for years now: deflection; using carefully chosen language to play down a significant issue (‘pausing’ is a great example); outright ignoring legitimate questions; or trying to put the focus on presentinh every setback as ‘minor’ or ‘insignificant’ or ‘the system doing what it’s meant to do and catching a problem’. Personally, I think you see it not just in the official corporate communications but also across social media, on discussion boards, etc, where it often seems evident to me that Boeing’s own Comms people have joined the chats/discussions/comments, without disclosing their identity. It’s obvious from the comments made, the language used, the tactics deployed and the overriding need always to have the last word in the discussion, essentially pushing the Boeing official line as the last comment in the thread – and disparaging and belittling others who have raised legitimate questions or made pertinent observations. I just think it’s a huge shame that all this energy and time expended on ‘spin’, for that’s what it really is, isn’t directed at overhauling a company culture that appears direly in need of it.

    • “…where it often seems evident to me that Boeing’s own Comms people have joined the chats/discussions/comments”.

      We have a few of them here, also: at least three, and perhaps as many as five.
      Activity has increased markedly of late — despair must be on the rise.

      Wall Street was already jittery from inflation / interest rate hikes, but the recent spate of bank failures has heightened nervousness considerably; consequently, yet another poor earnings report (a certainty at this stage for Q1 2023) won’t go down well.

      Bad may turn to worse if ratings agencies start to sharpen their act.

    • jixer

      How is it incorrect for Boeing to say “in pause” for 787 deliveries ?

      This is exactly what happened. There were things that absolutely had to be corrected from summer 2020. The 787 delivery was therefore “in pause”

      On the other hand, seeing Qatar Airways A350s being gnawed down to the lightning protection grid, noted by shocking photos from Reuters in 2021-2022 and which Airbus claimed (a simple) “cosmetic problem”.

      I am speechless …

      • Cklst.
        Boeing did not PAUSE they process. They were directed to stop….
        While stop and pause MAY be considered synonymous, they are quite different. When you announce that you have paused production, the appearance is that you are in control of things. BA wasn’t. They had an issue where the regulator told them to stop and submit data prior to resuming delivery’s. It was a conformity issue, and those are not optional. They didn’t just cheerfully waltz into the Seattle MIDO and say, look at this cool shit we found guys…….. Lets quit candy coating things. This is so much like the BA saying they don’t use OSS software on the VC25B, of course they don’t use it, they speak present tense here because everybody stopped using it on the PrezBird because it didn’t work over a year ago……

        • Correct.

          Unfortunately the reality is that although the specific words matter enormously, those fed out in press releases/briefings are far too rarely actually questioned by the media, analysts etc they are being fed to.

  7. We have an expression in Ireland… ‘Up here for thinking (head), down there for dancin’ (feet)… When all your head is consumed with operating you feet… Little time to so anything else… Like fix the company (you broke).

    Happy St. Patricks’ all.

    • *your feet, and, do anything,… Can’t type today.

  8. On the subject of the KC-46A (among other things) — fresh from the press:

    “Hundreds Of Aircraft Headed To The Boneyard In New USAF Budget”

    “The Air Force is looking to buy 48 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters in addition to the 24 F-15EX Eagle IIs. The service is also looking to buy 15 KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers, seven MH-139A Grey Wolf utility helicopters, and one E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) aircraft.

    “The Air Force wants to divest a total of 310 aircraft in the 2024 Fiscal Year, including (list given in article)..24 KC-10A Extender aerial refueling tankers, which would complete the planned total divesture of this type…”


    For now, just 15 extra KC-46As…and the remaining KC-10s will all disappear.

    • And on a further related note:

      “Actually, the Air Force Isn’t Building a New F-35 Engine After All”

      “After hedging its bets late last November by pumping $318 million of dollars to sustain rival engine upgrade programs for the F-35A Lighting stealth jet, on Monday, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall informed the media that the service finally made its call by closing its Adaptive Engine Transition Program, for which $4 billion has already been spent.”


      • Bryce:

        As usual there is far more to the story than you list.

        A new unproven engine in and F-35 would have the same train of solved issues that the current one has been through (and still finding out stuff). The new engine only fits one variant of the F-35 (we don’t know for sure that is true).

        P&W has worked on the same engine but also a major upgrade to the current one that they know will fit all variants of the F-35.

        Equally so, the costs of the F-35 are bad enough and you loose fleet commonality with a new engine, new support system, new parts etc etc etc.

        The upgraded P&W engine will return a better SFC and reliability (less maint costs).

        Sometimes you have to make trade offs, perfect is not the goal.

        The new Adaptive Engine will be used on the next US fighter. But it will have time to mature, its never flown on a test aircraft let alone an F-35.

        Much like the Trent 1000 and TEN, we don’t need a failed engine and aircraft grounded all over the world because its broke and they can’t fix it.

        • PWA needs the money Congress knows. GE’s commercial sales and installed fleet revenue need no DoD boost.

          • And, correctly or incorrectly, it has been stated that the GE motor would prove very troublesome or impossible to fit to the B, plus the P&W upgrade can be fitted (relatively) very inexpensivley to the existing fleet. Sometimes P&W do simply offer the better option.

          • So now its all the engine and not the Radar Signature.

            And as always wrong, the airframe has aerodynamics issues due to the F-35B (you don’t make a Mach 1.6 jet into a VTOL without a huge penalty).

            There is no guarantee the GE engine will work and PW offered a good upgrade that will (on all 3 variants).

            It was far more cost effective on a program that concurrent production had made a nightmare of.

            As I am paying for it I am all in on PW solution. My vote counts, yours does not.

            If you don’t like it tell the Netherlands not to buy it.

          • @ TW
            Not just the engine and the “stealth”, but a whole list of shortcomings — prepared by your very own USAF 🤕

            Sulking won’t transform the program from a failure into a success 😏

            Plenty of experts here in NL have their doubts about taking (more of) the lemon…in addition to similar doubts in Australia, Japan, Switzerland and the UK.

          • Yep, and its won all the campaigns its been entered in so go ahead and argue with success.

            The Bradly was a death trap, but it sure works good.

            You can’t discern between issues and failure.

            Trent 1000 was a failure, RR built an all new engine which also was a failure. Factually all RR engines are having serious problems.

            Even an all new engine did not fix the SFC. The way to win that war is to get an exclusive and you don’t have to compete.

            But feel free to tell your government its wrong. That is your right. tell them to buy the new GE engine. Good luck.

            Me, I think the PW improved is the best bang for the buck. But then I made those decisions day in day during my illustrious career and I was always right because I worked hard to get all the information and facts and made sure.

            Like the cockpit decision on the -10/7, its a done deal, suck it up buttercup and live with it.

          • “Yep, and its won all the campaigns its been entered in so go ahead and argue with success.”

            Sure it did — based on false specs.

            It won’t happen next time: once screwed, twice shy 😏

  9. I’m beginning to wonder if the US needs some serious heavyweight intervention “in the national interest” in Boeing. If the reason Triumph changed the paint was to do with contract pricing / cost, that’s a bad thing. Suppliers put under undue cost pressure by one of the biggest players in the industry increases the risk of technical and safety issues arising in that and other work they’re doing. That can corrupt an entire industry. If Boeing is passing an undue portion of the financial pressure they’ve put themselves under on to all their suppliers, someone has got to put a limit on that lest Boeing drags down the entire lot.

    Supplier abuse by the US auto industry was, ultimately, what let the Japanese enter the US market and take a large slice of it. Suppliers preferred doing business with the Japanese, because they politely paid their bills on time and allowed, nay, encouraged suppliers to focus on quality. Everyone is a whole lot happier and safety conscious, if they know they’re doing a good job of what they’re making, for a fair price.

    Airbus will do the same to Boeing.

    It’s troubling that the FAA has said that it’s increasing oversight of Boeing. You’d think that, after all that has already happened, Boeing would be on the road back to trustworthiness. But if the FAA is getting more involved, one might conclude that things are headed in the opposite direction.

    It depends on how this has been structured. Boeing actively asking the FAA to get more involved would be a positive thing, because asking for help is at least an acknowledgement that there are lessons to learn. Whereas if it’s the FAA saying that they’ve got to get involved, that’s a bad thing because is means Boeing still doesn’t realise how much trouble it is in.

    I’ve not read the testimony; perhaps it’s too scary to bear!

    • “I’m beginning to wonder if the US needs some serious heavyweight intervention “in the national interest” in Boeing.”

      Yes, it does.
      Various commenters here have pointed out that the entire earnings value of BCA’s order book doesn’t come anywhere near being enough to cover BA’s present debt (loans, loan interest, accrued liabilities,…). Defense has only ever been marginal to BA’s business (17% best case), and it, too, is in the doldrums.
      The company is languishing in a protracted insolvency.

      Then again, as recent events showed, various banks were in a similar situation up to just a few days ago — and, yet, Uncle Sam only sat up and started paying attention when passive insolvency suddenly morphed into an active crisis.

      • Trouble with insolvency is that all sorts of chaos can break out. If they’re going to cease trading, better that that’s managed rather than left to chance.

        I guess in the old days, when one company got into trouble they’d get bought by another; I guess that’s how Boeing has been formed over the years. Thing is, who’d buy Boeing today.

        It sounds like a very un-American thing, for the federal government to get involved in the running of private business. Any precedents? I suspect that in the past it’s been a case of throwing lucrative defence contracts in the right direction, but even that doesn’t seem like an effective treatment anymore.

        • The company is insolvent — even if that hasn’t yet lead to a precipitous event such as a defaulted payment.

          Several US banks are in a similar situation: for some of them, that precipitous event occurred last week, for others it has yet to occur.

          From CNBC today: “Moody’s cuts outlook on U.S. banking system to negative, citing ‘rapidly deteriorating operating environment’”


          • Matthew:

            When the Japanese came to the US with their cars they used no US suppliers.

            That changed over time as congress threatened to change their import taxes (and they found the US was a great place to open factories)

            Triumph did not have a gun held to their head. They thought they could get away with cheap (as did Boeing on the 787) and it bit them. It always does sooner or latter

          • @TW

            In early 1980s Reagan unilaterally imposed auto quotas on Japanese auto:

            -> “One result of the new trade restrictions against Japan was that American car companies hiked up car prices, pulling in record profits at the time, Winston found. They didn’t have to fear losing customers to Japanese car companies.

            U.S. car makers also lowered production in 1984 to help boost car prices. Less production meant fewer workers: America lost over 60,000 auto jobs between 1982 and 1984 due to the trade restrictions, according to Brookings.

            Consumers got hit hard. The average car price rose by about $1,000 at the time.”

        • About 20 percent of the total TARP funds — $80 billion — went to bail out General Motors and Chrysler.
          Maybe SpaceX could be the assigned buyer of Boeing Commercial Aircrafts by the DoD?

          • Hmm that the acquirer is a “burning platform” itself 🤔

      • Insolvency ensues when a company runs out of cash. But don’t forget that Boeing has an extraordinary backlog that will provide all the cash needed when production returns to normal, eventually. In the situation Boeing finds itself right now customers would normally flee to the competition, but in this case they can’t because we are in a duopoly. That’s another way of saying that once the customers have placed an order they are more or less captive of Boeing or Airbus. We would perhaps be in a different situation today if Bombardier had been allowed to thrive in the commercial sector. And the great advantage for the Free World would have been that they were not based in a Totalitarian country like the next competition is likely to be.

        • Insolvency is the inability to pay debts.

          The total BA backlog at the end of Q4 2022 had a revenue value of $330B — but an earnings value of only about $45B (after deduction of manufacturing costs). That’s less than present debt ($57B)…not to mention scheduled interest payments ($33B) and other liabilities.

          • insolvency is the inability of paying upcoming liabilities.

            Backlog value is irrelevant beyond customer prepayments due.

    • Very nice!
      But the REAL question is: what discount was given?

      70%, like the big United order?
      69%, like Ryanair’s most recent order?
      65%, like SW?
      60%, like Greater Bay Airlines?

      65% is the nominal breakeven level…

  10. That’s a big win. AB were supposed to be selling 40 a350s to Riyadh Air as well so that may be announced soon.

    • Seriously ?

      Nowhere is there any mention of an A350 order.

      The end of the article is obsolete since last October.

      Rather congratulations Boeing. (Well Named)

    • @ Fergal
      The Saudis have stated that they want to go head-to-head with other big carriers in the region, such as Emirates, Qatar and Turkish.
      If that’s the case, then there’ll be 100s of additional frames necessary — from one or both OEMs.

      Mind you: with Air India also operating nearby, one could argue that the region is going to be over-saturated.

      🧙‍♂️Lá fhéile Pádraig sona dhuit!

      • Regarding oversaturation… I concur… Big pie but already a lot of established heavy hitters… But with all that money… Who knows.

        • Well, all that competition will probably cause a price war on ticket prices.

          Fine by me.

        • @ Fergal
          Here we go, as suspected: more orders in the pipeline.

          “New Saudi airline eyes more planes after mega Boeing order”

          Clever of the Saudis to play the OEMs against each other — guarantees super pricing. I think we can now confidently surmise that the big order announced yesterday will have entailed very meager earnings for BA.

          There’s going to be a spectactular glut of capacity in the Arabian/Indian/Anatolian region…


          • Yeah. Last October AB were in advanced discussions with Riyadh for 40 350s… I also recall ABs CEO stating way back that AB is ready to make deals but not at any cost… I think AB has gotten a bit less headline seeking since the wonderful Leahy and bides it’s time.
            As I mentioned a few stories back… In a Duopoly things come back around as slots at one OEM dry up.
            Hopefully EK will be happy with their a350s and expand that order to include the -1000s, bit congratulations to Boeing – not a fan – but their employees aren’t the problem.

  11. Bryce,

    “AAB is speechless…”


    Another one who believes that the CEO of Qatar Airways has returned like a dog giving the paw to his master Airbus?

    Definitely wishful thinking

    You do not believe that there would not have been new renegotiated contract clauses?

    With such a mediocre and unfair response from you, I will not elaborate further and speak of the moral, ethical and commercial acumen that Airbus had demonstrated for months in handling this historically disastrous situation with a loyal customer such as Qatar Airways. ..

    Apart from Qatar Airways being the best airline in the world, it is one of the biggest loyal customers of Airbus (A340-600, A380) and launch customer of the A350 whose CEO is a long-time customer.

    But what is revealing and serious about you is that you believed that Airbus remains unpunished towards Qatar Airways, rightly or wrongly, all being on the side of the sacrosanct Airbus
    while criticizing Boeing during this time

    This is the exacerbated fanboy doctrine,

    Just speechless…

  12. Bryce

    ….”Very nice!
    But the REAL question is: what discount was given?…
    Your fallacious figures without evidence are as objective as your posts and links that you shared with us on Boeing’s commercial victories that shatter your pious wishes 👍


  13. It looks as if investors weren’t particularly impressed by today’s big Saudi order for BA.
    Prior to the Reaper drone incident over the Black Sea, BA stock was up 3.19%, whereas AB (which announced no orders today) was up 3.40% at the same juncture.
    BA has since dropped to a plus of 1.5% (19:20 CET).

    Any theories…other than the obvious one (general market apathy with BA, resulting from continual disappointment)?

  14. Insolvency is the inability to pay debts.

    The total BA backlog at the end of Q4 2022 had a revenue value of $330B — but an earnings value of only about $45B (after deduction of manufacturing costs). That’s less than present debt ($57B)…not to mention scheduled interest payments ($33B) and other liabilities.

  15. Bryce,


    Boeing beat Airbus almost on all fronts. In term of order and market value.

    – Airbus 122.18€ / +4.02
    – Boeing 207.28$/ +4.07…

    Airbus had finished its day when you hastened to argue very wobbly. You are on Greenwich time. It’s 4:00 PM in NY. ***Boeing*** finishes first!

    Savor the historic victory of ***Boeing*** with this historic order !

    No, two steps back, but obviously 💯 steps forward!

    In -90 days (December-March), ~350, 787 ( Dreamliner were sold in a record time!

    Even between 2004 and 2005, the first two years of launch, it would have already come close to 400 orders with thé 6 Chinese airlines for around sixty 787s ( Dreamliner no offense to the Boeing haters.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen such enthusiasm, after a program launched 19 years ago already

    No other aircraft in any competition as ever does as well as the 787 ( Dreamliner

    It seems that symbolically, Boeing would have the effect of launching new aircraft similar in terms of order without having launched a new aircraft.

    Other figures,

    -> This is + 1/3 of A350 orders in 18 years, what Boeing did in 90 days. Where its competitor struggles to reach the symbolic bar than 1,000 orders. Even the A350Freighter version is obviously not enough to place it at the same level as the 787 ( Dreamliner, which exceeded 1,000 symbolic orders 10 years ago!

    -> This is more than the orders for the A330neo launched 9 years ago, and more than the A350-1000 18 years ago!
    ****Congratulations Boeing***** !

    This is great news and a massive achievement, better than ever and better than pre-2019 period, with a triple combo of 💯 in 90 days and 1 double combo from 2 airlines on the same day!👍

    https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2023-03-14-New-Saudi-Arabian-Carrier-Riyadh-Air-to-Launch-with -All-Boeing-Fleet-of-up-to-72-787-9-Dreamliners#assets_20295_131227-117


    Simply memorable!

    • Oh God save us…it doesn’t know how to calculate percentages…

      • Hey, they have to say *something* to muddy the waters..

        I think BCA is in superb financial and organizational shape,
        with the most experienced, savviest, kindest and warmest group of engineering humans ever assembled in its generous and gracious employ.

        737MAX [esp the uncertified, waivered -7 and -10]
        777-X [?]
        787 [do not ever say that program is underwater, ever]
        KC-46A [ditto]
        MQ-25 […]
        T-7 […]

        • Have you noticed that whoever is doing the “late shift” comments from that entity is even more incoherent than whoever is doing the “early shift” comments?
          I wonder what geographical location it’s in? I have a theory on that…

  16. Dominic Gates in the Seattle Times today, ‘Slow Motion at Boeing’:

    “Boeing had a very slow February with production lagging rival Airbus, though company leaders say the pace will pick up from here.

    Facing parts shortages across all jet programs and an enforced halt on the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing delivered just 28 jets in February, including 24 single-aisle 737 MAXs.

    Airbus delivered 46 jets in February, including 39 of its competing A320neo jet family plus another three smaller single-aisle A220s.

    And though two newly announced giant jet orders are pending, in February Boeing won net new orders for just two airplanes, both MAXs. Airbus won 15 net new orders in February, all for the A320neo family..”


    The new Boing order from a KSA entity coming at the same time as the KSA’s moving closer to Iran, is quite interesting. Is that region really short of capacity- or is something else at work?

    • Lol! Indeed, “February” wow!!
      The most decisive month !
      (We change the rules as long as it suits us)

      I don’t dispute the numbers however it is not an inked truth and D. Gates cleverly blackens the paper to sell it.

      It’s not very glamorous to associate Airbus with Boeing so it’s just taking part of the story to say that Boeing is the wicked witch because it’s a lot more selling by separating the two aircraft manufacturers But it takes a lot of experience to dissect this kind of trickery or selective truth and that one behind a paywall please…

      If I’m wrong on the account of D. Gates when they come to bring me proof before making excuses to this gentleman in public,

      But if he can do it if I’m right then it would be nice…


  17. I think Scott you are being over credulous about Spirits involvement as they ARE responsible . the whole nose section comes pre-stuffed from Spirit

    This not the first problems they have had with quality – both for the barrel sections and yes the forward bulkhead
    ‘CEO Tom Gentile confirmed earlier that the company had identified ‘fit and finishing’ issues on the nose barrels, similar to those found on the aft fuselage sections produced by Boeing itself. These issues included incorrect shims and a skin flatness issue.’
    kaching 2
    ‘ another problem was found on the forward pressure bulkhead, with tiny gaps of 0.005 inches between the pressure bulkhead and the nose section.’

    Spirit sort of said then the bulkhead wasnt them but it was *their* T2 supplier ( for which they had design responsibility) that was causing the problem.
    A bit of analysis seems to show it doesnt go back to Boeing as you assumed

    • Duke:

      It seems to have been a paperwork problem. That could be Boeing. FAA is holding them to corrected paperwork to confirm they build claims.

      Agreed we should stay tuned though we probably will never find out.

      When the whole 787 was audited, Spirit was found to have pressure bulkhead issue and they reported it. Its possible that Boeing gave them the wrong specs or did not even check the paperwork.

      • Spirit had design responsibly for the bulkhead, and would prefit it out along with other internal structures before it left their factory.
        Its only a paperwork issue for the current production not specs

        I dont have airframer.com access to find who makes it as Spirits supplier

        • “Its only a paperwork issue for the current production not specs”

          Got a link for that?

          Interesting that Airbus doesn’t appear to have any issues with the Spirit parts that it receives.

          • Bryce:

            Look it up, it was in a number of reports.

          • @ TW

            It wasn’t in “reports” — it was in press statements released by BA.

            Jon Ostrower provided a more interesting take on the matter…

        • Yeah, it was clearly a Spirit problem. Whether Boeing also contributed is not clear. But oBeing found it and reported it, as they are required to do.

          • Yeah, it was clearly a Spirit scapegoating effort. Whether Spirit actually contributed is not clear. Someone found it and reported it too late.

  18. I am a huge believer in GE Jack Welch’s rank and yank system (aka Vitality Curve).


    In my humble opinion, Dave Calhoun and Brian West (both ex-GE) have firmly established themselves as “C” team players with all the repeated bumbling over the past 18 months. A company with problems the scale Boeing has cannot be fixed by two accountants. GE’s financial implosion proved that financial engineering is not a viable long term business strategy.

    • No?
      There is a delay in pass through of postings in the wordpress engine. For me the edit option does no longer appear. sometimes posting/reload does not show my post.
      delayed reloading helps. ( a recurring issue. used to be up to a couple of hours )

      “waiting for moderation” happens when you change name tag or email addy. ( which may have been a type of change of case )

    • As Uwe points out, the commenting software will moderate when there’s the slightest change to username (e.g. pnwgeek instead of PNWgeek) or e-mail address.

      Also, as he points out, the “edit” functionality has gone. For me, this arose when LNA started including (Google) ad content a few weeks ago (not a criticism, Scott).

  19. It was 4 days ago already the resumption occurred, friday last week.
    ‘The FAA stopped 787 deliveries on February 23 after Boeing found a data analysis error related to the jet’s forward pressure bulkhead while reviewing the certification records.’

    hmmm records …analysis

    but todays news , not old news. Its 78 order for 787s


    • The big 787 order was discussed extensively above — hadn’t noticed that?

      As regards the “data analysis error” that caused the most recent delivery stop, Jon Ostrower had a nice article on that last week…which pointed to a thermal modeling shortcut at BA. It was posted here on LNA…

      • Sorry , I dont read you and your crews stuff anymore

        Spirit has the design authority for the bulkhead- thats what they said the previous time. Being T1 means that sort of stuff.
        Design means what ?

        • “Sorry , I dont read you and your crews stuff anymore”

          The 787 order story wasn’t posted by me…it was posted by one of “your crew”.

          You’re slipping…

          • The paperwork evidence and that it cleared by the FAA was announced on simpleflying Fri day last week , hence was old news,.
            Friday !

          • @ DoU
            You’re slipping again: the discussion was the new 787 order from the Saudis — not the latest bulkhead glitch in the 787.

            But, seeing as you raise the matter: still waiting for *evidence* (as opposed to merely an assertion) that the problem was a paperwork issue…

  20. It’s not just at BA — milking the company into the ground seems to be a much broader problem in the US:

    “Silicon Valley Bank CEO Greg Becker sold nearly $30 million of stock over the past two years, raising new questions over insider stock sales.
    Becker sold $3.6 million worth of shares on Feb. 27, just days before the bank disclosed a large loss that triggered its stock slide and collapse.”

    “Becker and other executives at SVB have also come under criticism for receiving their annual bonuses on Friday, a few hours before regulators shuttered the bank.”


  21. Always interesting:

    “New York, February 03, 2023 — Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) affirmed the Baa2 senior unsecured and Prime-2 short term ratings it assigns to The Boeing Company (“Boeing”). Moody’s also changed the rating outlook to stable from negative.”

    For comparison:
    “On Wednesday March 8, Moody’s still had an A3 rating on SVB Financial, owner of the now defunct Silicon Valley Bank, as it was already collapsing for all to see. Four notches into investment grade – a very respectable rating!”

    “Similar with S&P Global Ratings: On March 9, a day behind Moody’s, it downgraded SVB Financial by one notch to BBB-, which is still investment grade.

    “Then on March 10, after SVB Financial collapsed and was taken over by the FDIC, S&P slashed its rating by 10 notches all the way through junk territory to D, for default, its lowest rating.”

    “Companies obviously go ratings-shopping when they need to raise funds by issuing bonds, because a lower credit rating will cause the bond to have a higher coupon interest, and higher yield, meaning more interest expense for the company. And so there is huge pressure on analysts to come up with a high rating, or the other side of the rating agency will lose this business to a rating agency that will rate those bonds higher. We truly have learned nothing, not even bondholders, who should simply ignore those ratings and do their own homework.”


    • Doing good homework is hard, since it really requires reliable and informed links to the inside of Company. I think we can say Scott has these. How anyone that it totally on the outside would be able to find out how Boeing worked and what went wrong is beyond me. I just don’t think it could have been done.

      We are seeing something similar today with the Credit Suisse situation. They are now admitting that there were “material weakness(es)” in its financial disclosures, meaning they were lying to their investors and regulators. My – that sure sounds familiar.

      • Analysts — just like anyone else with a few thousand dollars to spare — can make use of LNA’s consulting services.

        Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

        • There is more to come.
          SVB stuck out because customers withdrew large amounts in a small window _early_. perfectly networked and assertive customers apparently.

          But the issue is wider scoped. These “value inverted” assets are widely distributed. they were seen as absolutely safe.

          • Thankfully a Swiss bank like CS doesn’t have to follow the US’s bull GAAP (unrealized losses hiding in plain sight as long as the bank reclassifies AFS securities to HTM).

          • When an asset bubble burst

            -> “In the US, where valuation declines have been more severe, owners from Pimco’s Columbia Property Trust to Brookfield have defaulted on mortgages.

            CMBS defaulted in droves during the great financial crisis, but collapses have been rare over the last decade. Yet, now that property values are dropping and deal volumes have shrunk amid rising interest rates, hiccups could multiply. Scope Ratings says that about a third of all loans in CMBS maturing in 2023 and 2024 face high refinancing risk

  22. Here we go, as suspected: more Saudi orders in the pipeline.

    “New Saudi airline eyes more planes after mega Boeing order”

    “The deal announced on Tuesday was the result of a “rigorous campaign” involving Boeing and rival Airbus, Douglas said, adding that the company would declare the winner of the next deal soon, without providing details.”

    Clever of the Saudis to play the OEMs against each other — guarantees super pricing. I think we can now surmise that the big order announced yesterday will have entailed very meager earnings for BA.
    For example, a 60% discount (common in recent BA deals) will translate to earnings of about $1B on yesterday’s order — enough to pay 5 month’s of loan interest.

    There’s going to be a spectactular glut of capacity in the Arabian/Indian/Anatolian region…


    • What are Airbus discounts? Do you peruse Airbus documents and “guess” them?

      • I would love to know how cheaply Delta picked up their A350s, especially the A330NEOs. What discount did Delta’s tough negotiating on the “cool” A21NEO net them?

        What massive discount does Indigo gets for bulk buying of 500 A20NEOs?

        • I wonder at what margin BA has to make from the 787 in order to recover the deferred production cost accumulated that exceeded $14 billion and keep rising? William do you have an answer?? 🤔

          • If the deferred production cost line item in the accounts is reducing than there is no problem

            Why here its is for 787 program in $mills
            [1Q20]16,841 16,035 15,432 14,976 14,803 14,927 15,153 11,693 11,753 12,056 11,868 [4Q22]12,689

            So theres your falsehood (s), Mr Bryce exposed again……

          • @ DoU
            “So theres your falsehood (s), Mr Bryce exposed again……”

            I didn’t bring up the subject of “deferred production costs” — Pedro did.

            You’re slipping further and further…

          • @Williams/TW

            BA no doubt is doling out good amont of compensation to pacify its customers like LH/EK/AA/UA etc.

          • @Williams

            Why you don’t care? Aren’t you an investor in BA? Or rather a trader/speculator??

          • The chatbot failed reading/comprehension again!

            I extract the following from BA’s latest 10K:

            -> 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.

            Note that:
            1) 787 deferred production costs is not decreasing, it jump by $1 billion in 2022;

            2) Deferred production costs $12, 689 million + $1,722 million unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs = $14.4 billion

            3) BA need to get an additional 840 787 orders and from today, each 787 delivered has to generate an extra $10 million margin (which is *not* going to happen) just to cover the deferred production costs etc.

            Who got it wrong here? 🙄

          • 787 deferred production costs are way down since beginning 2020[$16.8 bill]
            2021 [$14.8 bill]
            2022 [$11.7 bill]

            We dont know yet the numbers for 1Q2023 to compare but they do fluctuate during the FY year. Likely compensation for delivery delays there means the deferred cost not coming down as fast as before

            The Airbus compensation payments for its only average 66% delivery schedule 2023 ( only 2 months in) must mean the unit cost is taking a hit

        • williams:

          I assume you want to know the pricing for all the Airbus Delta bought, mixing up A350NEO and A350 in the above.

          Of course they got good pricing, they used the North West 787 orders on the books (which were first adapter pricing) as a foil.

          So yea, Delta got a very good deal but then they are also a good customer and don’t complain when the paint falls off and the engines have to go into the shop early and the fuel use is not what was specified.

          Give GE credit, they have met their specs, not easily in the case of the GenX but they did and RR never did.

          • Regarding flaking paint and troublesome engines — there were quite a few 787 customers who got burned by one or both of those issues 🤕

            Passengers don’t like looking out the window at speedtaped wings…

          • Time heals all wounds. The ME customers may be a pain in the butt to the OEMs but their money is green and the wire transfers goes through. Emirates have been as big of a pain as Qatar. When Qatar puts out a RFP, Airbus will be there. Qatar is not at Ryan Air level of contempt with Airbus.

          • I eagerly await AAB takes delivery of 787. Fireworks!

      • I have no doubt that Airbus regularly gives very attractive discounts.
        But it manages to make a profit on its sales, whereas BA doesn’t.
        Might have something to do with the fact that BA has to pay $620M in loan interest every single quarter.

        A nice illustration of the damage that excessive debt causes.

        • Airbus capitalises development costs every year so that they can be spread over time ….semi program accounting

          quote from Airbus own words

          The Company has capitalised development costs in the amount of € 1,482 million as of 31 December 2022 (€ 1,286 million as of 31 December 2021), for Airbus programmes (€ 785 million), Airbus Defence and Space (€ 372 million) and Airbus Helicopters (€ 325

          We also know they did *program smoothing * also with production costs from launch orders for A380 and A350, when unit accounting for those deliveries wasnt used.

          So hard to make sense of the financial flip flops to defer production costs to a later time. Why not just use program accounting all the time

          • AB posting a string of nice quarterly profits, with low debt. Shares up 21% in past 5 years.

            BA still posting quartley losses, with unsustainable debt. Shares down 40% in past 5 years.

            Ah, well…

        • Bryce….
          Heres an interesting thought.
          Ba has been taking charges for unusual production cost, posting quarterly losses AND burning down the 787 DPB at the same time. What do you want to bet that they are posting a big chunk of each quarterly loss against the 787DPB in order to shrink it without calling for a charge…..That looks less bad than taking charge after charge for reducing the DPB quarter after quarter…..

          • PNW…You wouldn’t believe it if I told you:

            DPB figures from the previous years (didn’t find any for 737 & 777X in 2018 & 2917)


            787 Program

            2018 & 2017 :$22,967 and $25,358

            2020 & 2019: $14,976 and $18,716

            2022 & 2021 $12,689 and $11,693

            (crept up by a billion in 2022)


            777X Program

            2020 & 2019 : $3,295 and $2,914

            2022 & 2021 $1,330 and $652

            (crept up again in 2022 by ~.7 billion)


            737Max Program

            2020 & 2019 : $2,159 and $1,313

            2022 & 2021: $2,955 and $1,296

            (up again by almost $1.7 billion)


            All three commercial programs have had their DPB go up, during the past year. This is in spite of the write offs of $6.5 & $4 billion, plus the abnormal production costs being expensed.


            Here’s a real beaut:

            Sourced from the BA financials, where I also found this buried gem….

            “Commercial aircraft programs inventory included amounts credited in cash or other consideration (early issue sales consideration) to airline customers totaling $3,586 and $3,290 at December 31, 2022 and 2021.”


            Early issue sales consideration or cash credits of $3.6 billion? WTF is it doing in Inventory, if I may ask?

            From the 2022 10-Q


            Page 77, if anyone is interested.

            So IIRC correctly, Inventory, which we valued at $44 billion, after removing all the DPB’s and tooling, also has $3.6 billion in cash credit and other consideration, in it.

            How is this legal?

            We give you cash back, but instead of reporting it as a discount on the I/S, or a bad debt….we throw it into Inventory….


            So Inventory is closer now, to $40 billion

          • Wait….5 years ago Airbus was 28.44 and now 31 and change.

          • @ williams

            Bit green where investing is concerned…?

            How about removing foreign exchange risk by looking up the Euro stock price instead of the Dollar one?
            After all, the primary listing (in Paris) is in Euros…

          • @Frank

            It’s interesting you raised this. Safe to say without BA’s magic black box program accounting, BCA would have *lost $6 billion* last year instead of $2.4 billion; loss suffered by BA would balloon from $3.5 billion to *$7 billion*. Scary!!

          • @ Pedro / Frank

            There’s a lot of discussion on Wall Street at present about companies that are “dressing up” their results.
            BA better hope that these tricks remain under the radar.
            Interesting times ahead.

            Incidentally, the Fed quietly provided $297B in emergency lending to US banks in the past few days — something that has shocked Wall Street. The general situation in markets remains very tense — any trickery that comes to light won’t be well received.


    • Interesting, would there be “a spectacular glut of capacity the Arabian/Indian/Anatolian region….”if they had ordered A350s?

  23. Gee, wonder why Boeing imploded as a once respected engineering firm? Just read this link to a today’s Yahoo Finance story about General Electric’s Neutron Jack. The article goes on to explain how his influence extended over many US corporations including his questionable accounting practices. Is it no surprise how this all sounds eerily similar to those that follow Boeing Corporation? But believe it or not, the guilty ones really include the major shareholders for hiring these business school sociopaths who can rationalize unethical behavior in the name of shareholder value.


    • You have never heard of the US industry robber barrons and people like John D Rockefeller and his partners have you

      • Oh no all these guys became rich by fleecing their suppliers?? 🙄

          • Does anyone have numbers on Boeing’s Partnership for Poverty, and its long-term effect on that company’s suppliers?

            Also, friendly Boeing’s use of value-extraction by delaying payment to suppliers- now up to 120 days, if recent news reports are accurate?

  24. “the world agrees that chinas [sic] orders are heavily politically motivated”

    oh? One might ask that country- which, to me, appears to be part of the world- as well as others that are making their presence felt; especially certain resource-rich ones.


    • Indeed.
      Interesting that the commenter in question claims to know what “the world thinks”…very grand self-image, it seems.

      Try to sell them junk, and then try to tar them when they show disinterest…great sales pitch 😏

      • I hear you. Also, I should have said “certain resource-rich ones that the West has not yet
        subjugated under the ruse of “bringing freedom
        and democracy™”. But alas, no edit button..

        The Iran-KSA relationship, in particular, seems worth following to me. Tea leaves, not
        MSM reporting.

  25. Thanks for providing those recent numbers on the Boeing 787’s deferred production costs, Pedro. I’ve noticed that those few commenters prefer *not* to engage in close, fact-based argumentation, but it’s good to calmly present the Boeing-provided numbers anyway. All things in the fullness of time-

    • I provided the * full* series numbers since 1Q 2020 on 787 deferred production costs , The trend is down since then but well see last 12 months when the 1Q23 results come through
      Mr Pedro just cherry picked them, indeed he initially made unsubstantiated claims with no numbers at all, as is his usual method

      Useful information from Bjorn at LNA on how Airbus ditched unit accounting once the A380 and A350 came along , and used partial program accounting, it seems launch orders are expensed as a *program*

      For these two projects, select early customer orders are handled like Boeing’s program accounting (see below), but only for the aircraft inside the customer order. For all other orders, the actual production cost is expensed in the quarter. With the exception for these initial customer deliveries, the quarterly and yearly results are in close fidelity with how money has flown in the company during


      Too funny, Airbus loved having launch order program accounting.

      I wonder if the A350K and latest A322/A321XLR is using launch order accounting too

        • How is that relevant .
          The evidence is that Airbus smooths its development spending by capitalising and defers the production costs of those launch planes with special deals in a program accounting model

          My question is : was A350-1000 and A321XLR both used the modified program accounting version that Airbus invented in its accounts.
          Is the novel method even allowed under international rules or maybe French rules apply
          We already know the order book is a fair amount of hot air and not done on a good accounting basis
          That also previously massive bribes was hidden in the books
          then theres :”The Company records provisions for onerous contracts when it becomes probable that the total contract costs will exceed total contract revenue”
          Another treatment when they screwed up. ?

          and heres more program accounting :
          “Capitalised development costs are generally amortised over the estimated number of units produced.”
          After all new development is so expensive , makes sense to spread the cost over an ‘accounting block of units’.
          Thats sensible and it seems Airbus likes and uses that method .. and uses the elaborate wording saying it happens but once a program is un the cash flow positive curve its switched to expensingall production costs.
          They get both the swings AND swings of both types of accounting, goodbye roundabouts

          • Apart from the reputation that you’ve built up for yourself — i.e. being wrong on essentially everything relating to accounting — have you gone back and read/parsed what you actually wrote above?
            Do you think it’s decipherable/intelligible for mortals?

        • Digging up eight-year-old article reflects ‘intellectual rigor mortis’ rather than ‘intellectual rigour’ 😄

  26. Frank’s long and good comment about what Boeing could do if they were serious about their position
    in the commercial aircraft maket (from evidence, I’d say they are not) set me thinking. The mention of a regional
    jet seems so sensible, at least on the surface, along with the needed meat ‘n’ potatoes A32x competitor. But we have Boeing’s visionary Mister Calhoun’s solemn promise “not to even get to the drawing board in this decade” to guide us..

    A fundamentally unserious entity, *if* being a competitor to Airbus is the goal. Maybe it’s not..

    • > Regulators are scrutinizing whether companies are manipulating financial results to meet Wall Street targets <

      Shocked, shocked, I tell you! What a hoot..

      [elite-benefitting] CBDCs a-comin', I'm a-tellin ya.. groundwork being laid at this moment.


    • Why would give benefits? The victims have already been compensated, right? The victims died instantly. You have a good critical sense concerning Boeing but not towards the lawyers of the families of the victims who also want to take money from Boeing.

      Once more we suffer from the lack of objectivity of certain polluters who squat the comments of LNA.
      Follow my gaze…

    • Hows Airbus criminal trial for killing 228 people going ?
      How much for those passengers ? Wasnt it the Montreux limit of $150k each, one two got a bit more
      French law doesnt use the Anglo adversarial system and the judge runs the case and leads the questioning…and other stuff not familiar with us

      • Ducker, the BEA has hidden a lot of Airbus blunders in terms of piloting in the past.
        1988, 1990, 1992 A320 crash
        1993, A330 crash AT Toulouse ..

        And today in 2023 there are still some who make sarcasm on a legally and technically solved problem.

        Moreover, 4 years old story.
        What are they looking for here?

      • @ Duker
        Gosh, as a US corporation, don’t you think BA should have been well aware of the damage claims it was exposing itself to when it took (criminal) shortcuts with people’s lives?

        But, more importantly did you stop for a moment to consider the optics of this?

        Just a few days after the 4th anniversary of the crash, BA publicly declares that the crash victim didn’t experience any “pain and suffering” during the 6-minute, high-g rollercoaster ride along their path to certain death?

        And, just last week, we learned that Dave gave himself $22M in benefits last year — after returning yet another four straight quarters of losses. Plenty of money for that, of course.

        Is there anyone at all awake at the BA PR department?

        Other news outlets have now picked up on this, including the WSJ and the Seattle Times…



        • Bryce, Bryce, Bryce …

          There is no question of roller coasters anymore, because the families of the victims have already been compensated. Recall your memory unless you had troubles.

          Again in what honor is Boeing supposed to give more money?
          And you in what honor despite knowing the facts, wanting to play the lawyer.
          Where were you to defend the victims of the Absheim A320 crashes and the pilot imprisoned on behalf of Airbus, Mt St Odile, and India (1988,1990,1992). Nowhere …

          While the BEA carefully concealed the murderous flaws in the Airbus piloting philosophy at the start of the A320’s murderous life.

          Where were you when the A330 in Toulouse in 1993 crashed during testing when extensive testing of on-board software killed all test pilots?
          Where were you really?

          In my upbringing I was taught to lay low and shut my mouth when I’m wrong.

          Here the facts have clearly been exposed to you with veracity.
          So at least have the civility to behave like a person who is not making fun of the world…



          Stop your cold war this is not the place here

          • “In my upbringing I was taught to lay low and shut my mouth when I’m wrong.”

            We see very little evidence of that here 😄

          • Checklist has taken up the torch of holding feet to the fire so I don’t have to!

            Lo many years back I was traveling through Southern Minnesota and got his with the smell of manure on the fields, you cold cut it with a knife, fuel mileage went up 20% it was so thick I was not having to burn as much gas.

          • “…taken up the torch of holding feet to the fire…”

            Like with your recent wing join fantasy…? 🤠

  27. Delivery of 787s had recommenced (1st delivery in March).
    LN 898 was ferried to Lufthansa in Frankfurt yesterday.
    It’s a whitetail: originally destined for Chinese carrier Suparna Airlines (NTU).

    • Lufthansa doesn’t seem to be shy about taking whitetails — presumably at bargain pricing.
      Its last delivery (LN 887; in January) was previously destined for Hainan (NTU), and then for Vistara (NTU).
      It similarly took LN 905 in August last year, which was also previously assigned to Hainan (NTU) and Vistara (NTU).

      • Bryce

        Why should Lufthansa have a discount? A whitetail is not necessarily a rebate, it is a new aircraft. The only benefit I see is that Lufthansa gets an aircraft faster. There is no proof of what you say.

        That’s again a wishful thinking…

          • Oh that’s it now I don’t understand anything! Lol!

            l You are irritated because most of the time your arguments and your analyzes are shaky and weak, which are more like lies and mythoania. Continue to wear your rose-colored glasses. Pathetic…

  28. 787 deliveries resume: last night a 787-9 was delivered to Lufthansa D-ABPE. Enjoy.

      • Cool, its clear the 787 is the wine body of choice.

        Now we just need a 787NEO with a GTF engine and Airbus wide body business will collapse!

        Boeing certainly is sitting in the wide body drivers seat having hit the market perfectly with the 787 segment.

        At this point we are looking at 2500 of them before its all said and done, maybe more.

        • “At this point we are looking at 2500 of them before its all said and done, maybe more.”

          And not a penny profit on the program.

          But that’s not a problem: BA seems to prefer loss-making programs…

  29. Bryce – I answered PNWgeek about the DPB and how it has crept up again during 2022, but I cam across this and thought it might be something to discuss, so I’ll put it into it’s own post:

    “Commercial aircraft programs inventory included amounts credited in cash or other consideration (early issue sales consideration) to airline customers totaling $3,586 and $3,290 at December 31, 2022 and 2021.”

    From the 2022 10-Q


    Page 77, if anyone is interested.

    So IIRC correctly, Inventory, which we valued at $44 billion, after removing all the DPB’s and tooling, also has $3.6 billion in cash credit and other consideration, in it.

    How is this legal?

    We give you cash back, but instead of reporting it as a discount on the I/S, or a bad debt, or anything else that reflects what it actually is; LESS MONEY IN THE COMPANY….we throw it into Inventory….


    In case anyone is interested in how you record this as a journal entry, let’s use the SWA cash of some $600 million that BA gave them, as an example:

    Cash …….…………………………………$600

    So Inventory is closer now, to $40 billion

    • Not surprised.
      Remember that KPMG woman that BA hired a couple of years ago?
      I can imagine that she’s very versed in creative bookkeeping…

  30. Wing-Join Guy is superb, too.. up there with DoU.

    deludere, deludere.

    • Did you notice that the BA Damage Control Office deployed all 5 of its LNA operatives on this article? Number 5 had been absent, but made a brief appearance yesterday…

      There must be a lot of heat back at HQ.

      • Yes, I did notice that. It was interesting to see the Explainer back.. another short-term contract?

        • Chortles…
          Not surprised the fantasists dreaming’s extend to this

          But I hear the United Work Front pay is really good , how to I apply ?

    • Sorry for the vulgar translation. Lol! Google offered me a word without my knowledge. Strange translation, this is the first time I see this 😆

      • Nice confirmation of what we already knew — i.e. that everything you read and write here goes through Google Translator…🤠

          • Very astute…I’ve long suspected North Africa rather than France.

    • From that link:
      Par Jérémy Joly Journaliste social media manager
      Publié le _26/02/2021 à 13h30_

      i.e. 2 years old.
      Covid lockdown phase. issues all around.

      What did you want to tell us with that link?

      • Indeed.
        And it also overlooked the last paragraph in the link.

        “Au mois de juillet 2020, Boeing faisait aussi face à un problème de stockage pour ses 787 Dreamliner. À l’époque, plus de 50 avions auraient été placés dans différents États américains.”

  31. Bryce,

    And not a penny profit on the program.

    But that’s not a problem: BA seems to prefer loss-making programs…
    Loss-making or not, Boeing will always be there.

    Moreover, unfortunately for Airbus, because of the success of the 787 Dreamliner, this first one is deprived by Boeing of 1,750 A350s orders…

    What a shame!

    • Potential 1.750 A350 orders in addition to the currently ordered A350s…

        • Hey Frank, a question:

          Back at the time of the big United order, you referred to an industry insider acquaintance of yours who said that BA basically didn’t earn a penny on the whole order — in line with what Bloomberg reported at the time.

          Have you got any such insider info on the Saudi order?

  32. TransWorld

    …”Cool, its clear the 787 is the widebody of choice.
    Now we just need a 787NEO with a GTF engine and Airbus wide body business will collapse!
    Boeing certainly is sitting in the wide body drivers seat having hit the market perfectly with the 787 segment.

    At this point we are looking at 2500 of them before its all said and done, maybe more…”
    Absolutely the 787 Dreamliner is a massacre as was the 777 before it. Each new generation of Boeing widebody is a massacre for Airbus.

    No need to re-engine the 787 Dreamliner,
    (even less the GTF as a trusted engine, even UltraFan remains risky)

    It unfortunately eclipsed the A350 copy despite Airbus having adopted the Boeing standard on all fronts.

    And despite this, the program is still stuck below the symbolic bar of 1,000 orders despite a failed launch of the -Freighter version.

    Far behind the 787 you will understand why there is the other strange guy so excited and pissed off.

    He didn’t sleep well the night after the “2-Saudi” ordered + 💯 787 Dreamliners, even after he was treated to a similar nightmare in nearly 90 days with the order for 💯 + 💯 787 for United…
    That’s why we get insulted especially today he is pissed off
    Concerning the future of the A350 well I think if it continues another 7-8 years, Airbus will have to react. How ? I don’t know.
    The trap is that by then Boeing will have launched its all-new narrowbody(s), Airbus must take a wise and difficult decision so that its future is not compromised. For what ?

    Well whatever the choice / reaction of Airbus, it will no longer be like the era of the A320 vs 737 or should I say more the era of the late-80’s aircraft vs 60’s aircraft. In other words, it will be exactly like the 787 which inflicts the damage on the A350 when Boeing designs an aircraft of the same generation as its competitor. We also saw it with the 777 vs A340 …

    Fanboys should pray that this does not happen, otherwise it will be like in 2005-2006 when the corridors of Toulouse were filled with employees running in all directions against the surge of 777’s and 787s at that time.

    If the 787 Dreamliner still stands well above the A350 on the market, it will give more complication for Airbus on which aircraft to develop from 2030…

    • Hey Checklist, I’m curious;

      What aircraft does the 777X compete with?

      • Hi Franck,

        I would say one foot in the A350-1000 market and the other foot in the 777-300ER and more,
        while keeping in mind that it is a smaller market today than in the 2000s and 2010s…

        • So the 777X competes with the 777-300ER.

          My question was, what aircraft does the 777X compete with. Most people would say that the A-350 competes with the 777X.

          The 787 competes with the A330. The A330Ceo being the 3rd most delivered widebody of all time, after the 777 and the 747 – almost 1500.

  33. Interesting, and rather overdue.
    Actually, the whole methodology / technology in the CVR/FDR needs a drastic rethink and upgrade to 21st century norms.

    “FAA moves to require 25h of cockpit voice recording”

    “The Federal Aviation Administration has moved to extend the required timeframe for cockpit voice recordings to be preserved in light of numerous recent serious runway incursion incidents in the USA.”


  34. John,

    …”Therefore, the most likely time for Boeing to launch a new commercial program is….never…”

    What about Airbus? Only the A321XLR remains to be certified and the A350 was launched 18 years ago.

    Boeing launched its last new program almost 10 years ago with the 777X, they must certify it, as well as the 737MAX10. Boeing is unable to launch anything,

    But Airbus, yes…

  35. ‘Boeing resumes 787 deliveries but faces catch-up to meet 2023 delivery goal’:

    “..Boeing’s 787 programme had suffered high-profile setbacks recently, including a roughly 22-month delivery pause that ended last August after Boeing addressed manufacturing quality issues involving composite fuselage sections and pressure bulkheads.

    The programme had been recovering, with Boeing ramping shipments to 10 aircraft in December last year. Then, however, deliveries fell off to just three aircraft in January.

    On 23 February, Boeing confirmed it had halted deliveries again, this time owing to what it called an “analysis error by our supplier related to the 787 forward-pressure bulkhead”.

    That supplier, Wichita’s Spirit AeroSystems, pushed back in February, saying it had not yet determined that its analysis was at fault.

    Several days ago, the US Federal Aviation Administration said it was satisfied Boeing had “addressed” concerns related to the latest pause.

    It is unclear exactly how long the halt lasted. But Boeing – with one exception – delivered no 787s in the roughly seven weeks between 26 January and 15 March. The exception was the February delivery of a single 787 that Boeing said was not subject to the pause because it had been certificated before it took effect.

    With deliveries now resumed, Boeing faces the task of accelerating the pace at which it gets 787s into customers’ hands.

    The company has said it expects in 2023 to deliver 70-80 of the jets – or roughly six or seven monthly. But so far this year, Boeing has seemingly shipped only five 787s: one to KLM, two to Lufthansa, one to Qatar Airways and one to United Airlines, according to data from Boeing and Cirium.

    Boeing’s pace will also determine how fast it rids itself of a stockpile of undelivered 787s – jets it produced but did not deliver during the previous 22-month halt. Boeing ended 2022 with 100 of the type in its inventory, chief financial officer Brian West said in January..”



Leave a Reply

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