Leeham News and Analysis

There's more to real news than a news release.

There's more to real news than a news release.

Pontifications: New GAO report shows how aviation industry repeatedly failed to meet eco-aviation goals

Download

By Scott Hamilton

April 4, 2023, © Leeham News: A new study by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) makes clear how the US airline industry effort has been anemic in reducing emissions over the last 20 years.

In fact, despite all the rhetoric and genuine efforts in certain elements of commercial aviation, it might be fair to say that the airline industry’s effort overall has been pathetic.

Despite all the fanfare in 2021 when the International Air Transport Association (IATA) adopted a resolution with goals to decarbonize, that resolution was little more than regurgitating previous, similar goals. The same goes for the goals adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) shortly after IATA.

I’ll explain below. Suffice it to say that when Tim Clark, the president of Emirates Airline, told the 2021 IATA conference, “Don’t make promises you can’t keep,” he wasn’t whistling past the graveyard.

The GAO report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel, is an unintentional indictment of just how pathetic commercial aviation has been in setting and failing to meet goal after goal, after goal.

Despite tripling the production in 2022 of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) compared with 2021, use by US airlines barely moved the needle. Even though airline use also tripled, SAF still represented marginally less than 0.1% of aviation fuel.

A goal set in 2007 called for 10% of fuel used would be SAF by 2017.

Statistics

Figure 1 illustrates how much SAF has been used by US airlines since 2016 compared with jet fuel. The SAF data is so small that it barely registers on the chart. So I extracted the SAF usage as a percentage used vs jet fuel in Figure 2. It’s a very small number.

 

In Figure 3, the chart illustrates how much SAF has been produced in gallons.

To be sure, as small as this is, the data shows progress. What is anemic, or pathetic, is that the goals set years ago—and repeatedly over the years—make a mockery of the eco-aviation movement.

Figure 4: The commercial aviation and airline industries set goals over 16 years that they consistently failed to meet. Source: GAO Report, March 2023.

At long last

Finally, at long last, the industry appears to be taking aggressive moves to do something about its emissions. This is not to take away from all the work Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, and the engine makers have done on the emissions front. But let’s be real: the driving motivation was probably more about meeting airline demands for lowering operating costs than it was about creating blue skies. The environmental benefits of lowering fuel and operating costs were ancillary.

Let’s not be fooled, though. Most of the “alternative” energy concepts won’t make it to a successful commercial business model. Some of the “orders” for eVTOLS or similar aerial vehicles seem little more than greenwashing. But progress is progress, and finally, the airline and aviation industries seem to be moving in the right direction.

 Category: Eco-Aviation, Pontifications

 Tags: , , , ,

105 Comments on “Pontifications: New GAO report shows how aviation industry repeatedly failed to meet eco-aviation goals”

  1. To be fair, the lack of substantial greening in aviation only mirrors the lack of substantial greening in society in general.

    Moves toward electric road vehicles aren’t as green as they are touted to be when you consider the full energy chain involved in mining, production, charging, network modification, and EOL recycling/disposal.

    And moves toward greening the shipping sector are barely being discussed, yet alone being implemented.

    Where SAF is concerned: there’s currently not enough excess green electricity, and certainly not enough feedstock, to start making it viable in large volumes.

    Neither SAF nor LH2 is going to materialize in substantial “green” quantities until a mass proliferation of nuclear power occurs.

    Reply

  2. I think Scott is right here, but nobody wants to know. It’s a global issue. By now (almost) everybody understand we have an emission / environmental problem. But there’s no easy ways out.

    Big airlines, OEM’s, the travelling public want to do something, but not here and now, because a reduction in production/ travelling is the only way atm.

    Hoped for / boosted technological developments (incl. SAF, electric, H2) don’t make much of an impact, apart from making us feel good & seducing the less knowledgeable majorities/ stakeholders.

    https://centreforaviation.com/news/united-airlines-confirms-heart-aerospaces-es-30-electric-aircraft-to-enter-fleet-in-2028-1163664

    I think the airlines’/ OEM’s spokes people pushed into the spotlights, to emphasize progress & investment, are usually smart beautiful women without a technical background.

    https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/741791-how-3-boeing-women-took-leap-and-found-success
    https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2021-09/Biographies-Airbus-Summit-2021.pdf
    You can’t have an engineer there, they’ll get the big picture and (usually) can’t lie. Problem IMO is that it’s so much more rewarding, short term, to be optimistic & promise a bright future for all of us, than accept realities.

    Kudos to Scott & Bjorn for calling a spade a spade. No chalet invitations at the PAS..

    Reply

    • “You can’t have an engineer there, they’ll get the big picture and (usually) can’t lie”

      There you have it!

      Bjorn shot holes in the whole concept of battery powered flight via a simple analysis of the energy density required vs. that provided by batteries.

      Similarly, network engineers point to a gargantuan mismatch between electricity production today and the electricity production that will be needed if all transport and industry is to switch to electric power (battery, SAF and/or LH2). One typically hears that current production is a *factor seven* too low.

      But few are interested in such realities — optimistic hype and PR fluff are much more palatable than objective reality.

      Reply

  3. When Airbus’ proposed (and showed) an a380plus way back when, there were huge winglets claiming to give 4.5% improvement in fuel efficiency. Advances in CRFP were claimed to be the reason for their development an inclusion in the plus.

    The plus never happened, but every time I see all the concept drawings and hear all the longer term eco spiel I’m reminded of those winglets and wonder why AB, who fall over themselves with greening spiel never did the work to bring those devices to the existing fleet of 380s… Something Tim vocalized at the plus unveiling.

    Greening in-service aircraft and making them as fuel efficient as possible is morally correct, and deserves the green washing $$$ spent on ‘it’ rather than the endless rhetoric and beautiful imagery that will mostly be recalled in future comments such as this.

    Getting SAF production to where it needs to be really should be a pot-banging priority for governments to feed large transport.

    Nice one GAO!!!

    Reply

    • “The study includes aerodynamic improvements in particular new, large winglets and *other wing refinements* that allow for up to 4% fuel burn savings”
      The other ‘savings’ were from putting in more seats so the cost per seat was lower.
      ‘new 9-abreast seat configuration in premium economy and 11-abreast in economy.
      https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2017-06-airbus-presents-the-a380plus
      The obvious answer to why the never happened is the biggest customer Emirates wasnt interested

      Reply

    • “… to bring those devices to the existing fleet of 380s..”

      The improved and larger winglets on the A350 “touched” the whole wing. overall twist was changed too.
      That is not easily ( or not at all ) retrofittable.

      Reply

  4. If airlines had to make their own SAF on rented non-farming land (deserts) , poorly managed forests or oceans it will take-off. There is a pretty good volume of ethanol used for auto’s 26-29 bn gallons/year and bio-diesel for trucks 48 billion litres/year

    Reply

    • -There are grave concerns over biofuels & despite attempts to evade the issues by using marginal non food grade land that is of low wilderness value I think it at best is a partial solution. There is already enough bioethanol produced in the US such that if converted to SAF (which is a established process) would already power the entire US fleet but bioethanol production itself continues to be so marginal it is mired in controversy although there may be advances in distillation etc. I think bio waste (municipal garbage as well as agricultural) is a better source. Perhaps waste collected by electric truck when they become viable or a rumba/kaercher style vacuum robot that collects cow dung.

      -Neither SAF nor LH reduce emissions of H20. SAF because of long linear chains will produce less soot and reduces contrail formation.
      -It likely makes more sense to promote fleet renewal with more modern aircraft to reduce emissions by greater efficiency thereby reducing H20 emissions, C02 emissions.
      -The non linear cyclic chains that produce soot in conventional jet fuel can be removed and upgraded so that conventional jet fuel has the same soot emissions as SAF.
      -It may be more cost effective to do this.

      Reply

      • municipal wastes get exoenergetic processing here.
        essentially big biogas installations.
        Same for dumps. covered and gas collected.

        manure on acricultural ( grain or pasture ) areas is essential. no dung no growth.

        primary energy efficiency of SAF ( e-fuels are the same ) is 5 to 10 times larger than battery storage.
        ( long discussion here in Germany if e-Fuel driven cars are allowed in the future EU )

        Reply

  6. SAF is a ridiculous fuel and global warming is a myth. If it’s a real problem, in fact, a negotiated agreement with china is needed.

    Everything else is a waste of money about it and should be abandoned/when goals are missed it should be celebrated.

    Reply

    • Carbon footprint actually is an end consumer metric.

      Pointing fingers at China for carbon impact of the stuff later consumed/wasted in the US ( and EU ) is bigot.

      Reply

  7. The hard reality is it needs legislation and from the EU/US or both together or its not going to work.

    Reply

  8. -If we were at all intelligent about reducing emissions while maintaining living standards little money should be spent to reduce aviation emissions apart from fleet renewal. I argue spending money on reducing aviation emissions is highly counterproductive and likely will INCREASE emissions by diverting resources to areas that give little gain.
    The “Pareto Effect” tells us we should go for the low hanging fruit where 20% of the effort will get 80% of the result. For instance, approximate 30% of emissions are from electricity generation, 28% from land transport, 4%-5% from sea transport, 5%-7% from cement calcination, 3-4% from Steal production and I think 10% from direct heating.
    -It’s fairly obvious that the issue of emissions free electricity generation and road transport will get us 60% of what is required and is much cheaper than producing SAF or electro fuels or electric aviation (for long range flight). Cement, Iron Smelting and Aluminium production can now be made zero emissions apart from some electricity inputs.
    -The purpose of reducing emissions in aviation is to ensure that as other emissions go down aviation doesn’t become too prominent, and a pathway of zero emissions aviation is visible (eg hydrogen or electro fuel SAF). Essentially its to placate the unthanking mob that has been filled with fear and sanctimony by a less than ethical media and politic and wants absolute solutions rather than practical and effective.
    -Aviation has to bull its way until advances in other areas are so great aviation doesn’t matter much or SAF or hydrogen is affordable. It’s basically a PR issue.

    Reply

    • The problem is that, thanks to assiduous misrepresentations by “a certain child from the north”, an uninformed populace now thinks that aviation is a major — or, perhaps, even the main — source of the emissions problem.

      Unfortunately, uninformed populaces with entrenched views are very difficult to steer in a direction other than that in which the “momentum du jour” is carrying them. A certain plebiscite in the UK a few years ago was just such an example.

      Reply

    • It would be easier to plant more trees. At least that was a thing back in the 70s and we thought the world was cooling.

      Reply

      • Trees need lots of water.
        And they have a nasty tendency to burn…

        Reply

    • Emission free electricity? How does it work in your continent? How much electricity has become “emission free”?? At what cost? How and when can electricity become 100% “emission free”?

      Reply

    • The story says it will ‘ bring to 10 the FAL worldwide’
      4 Germany, 2 France and 2 in US [plus 2 in China]
      Whos accounting is right ?

      Reply

      • A320:
        FR:TLS : 2
        DE:XFW : 4 ( or is the new one the fifth )
        US :1
        CAN : 1
        CN : 1 ( a new one planned?)

        A220
        CAN : 1
        US : 1

        Reply

          • with a target of 63/month
            AB needs 8 lines working at more or less full tilt.
            8 / month seems to be the ?hard? max capacity of one FAL line.

          • @ Uwe
            Don’t forget A350/A330 FALs: DP’s comment did not specify narrowbodies…

          • BA is confident the MAX will recover market share? How??

          • Market seems confident Boeing will recover

            Market cap of all shares on issue shows Boeing and Airbus are very similar when in same currency.
            Usually markets look ahead to near future to price in value and they are singing the same tune for both manufacturers- but Boeing has a lot more upside to come dont you think

            Must be because of Airbus loss making products A380 ( residual) A220, A400M , A350 but because its loose accounting rules in europe disguise the losers from the winners in Airbus product line

          • @ DoU
            “Boeing has a lot more upside to come dont you think”

            Not with the thin unit margins that it’s giving itself; excessive discounting is cutting a nasty hole in future earnings.

            Not to mention the never-ending train of screw-ups that have to be mended ex post facto.

            Q1 results will be out on April 26th…want to bet that there’ll be another loss? We’ve already been told by BA that Defense will incur a loss, and BCA deliveries were lower than in Q4…

            ***

            “Market seems confident Boeing will recover”

            It’s not “confidence” — it’s “gambling”.
            A few more appalling quarterly results and the market will start to lose patience…

          • Thin unit margins at Boeing ?

            Compared to Airbus you mean …. sorry Airbus doesnt give out its numbers for each of its airliner programs under its opaque and gerrymandered accounting.
            Lets call it for what it is:
            Allowed to include dodgy orders in its books ( which arent backed by the deposits and progress payments that a very healthy numbers should have)
            Mixes program and unit accounting to hide the true cost of its programs, not that you can tell say how much the A220 is losing
            All those A320/321 assembly lines is fine and dandy but must cost a lot in inefficiency.
            The share market values the two companies at roughly the same market cap despite Airbus huge lead in [single aisle] monthly deliveries and future orders. Doesnt add up.
            Boeing previously had juiced its market cap by share buybacks , but that ended in 2019 and the price fell considerably , but still….

          • 1. Dont tell me it’s an “efficient” market: those with short memory have forgotten what happened to SIVB: from over $300 a share to practically zero in less than six weeks time!

            2. AB doesn’t play the same games like the other guy: “fake” FCF & magic black box – program accounting;

            3. For almost two years, market cap of BA was over $200 billion. How far it has fallen;

            4. Right now the stock is priced basing on 2025/26-ish $10 billion FCF. Current investors believe the mgmt will reward shareholders instead of investing for the co.’s future, i.e. eating its own flesh. We’ll see how this play out by early 2030s – is BA going to sink (slowly) or swim? What’s its matketshare in the fast-growing NB market segment centred around A321? How prepared is it when the public/government (EU) emphasizes more on reducing fuel consumption/next generation aircraft, from hybrid to fuel cell/hydrogen? How well BA can compete other than (cheap) price?

          • @DoU
            If AB’s unit margins were thin, it wouldn’t be recording such nice earnings figures each quarter 🙂

            (E) EBIT = (N) number of deliveries x (M) average unit margin

            In AB’s case, M is healthy — so E is nice even when N is depressed.
            In BA’s case, M is miserable — to the extent that it can’t be compensated by a higher N.

            The miserable M at BA is caused by (at least) three stubborn phenomena:
            (1) Planes delivered from inventory have zero or negative margin.
            (2) Price-cutting, in a desperate attempt to secure orders.
            (3) Elevated production costs due to sub-optimal line rates and re-work.

    • -> Airbus and the China National Aviation Fuel Group (CNAF) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to intensify Chinese-European cooperation on the production, competitive application, and common standards formulation for Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF).

      Reply

    • -> “By the end of the first quarter of 2023, Airbus in-service fleet in China has risen to over 2,100 aircraft, representing more than 50% of the market.”

      Reply

      • But but … will they count the C919 and A320 as variants of the one type ?

        Like the previous Chinese airliners: B707 begat the Y-10, the MD90 begat the ARJ21 and the A320 begat the C919
        The military based prop planes and the IL-76 copy, ‘improved’ as the Y-20 are too many to mention

        Im suggesting the A320-919 as the sensible name

        Reply

        • Too bad Chinese airlines still haven’t order any Boeing even though they didn’t hesitate to order from AB, leaving the other guy behind.

          Reply

          • The whisper around Seattle …wink wink.. is that Maxs have been ordered for a chinese carrier or 2 ,but are ‘undisclosed’ so far.
            Political hot potato, and if delivery is many years away , they will keep it under their hat until ‘auspicious time’

          • @ DoU
            No “whispers around Seattle” — just your inability to understand that a new induction doesn’t mean a new order 😉

          • Thats so funny . Its *speculation* from LNA which is based in Seattle as I dont know these things

            Where are you based, Cloud 9 ?

          • Is BA a public company or private society? Are its directors ready for class lawsuits? Any major order under the category of anonymous would raise suspicion. The airlines are also public companies, their boards have responsibility to disclose (I remember the last major aircraft order were disclosed by airlines thru’ filings, caught AB surprise.)

  11. Brice

    …”Some info on recent 100% SAF test flights performed on AB widebody and narrowbody models:..”
    —–
    Always the art of being in line with Boeing, nothing really new here,…

    Reply

    • Then, by all means provide us with a link to 100% SAF flights at BA…

      Reply

  12. Boeing isn’t a bank, but it’s the ultimate ‘too big to fail’ company
    https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-isnt-a-bank-but-its-the-ultimate-too-big-to-fail-company/
    “This past year, Airbus delivered 661 commercial airplanes compared with 480 for Boeing. Meanwhile, Airbus’ backlog of unfilled orders is 7,000 airliners, compared with about 4,500 for Boeing.”
    “First, the company’s net debt has increased to nearly eight times from where it stood at the end of 2018. That’s nearly $40 billion. Half of this comes from the grounding of the 737 MAX after two fatal crashes, on top of development costs. And 20 years after the 787 Dreamliner was launched, Boeing still hasn’t made up for the investment in the long-delayed airliner.”

    Reply

    • Any company can fail.
      Whether a company is allowed to *continue* it’s state of failure is another matter.

      Reply

      • The new false prophets and harbingers of Armaggedon predict the end of Boeing.

        Which has never happened, and which will never happen…

        Good Luck whith that …

        Reply

  13. Interesting news on blue hydrogen production plans in the Middle East:

    “High Oil Prices Are Fueling The Middle East’s Renewable Energy Boom”

    “Saudi Aramco has told investors that Aramco has abandoned immediate plans to develop its LNG sector in favor of hydrogen. Nasser said that the kingdom’s immediate plan is to produce enough natural gas for domestic use to stop burning oil in its power plants and convert the remainder into hydrogen”

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/High-Oil-Prices-Are-Fueling-The-Middle-Easts-Renewable-Energy-Boom.html

    Reply

      • Icelandair is willing to wait for A321XLR delivery by *2029*, instead of ordering the MAX 10. This tells you the reality in the market, contrast this with posts of nothing but hot air/empty talks (MAX 10 vs A321).

        BTW the MAX 10 doesn’t compete with the A321LR/XLR, that’s why airlines like UA/AC have ordered the A331XLR even though they are current 737 MAX customers. So the reality is orders for the MAX 10 should be compared with A321, not A321 LR/XLR. Don’t listen to those who don’t understand this.

        Reply

        • Whos comparing the the Max 10 to the highly modified LR/XLR models?
          The original A321 – with its new double slotted flaps- had a 10 tonne/21000 lb IGW over the A321.
          The LR has gone higher again and the XLR goes over 100 tonnes. No wonder it had a whole new flap design….again
          This heavy weight pelican is finding it hard to get off the ground, they are repeating the saga of the A340 , modifying the wing, increasing the weight etc.

          The Max 10 is supposed to be 90 tonnes

          Reply

          • “The Max 10 is supposed to be 90 tonnes” ..

            and will need more runway than any of the A321 derivatives. 🙂

          • BA, of course, can’t introduce any MAX-10 variants with increased MTOW, because the LEAP-1B doesn’t produce enough power.

            There’s that nasty ground clearance gremlin again: the LEAP-1B is limited to a bypass ratio of 9 (due to diameter constraints), whereas the LEAP-1A/C have a bypass ratio of 11.

            Sticking with that old 1960s airframe really came back to bite BA!

          • “Whos comparing the the Max 10 to the highly modified LR/XLR models?”

            See below 😄

    • The notable absence of a major airframer in this market segment is remarkable. ** Niche model ** 😏

      Reply

      • 1. It remains a niche model. See at least 1,000 XLR variant orders vs 1,800 MAX-10 “single strech” variant orders by 2028… Bets are off.

        2. It is not uncommon to see airlines mixing their fleets of A32Xneo and 737MAX in 2023.

        3. There would even be Air Canada abandoning the A320ceo in favor of the 737MAX exclusively.

        …”Oh! but how is that possible? I’m going to piss off some fanboys here!”

        Too bad…

        Reply

        • The MAX-10 not only “competes” with the A321XLR, but also with the A321LR and regular A321neo.
          Have you totted up the combined orders for those 3 subtypes “by 2028″…?

          Reply

        • Who said there are 1,800 MAX 10 order by 2028? You?? 🙄
          I’m more concerned about how much compensation BA has to dole out again?

          Air Canada? Do you realize in recent years AC rushed to order A321XLR?? 🤣🤣🤣
          Dreaaaam … dream dream dream … dreaaaam!

          Reply

  15. Bryce,

    …”Then, by all means provide us with a link to 100% SAF flights at BA…”
    ——-
    Are you kidding me? Boeing has been operating SAF on its demonstrators for a decade and in collaboration with airlines such as Etihad to name it.

    Also Boeing would have bought a colossal amount of biofuel a couple of years ago including in the Middle East…

    Reply

    • Using SAF fuel is low hanging fruit.

      Both Airframers have been doing experiments with a range of SAF beginning with small fractions in regular kerosene

      looking around “Boeing is committed to have their airplanes run son 100% SAF by 2030.
      As always there is lots of mealy mouthed PR around from Boeing but not much more.
      ( a bit of reading comprehension required do understand what was really said in the PR notice.)

      Reply

  16. David Pritchard

    …”And 20 years after the 787 Dreamliner was launched, Boeing still hasn’t made up for the investment in the long-delayed airliner…”

    —–

    What’s the point in all of this?

    –> 1,700 787 Dreamliners sold have deprived 1,700 potential Airbus widebody orders, including the A350, which is struggling to exceed the symbolic milestone of 1,000 orders despite an A350F launch that was just as unsuccessful as the -1,000 passenger.

    A dead A330 and a dying A330neo.

    (!) In war, there is always the loss of soldiers on both sides but Boeing has conquered lands such as Lufthansa, Virgin, Air Tahiti Nui, Hawaian etc… who no longer want to hear about the A330/A330neo. So is the story…

    Reply

    • ROFLMAO!

      sinking large amounts of money over 2+ decades
      just for depriving a competitor of orders
      isn’t really what I’d deem successful market participation.

      Reply

      • Unfortunately, it’s not up to you to define how the market is, but Wall Street is the one who sets the rules until proven otherwise. At least in the USA, for one thing.

        On the other hand, it was not BCA’s fault to launch the 787 Dreamliner and introduce it to the market, That is my point and we are bound to accept things as they are to be as realistic and relevant in our analyses…

        This is how things should be seen.
        Sorry…

        Reply

        • Most everybody knows that B “played” W-Street
          over decades. Still does.
          The share value has been artificially maintained.
          Cooked books.
          The noteworthy part is that the GAAP environment allows to more or less legally cook the books.

          Reply

          • And, amusingly, the plane continues to hit the news because of quality issues:

            “FAA Says Leaky Faucets On Boeing 787s Are A Safety Issue”

            “While mentioning that the water could damage electronic equipment, the FAA also said the issue could lead to a “loss of continued safe flight and landing.” One airline reportedly found wet carpet in the aircraft’s cockpit, prompting an inspection of its entire fleet of 787s. Following examination, the airline discovered several planes with leaking faucets. According to the Associated Press, the FAA did not identify the airline.”

            “Regulators have reportedly ordered inspections of the aircraft. The concern comes nearly a month after the FAA approved Boeing to resume its deliveries of the Dreamliner after being halted due to issues with the aircraft’s fuselage.”

            https://simpleflying.com/faa-leaky-faucets-boeing-787s-safety-issue/

          • You can’t be serious , it Europe that has the loose accounting regulations.
            Airbus mixes unit and program accounting and doest breakout numbers for it’s program types so it hides it’s loss leaders A400, A380, A220 and even A350

            It’s clear you are hoodwinked by Airbus accounting so you let Wall St look after themselves.
            Market Cap of all shares on issue is roughly the same for both companies……ROFL

  17. Some stock price company comparisons

    Boeing stock price (Yesterday)
    211,37 USD +1,37 (0,65 %)
    —
    (!) Boeing Stock Price post 737MAX grounding, COVID-19 crisis and Ukraine war (2019-2023)

    –>> Lookup Date
    Mar12019LOOK UP
    Date03/01/2019
    Day’s High $446.01
    Day’s Low $440.19
    Volume 5,124,200
    Open $446.01
    Closing Price $440.62

    https://investors.boeing.com/investors/stock-information/?section=stockhistorical
    —
    Lockheed Martin stock price (Yesterday)
    490,17 USD +0,60 (0,12 %)

    Northrop Grumann stock price (Yesterday)
    470,39 USD −0,57 (0,12 %)

    Rolls-Royce Holdings stock price (Yesterday)
    147,35 GBX +3,60 (2,50 %)

    Safran stock price (Yesterday)
    136,42 EUR +1,72 (1,28 %)

    Airbus stock price (Yesterday)
    126,18 EUR +1,80 (1,45 %)

    Embraer stock price (Yesterday)
    19,65 BRL 0,00 (0,00 %)

    —-
    (!) I’m afraid “cooking” is another denial from our fanboy friends with rose-colored glasses worn

    Reply

    • So, BA stock more than halved in value since March 1, 2019 (was $446, now $211).

      What a stunning investment 👍

      Reply

      • Absolutely, that’s why I deliberately included the year 2019.

        Even today despite that, the shareholder value of its main competitor (Airbus) remains much lower despite everything…

        Reply

        • Oh God help us all, it’s comparing share prices directly!

          Do you think that all companies start off with the same share price? And what about the effects of past stock splits on price? Have you factored them in?
          What about the numbers of each company’s shares issued? Do you think that might have an effect?

          Next up: have you compared P/E ratios? P/B ratios? P/S ratios?

          Reply

          • Dispute the numbers, it doesn’t prevent me from sleeping unlike you.

            The colored pink glasses Of the fanboys very little for me.

            Accept the facts even if it’s painful, it will make you seem a little more credible…👍

          • Share price isn’t so important it’s MARKET value of all shares on issue that really matters- to sophisticated investors anyway.

            Airbus is E100bill while Boeing is
            US$126 bill
            Roughly equal market cap when in same currency

            It’s pretty clear who is the newbie on stock market investing.

          • Market value of the entire business is king my friend. Have you seen the book value of Tesla compared to its ( reduced) share price, even now, so thats just being silly.

            Just shoots down all the uninformed speculation you indulge in.

            Can you explain why the wonderful Airbus isnt worth double that of Boeing with all its problems ?

            When the 1Q23 delivery problems of Airbus come out in the next few weeks , well below what was promised in Jan and leaving Airbus having to pay compensation for the 40% of missed deliveries, well the market will react as well

          • “Market value of the entire business is king my friend.”

            FTX/SBF my friend! 🤣

          • @DoU
            There’s a reason why it’s called market *capitalization* — not market *value*.
            It has nothing to do with *value*: it’s just share *price* multiplied by number of shares in circulation.
            If the share price is inflated, so is market cap.

            Interesting that you brought up Tesla — it’s stock price is down almost 50% in a year. Why? The air is being let out of a ridiculously inflated P/E ratio (185) and P/B ratio (36)…

  20. COMAC news:
    After China and Indonesia, Malaysia is now set to grant the ARJ21 a type certificate.

    It seems that certain regulators aren’t particularly concerned by the lack of FAA/EASA cert of COMAC products…

    “Indonesia’s TransNusa Plans COMAC ARJ21 Flights To Kuala Lumpur”

    “Although there have been few public reports, sources say that TransNusa has already completed 100 hours of proving flights, including its first visit to Kuala Lumpur on March 6th.”

    https://simpleflying.com/transnusa-comac-arj21-flights-kuala-lumpur/

    Reply

    • We wish it all the best. It continues to receive incentives in airline service in China
      ‘At Chengdu Airport, there is a special ARJ21 ticketing counter. I was told that passengers who booked on an ARJ21 do not have to pay the mandatory 50 RMB airport construction fee (airport tax) as part of the supportive Chinese made air plane incentive.’ -Sam Chui
      he also said it was noisy at the back near the engines , which was my experience of the DC9 30 years back

      Reply

      • Yes the back two to 5 rows on the mad dogs were always pretty noisy, though the trade off to me was that the front third of the planes were exceptionally quiet.

        The CF34 is great and all for what it is, but I’ve always wondered if they’d look to stretch the basic frame from there and put more powerful engines on it, if they get FAA certification. How ironic/fitting would it be if it someday were to be seen in Hawaiian colors/livery?

        Reply

        • I think we can be pretty sure that the Chinese will soon start to tweak the design here and there, as they gain more experience/confidence…

          Reply

      • So did Sam Chui pay the “airport tax” or not?

        Sam noted that on the day of his flight around June 2019, there were several grounded 737 MAX in storage from another airline. At least the airline which flown ARJ21 didn’t suffer like those flying 737 MAX. Xiamen Airline had to scramble for AB’s A320.

        Reply

        • Unsubstantiated comment. You are slipping deeper and deeper into a muddy, slimy hole. Bashing and other wishful thinking were never an argument. You take your dreams for reality. Go ahead and compare the Comac with the 737MAX sales.

          You are just hilarious!

          Reply

  21. With BA’s Q1 results coming on April 26, it’s always interesting to see what analysts expect.
    As it happens, the analyst consensus is for another loss — and bigger than any quarterly loss from 2022!
    One should note that actual results have been consistently worse than the analyst consensus.

    The consensus for Q2 is also for a big loss.

    https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/BA/research-ratings

    Reply

    • It will also be very interesting to see the performance at Airbus. They say they have difficulty delivering… Of course your lack of objectivity couldn’t trigger something in your brain to be able to just weigh the thing on the scale…

      Reply

      • Actually, the analyst consensus for AB’s Q1 results indicates a profit — despite the lower delivery number of 127 units in Q1.
        Surely you could have found that info yourself using a simple web search?

        Reply

        • Its only another week or so , let the actual numbers speak for themselves

          Doesnt seem credible either to have 66 delivered by end of Feb, and its 2 months worth at 61 in just one month, March ?
          Maybe using Airbus ‘special accounting’ anything is possible and they have redefined *delivery*

          Reply

          • Looks like Duke doesn’t know what a non-linear function is — despite the fact that we get to see it every December…

  22. Pedro

    “Market value of the entire business is king my friend.”

    FTX/SBF my friend! 🤣
    —–
    You usually cry over the salary of a CEO of Boeing VS CEO of Airbus and all that amass the money below them, and you will understand that people prefer to invest in Boeing rather than Airbus. But since you are not objective, you told us stories with hallucinations. Many anti-Boeing folks cried though that D. Calhoun received a huge salary despite missing a small portion of the bonus due to an unmet target for the 777X program.

    Investors prefer Boeing to Airbus for global Boeing products.
    I know it hurts but that’s how it is…👍

    Reply

    • Yes, going to 52 in 2025…but Pre Covid the Chinese accounted for 25% of 737 deliveries or 13 a month, who is going to make up the gap for deliveries

      Reply

  24. Bryce,

    “…Looks like Duke doesn’t know what a non-linear function is — despite the fact that we get to see it every December…”
    —-
    I find that you have a rather zealous manner for a person who has to sweep in front of his door. You weren’t always right on a lot of things.

    Lack of objectivity, fanboyism, selective memory, wishful thinking, Boeing bashing, and bias have made you an unreliable speaker.

    When I see you as a hospital that doesn’t care about charity, I wonder about your seriousness and where do you get this claim to make fun of a speaker here knowing your rather deplorable state of objectivity …

    Please, how are you doing ?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Email Subscription

Click to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,878 other subscribers
Twitter Updates
Archives

Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved · Leeham News and Analysis

Sitemap · RSS Feed · Log in