By Bjorn Fehrm
May 4, 2023, © Leeham News: Airbus has presented its results for the first quarter of 2023. The supply chain problems that lowered the 2022 production targets and that Airbus thought would subside in 2023 persist.
The company sticks to its 2023 guidance of delivering 720 commercial aircraft but now adds that the year will be more backloaded than thought. Guidance of EBIT adjusted of €6bn and Free cash flow of €3bn remains.
Airbus delivered 127 commercial aircraft in the quarter, compared with 140 last year. Net orders increased from 83 for 1Q2022 to 142 for the quarter.
Revenue for 1Q2023 was €12.0bn (€11.8bn 1Q2022), operating profit €1.3bn (called EBIT adjusted, -€0.8bn 1Q2022), and net profit was €0.47bn (€1.22bn). The net profit for 1Q2023 was adjusted for a Dollar to Euro mismatch on predelivery payments of €0.4bn.
Free cash flow for 1Q2023 was €-0.9bn (€0.2bn), and the net cash position end of 1Q2023 was €8.4bn (€9.4bn end of 2022).
Guidance for 2023 remains:
Of the 127 (140) delivered aircraft, 106 (109) were A320/A321, 10 (11) A220, 5 (16) A350, and 6 (6) A330. The surprise is the weak performance of the A350.
Market demand is strong, with gross orders at 156 aircraft (1Q2022 253) and net orders of 142 (83 1q2022). The single-aisle A320/321 series is sold out until 2029.
The supply chain problems for commercial aircraft do not go away, and the cabin side has reappeared as a problem area. The monthly delivery rate for the A320 family still targets a rate of 65 by the end of 2024.
The helicopter side had a strong quarter, with an increase in deliveries from 39 helicopters last year to 71 for 1Q2023. Revenue increased by 26% to €1.6bn (€1.3bn) and EBIT by 73% to €0.16bn (€0.1bn).
Military and Space systems deliveries declined. Revenues decreased by 6% to €2.3bn (€2.5bn). EBIT sank 62% to €0.04bn (€0.1bn). One A440M was delivered in 1Q2023.
Besides Engines, Avionics and APU’s Airbus should have multiple suppliers for most parts going into the build. If they had taken the cost to qualify them and provide min orders to keep all alive the system should be fine tuned by now to boost production. The Leasing companies having aircrafts available must be making enormous profits by now.
Not sure the leasing companies are doing to well anyway, their financing costs must have sky-rocketed with the surge in interest rates. They bought a lot of aircrafts when interest rates were near zero, that might come back and bite them in the tail now…
Great pun, bit them in the Tail, love it.
Interest rates are up but they are no where near the catastrophic economy killing ones we have seen in the past. More spoiled by the extremely low ones.
It will balance out and if the demand is there the lease companies will buy and the airlines will just pay more for the newest batch while the older deals make it a 4% rate (2% old and 6% newer)
I think each plane or a small group is financed separately when taking delivery, especially wide bodies.
But it would be strange to do a 12 year lease on a fixed rate if your borrowing isnt fixed also.
Leeham can chime in. I had an adjustable rate Mortgage many years ago, never again.
But if you got a loan at 2% fixed, its not going to change. So it depends on how contracts are written and I will be the first to admit, I have not a clue on aircraft leases.
There is also the aspect of a line of credit but how that is invoked with interest. I would think that would be an open adjustment as you don’t take a line of credit in bulk.
Its an interesting area and at low interest and as long as you are not in Russia, you get the aircraft back on default. China could do the same thing but sans a war I don’t see that occurring. But then that is what triggered the Russian seizure of aircraft.
I like the tech end but the money end of course drives the business.
Nope. Lessors won’t get into trouble as long as customers are paying.
Interiors do have a number of vendors, but once you are vested in one, making a switch is a problem. Airlines don’t want to have a mix of seat types and galley types.
And maintaining a dual source is costly. Its really not feasible and its a recent issue that was not there 4 years ago.
I think the answer is you just have to work your way through it.
Think many parts are at least double sourced, red that Spirit is pulling home lots of parts production from troubled suppliers. Having multiple sources cost money and lots of supervision as they all try to save money and come up with ideas that not always are according to spec. Just look at the latest Spirit 737 issue. Still if you want to be sure to deliver according to contracts it is a way not to be in the cross hairs of disappointed paying customers.
Any further info as to why the EIS of the A350F is slipping to 2026?
The article below merely says that “industrial planning for this variant is being slightly adjusted”. Sounds like supply chain woes…
A350F : On the french side , it looks like a Center Wing Box issue :
Higher loads on the floor than initial calculation lead to a reinforcement of some parts in CWB ( Airbus Atlantic for production)
Take a look at the photos from Iraqi Airways GTFs… Can a LEAP option be developed… Surely PW can be ousted as sole supplier with their track record?
And PW is touted as a leading US aerospace company…imagine that.
The PW engine in the F35 also needs constant attention.
Thank you for my morning humor.
Actually Raytheon is a lading US aerospace company and P&W is an arm of that company (and was an arm of United Technology before that)
Clearly P&W has issues with the GTF. The F-35 engine is a bit of a different story as they have been told more thrust is needed and its increased a lot.
USAF blew the whole program and should have built a twin engine F/A type.
GE is making better progress with the LEAP issues.
P&W will get the GTF sorted but as Airbus is seeing, its a game of whack a mole where you smack down one problem and another pops up.
Seems you got your tenses mixed up (again) — “is” has become “was”.
“..lading [sic] US aerospace company” is bafflegab. Why bring Raytheon and United Technologies into the discussion; what light does doing that shed?
See the AvWeek article for their P&W’s statement.
The F-35 engine issues, on the other hand are germane,
because they show an ongoing trend.
Its known as a typo, my apologies for confusing you.
Bryce stated that P&W is an aerospace company when in fact they are an engine company.
Aerospace company has multiple product lines so Raytheon meets that definition. United Technologies did not I believe, they had Elevators and Air Conditioning divisions (I could be wrong)
And yes when you pull far more thrust out of an engine than it was designed (specified) for and you have to maintain commonality, its a stress issue that P&W is meeting but its had its costs.
And if you follow the tech end like I do, the USAF shot itself in the foot by NOT requiring a good spare parts supply for the known wear out items. Very little of the engine issues have been reliability and its all the stupid logistics system the USAF imposed that was historically stupid.
They also failed to make the specifications up to requirements which then lead to stress on the engine and more maint. None of that is P&W issue. Cooling requirements for the on board F-35 system have doubled.
So you keep changing the engine output requirements and its simplistic to blame P&W when its far more complicated.
Another aspect of the GO Airline issue is they are regularly bankrupt and do not pay their bills. That gets into the maint end and people holding their engines as collateral.
How much that all plays into the issues? Lot of conjecture to be had there.
But clearly P&W is scrambling on the GTF front and are behind the curve on corrections. That does not mean the engine is a failure but challenges are also in engineers, supply chain problems that were not there in the past.
“Bryce stated that P&W is an aerospace company when in fact they are an engine company.”
Since the engines in question are exclusively for aircraft, the company is thus an aerospace company.
Further, the PW GTF has been giving multiple, serious problems from day 1 — four years of misery.
Similar story with the F35 engine.
All the photos show fan (shroud) liner issues.
( hefty, … but is that the only issue? )
I can imagine that adding a second engine supplier at this stage might/would breach exclusivity clauses in the contract with Bombardier/Airbus.
On the other hand, Airbus might assert that the contract had already been breached by continued and extended failure to meet promised spec.
One indeed wonders if Safran could come to the rescue.
Things certainly can’t continue along the current hopeless path.
Yeah, that’s what I was getting at… PW can’t be allowed to destroy the whole program/reputation… And sadly it seems it not even the ‘gear’ component.
I know RR have their issues, but would their blade tech be better-than/sub-contractable to help PW overcome thei shortfall?
I’ve mentioned before, what improvements could be made if each OEM provided their best tech ‘section/components’ in a new collaborative engine, and take a cut of the price/support/parts? Pie-in-the-sky, sure. But what if?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the EU Commission is trying to get Safran and MTU to “get cosy”, so as to form an EU engine maker that would be an alternative to commercial aircraft engine offerings from the US, UK, Russia and China. I can think of some other EU companies that might also join the party.
It would certainly fit into the current de-globalization trend, and shield against trade war frenzy.
EU is very tough on mergers .
If Safran and MTU go together commercially then Safran might have to ditch CFM, so its a no go.
The single aisle engine market is already ruthless, adding another manufacturer that would be a minnow ? Doesnt add up.
However on the military fast jet side, it will be a yes as the Franco-german fighter will need a new engine.
It is ironic its not the gear component causing the problems………..Well, not yet.
Expect the same when RR’s Ultrafan debuts. All new tech has buggy issues. How big the problems turns out to be is the unknown.
These issues are not “buggy” — the GTF is a outright nightmare.
A320/321 neo has a choice of 2 engines CFM or Pratt. There was no sole supplier
The Iraqi Airways aircraft in the article are A220s — and they only have the PW “junk engine” option…
Spirit AeroSystems takes $110 million in charges, profit hit on Boeing 737
” Losses on the A220 amounted to about $81 million, including $46 million in nonrecurring supply-chain costs that were due to a “distressed supplier,” Spirit CEO Tom Gentile told investors in an earnings call.”
These results look quite good from Airbus, considering the supply chain issues.
Well, AB currently makes a *lot* more revenue and earnings per plane, doesn’t it? Even despite the present supply chain issues.
I would say that’s not happening anytime soon considering how GE and Safran are joined at the hip..
Like shooting yourself in the foot considering how much MTU has vested in all PW programs..!!!
MTU’s involvement with PW may soon transpire to be more of a liability than an asset.
GE plays with Safran, but also plays on its own. Nothing stopping Safran from doing the same.
Safran does play on its own. You should look up the Silvercrest engine! (hint, it never got into production and ask Dessault how that all was)
Yes, TW, I know that.
We’re talking now about engines for commercial aviation…
An ironic aspect is with all the problems in Boeing production their supply chain can keep up!
Easier to keep up with low rates, isn’t it?
And the regular production stops give plenty of time for catch-ups 😏
Yep, silver lining in that thar cloud.
Its not a bug its a feature.
” … with all the problems in Boeing production their supply chain can keep up!”
Haven’t you heard that BA’s contractors kept having manufacturing issues??
The vultures are already circling at GoFirst after the PW “Frankenengine” meltdown:
Bloomberg: “Go Air May Have Planes Repossesed, Complicating Rescue Efforts”
“Lessors including Dublin’s GY Aviation Lease, SMBC Aviation Capital and Pembroke Aircraft Leasing have applied to India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation on Thursday to de-register the planes, including brand new A320neo jets, information posted on the regulator’s website showed. The regulator should typically deregister the planes within five working days of a request, meaning the clock is ticking for the airline controlled by billionaire Nusli Wadia’s group.”
“The airline said it had to ground 30.5% of its Airbus A320neo fleet in 2020, 25.6% in 2021, and 33.9% in 2022, as Pratt failed to provide new engines and spares. That added up to a total equivalent of more than 47 years of potential flying time between January 2020 to February 2023 when aircraft were forced to be on the ground.
“The bigger issue here is more about this engine which has been breaking consecutively,” Mark Martin, founder of Dubai-based Martin Consulting LLC, told Bloomberg Television in an interview on Friday. “This problem is an industry problem and the first victim is Go Air. Never in the history of aviation has an airline gone belly up and gone under because of a component failing so severely.” ”
The list of victims of the PW “Frankenengine” debacle continues to swell:
Air New Zealand
Interesting that a big US A220 operator like Delta isn’t reporting problems. Is it, perhaps, being favored by PW?
I wonder – are the E2 jets facing the same thing?
I asked myself the same question, but can’t find any relevant data…
Here you go, Frank — just found this.
The monumental PW debacle keeps getting worse:
“Most of KLM Cityhopper’s Embraer E2s are not flying”
“Dutch regional airline has 14 E195-E2s, but eight of them were out of service in the first week of January. Issue involves Pratt & Whitney engine, company explained”
Delta is not going to go public. It’s bad for business. They is a MRO for PWGTFs, they want more business not less.
I believe in 2020, (some) airlines cut back their parts inventory (including spare engines) for cash.
-> Air France, AirBaltic, Delta, and JetBlue are among airlines interested in a stretched A220-500 with Airbus expected to gauge interest ahead of a likely decision at the upcoming Paris Air Show
There are a number of articles out right now on the likely A220-500. It looks like a go.. between it and the probable
rewing of the A320 series, AB seem to be sitting pretty.
Oh xx is toasted?? How will CEO Dave respond? 🤔
One wonders if AB will find another engine supplier for the A220-500 😏
Something like that, sure.
AB should just buy RR (as alluded to in a recent LNA article) — though the Brits would never allow that.
Interest is a long standing thing.
Airbus position is that they will move forward with a -500
offer if and when the A220 production no longer is a money sink.
first optimize existing production processes
then add a new subtype.
Summary article about the PW engine woes:
SF: “The Good, Bad, & Ugly: The Global Airbus A220 Fleet Amid PW Engine Woes”
“One A220 operator particularly vocal about P&W’s supply chain problems is Latvian carrier airBaltic, which operates a single-type fleet of A220-300s. In an interview earlier this year, airline CEO Martin Gauss explained that, due to lifetime limited parts in the engines, at various intervals in the A220’s lifetime, engines must be removed from the airplane. Engines come off the wing and are shipped to a specialist MRO provider to change parts. Unfortunately, this process is taking far longer than it should at the moment, with Gauss saying:
“Normally, that would take, let’s say, an average of 90 days to take the engine from the wing, ship it and get the engine back. That process now, instead of 90 days, takes eight months”
“Unfortunately, it appears that P&W’s geared turbofan engines may have a much more serious problem on their hands. Indeed, there seems to be a problem disproportionately impacting airlines operating in hot, humid and dusty conditions. With regard to the larger PW1100G powering the A320neo, India’s Go First told FlightGlobal that it had replaced 510 PW1100G engines in recent years, experiencing 64 ‘defective’ engine incidents in April alone.”
“The chief at Air Tanzania stated that, despite the A220 engine being designed for 5,260 landings, the airline was having to remove powerplants even before 1,000 landings had taken place.”
“And finally, of the other carriers with larger A220 fleets, 100% of JetBlue’s 17 and Breeze Airways’ 12 jets are operational. Just a single airframe from of Delta Air Lines’ 60 A220s has been on the ground for some time, not flying since April 3rd.”
“Equally as interesting is the case of Delta Air Lines, operator of the largest A220 fleet globally and a fairly early customer of the type. With so many aircraft in service, Simple Flying asked the airline how it has been able to seemingly operate unscathed by the same problems experienced by other carriers. A Delta spokesperson declined to comment.”
What are the key takeaways from Airbus’s Q1 2023 financial results, particularly with regard to ongoing supply chain challenges?
What are the key takeaways from Airbus’s Q1 2023 financial results, particularly with regard to ongoing supply chain challenges?
Airbus Bets on a Stretched A220 Jet to Beat Boeing’s 737
Altering an existing plane could save the company billions of dollars compared with developing a new one—but it risks cannibalizing sales of its mainstay A320.
Some even think launching the plane now might be too late. “Frankly, today is when the A220-500 should have been entering service to have a shot at good market penetration,” says Scott Hamilton, a consultant with Leeham Co.
I was curious to know why Scott had this opinion.
He probably felt that a later EIS would result in AB “missing the boat” vis-a-vis (much of) the replacement cycle of the current in-service fleet of A320 ceos and 737NGs. That having been said, any customer with an undelivered A320 neo on order could, potentially, modify the order and switch to the A220-500 instead. Moreover, as regards existing MAX orders, since most of these can be cancelled without penalty (delivery more than 2 years late), many customers who ordered the MAX could still, potentially, jump ship.
Add in the possibility of an approaching recession — with the possibility of deferrals/cancellations — and the water then becomes very muddied.
Excellent arguments, Bryce.
However, if you read @Scott’s post below, you’ll see that he uses completely different reasoning.
It must be a nightmare for the aerospace industry to try to read/time the market, with so many variables at play.
Here’s the thing.
(Disclaimer: I don’t claim to have any of the engineering chops that Hamilton or Bjorn have, but looking at the industry as a whole, history and most of all: money…)
1) If you look at how aircraft are position vis a vis – seats/range, usually they don’t make a like for like direct competitor.
2) An A220-500 can be put out with a cheap and quick model, depending on what airlines want. It can be plugged fore and aft of the wing (I am told), no engine change (once the kinks are fixed), lose some range, get close to 150 seats in 2 class config (keeping it at 3 stews) and sit beneath the Max 8.
3) They can bracket the Max 8 with a 320.5 sitting above the Max. Wings of Tomorrow, whatever it’s called.
4) The A321Neo family competes nicely with the Max 9 & 10.
5) Since the heavy investment has already been spent on the programs, capital savings can be passed along to customers. Boeing MUST re-coup the ~$20 billion investment. They cannot go on with money losing programs.
If anyone can cite an aircraft that was developed in the modern commercial age, that gave a company 30% savings over a competitor, I’d love to hear from them.
Does the 787 beat the A330Ceo by 30%?
Bear in mind: anyone switching from one OEM to another needs to re-train and/or re-hire a huge staff of pilots. This doesn’t have to be the end of the world (several airlines recently jumped ship), but it’s not something that one does lightly. A big price and/or performance difference is generally required, to act as a sufficiently enticing carrot. In that regard, the low development costs for an A220-500 should allow AB to offer very attractive pricing, which may be enough to cause some defections. But BIG impediment is the current PW engine.
Your point 5) especially, it seems to me- as with the A330neo; with Wing of Tomorrow lurking in the background.
If–and it’s a big if–Airbus launches the A220-500 in 2025, which has been the general information given by them in hints (ie, making the program profitable by 2024 and hitting production rate 14/mo by then), then EIS will be 2027 or 2028. By then, Boeing *should* be ready to launch its 737 replacement with EIS target of the middle of the next decade (per Nov. 2 investors day statement)–or 2035.
The new Boeing airplane, in theory, will be up to 30% more economical than the 737 MAX and A320neo. The 220-500 will only be single-digit better than these two planes, by our analysis. That means the Next Boeing Airplane (NBA) will be 21% or more better than the -500. Why buy this airplane with the better “mousetrap” around the corner?
Boeing CEO Calhoun is on the record as saying “we won’t even get to the *drawing board* this decade”, if I’m remembering correctly.
@Vincent: He also said Boeing will “introduce” a new airplane by 2035. Corp Com defined this as entry-into-service.
Keep in mind Boeing is currently working on a NASA contract for the Truss Braced Wing 737 category airplane.
Given what we’ve been seeing over the past few years, it’s hard to believe that Boeing will meet any target in the time frame it sets. If Boeing has huge delays in delivering planes that are just updated versions of existing aircraft, I wonder what it would be like with a new aircraft.
Yes – but WHICH plane? Which segment? The 797 was to be in the MoM, which the A321 family is eating from the bottom up.
One size will not fit all, here.
The A220-500 is going to be at the smaller end of the spectrum. The future (for Airbus) is going to look something like
They could have a re-wing 320.5 in there as well – but if that’s what the future looks like, where does BA go spending $20 billion?
The whole thought process was that the next jet was going to be something to replace the 757/767, where they have absolutely nothing. Be it with Bjorn’s slightly oval fuselage to get 7 across seating in or something more traditional.
30% more economical? That’s a big ask in an industry that has traditionally been characterized by small, incremental changes.
It’s a little confusing, because Boeing has recently said
that the engine technology for a new aircraft is not yet
there, and also that their ‘digital design’ [ahem] stuff
is not mature; on the other hand, there is this talk of
launching an AB-beating plane around 2027.
What’s telling to me is that they’ve let go / driven away their experienced engineers over some time now, apparently to be replaced by ???. Myself, I do not
see a new Boeing aircraft coming in any reasonably defined time period. Evidence to the contrary is welcome.
‘launching an AB-beating plane around 2027’
Well – if it’s a MoM 757/767 replacement it kinda should beat Airbus there, shouldn’t it?
After all, they have nothing there, do they (maybe in the lower end, but nothing in the heart of the niche)
Where does the 30% better than a neo come from?
By what? engine? No chance!
Smaller? As an A225? No chance!
Ligter? See 787, never-ending manufacturing fiasco!
Which solutions promise to be 30% better?
Risk for Boeing is also:
A22xneo with the same new engine as a 737 New Max.
From 2038 such an A221/223 would be even better because it is lighter and smaller than a new 737.
Airbus can also push an A227. See Canadian plans. With the A321neo2, it then concentrates on everything up to 10,000 km with one gear just longer, higher and further.
Airbus is the market leader and Boeing no longer even manages to get an aircraft fully certified. Not to mention punctual, reliable, error-free and much more.
So where does the belief come from that Boeing will create a 30% better-cost aircraft by 2035? Smoked Too Much Boeing Weed?
See KC-.46, a 767-based tanker! The program made a loss of 7 billion US dollars! On a finished, proven aircraft… Faith is no match for reality.
On the 767 tanker, to be fair.
There is someone here who has worked on the KC-46 program and as it’s explained to me, it would have been cheaper for Boeing to make a clean sheet design tanker, than to use the 767 platform and convert it into a tanker. (and no, he’s not a fanboy)
Apparently the engineering hoops that BA had to jump through to make the transition were enormous and they underbid the contract, big time.
It just didn’t translate well, from a commercial product to a military one. IIRC the KC-135 was a tanker first, THEN a commercial success as the 707.
30% in 12 years. Thing is – Airbus will not be sitting on their hands, during this period, will they? 30% better than the current 757/767? Yah, I can see that.
Pratt has to fix the A220 GTF problems, though…
After looking around a bit, there is this:
So Boeing is talking about a:
1) truss based wing
2) folding wing tips
3) hybrid traditional/battery powered engine
to get them their 30% savings by 2035.
When Calhoun will be long gone, I might add.
This kinda smells like the 787, when they tried to do everything at once. We’ll see how the wingtips and the 777X go first, I suppose.
@szo: “Where does the 30% better than a neo come from?”
That’s for our consulting business detail to know.
Something tells that Mr. Hamilton knows a lot than he presents in blog. And a whole lot more than the keyboard aviation experts.
“It’s our plan to demonstrate this extra long, thin wing – stabilised by the braces – that will make commercial airliners much more fuel efficient by [reducing] drag,” Nelson says. “Boeing’s proposed design could make a significant contribution toward our goal of improving fuel efficiency by as much as 30%.”
– NASA administrator Bill Nelson.
Well – you and NASA.
I’m not sure here, who’s in better company?
“..in theory, will be up to 30% more economical than ..”
How much of that 30% will find their way into reality? 10%..14% ?
Behind the smokescreen of super advanced curlicues the 787 didn’t really bring more markup than the (not from Boeing) engines provided.
project execution was abysmal.
The old and newly created unpleasantries coming up for Boeing on a regular basis don’t indicate any learning at all.
I have some doubts that Boeing will be able to transfer those glorious new project patterns into a real product.
Regardless of the technical details (new engines, wing, fuselage, digital design) and real-life performance (30% improvement sounds very fanciful), I still don’t see BA having the money for a new clean-sheet development program any time soon.
This article appeared on SeekingAlpha this weekend. It appears that the penny may be slowly starting to drop — the piece contains some very straight-up, unsalted analyses of BA’s dire financial position.
Good link- and quite an illustrative photo, no?
I like this bit of analysis:
‘Since the company is expected to lose $1.55 per share in 2023, we can’t calculate an accurate PE ratio based on this year’s EPS. However, for context, the PE would be 19,834 if Boeing were able to achieve EPS of $0.01 for 2023.
The S&P 500 (SPY) is trading with a forward PE of 18.8. So, we can see how lofty Boeing’s valuation is just looking out to the remainder of 2023 and through 2024.’
The whole article was very interesting.
Note to @Duke: the piece quoted by Frank effectively demonstrates that the BA stock price is currently overvalued by a factor of A THOUSAND. There goes your market cap 🙈
The photo is certainly “in your face” — but, judging by the nose it appears to show a competitor plane 🙈
Other than that: the article is a great eye-opener for the BA cheerleader team 🤕
A little more detail has emerged regarding the repair of the vertical stabilizer fasteners on the MAX:
(1) “Gentile said Spirit AeroSystems has identified ** 65 structures ** that require repair in its own inventory, awaiting shipment to Boeing. He said all the repairs would be completed on affected fuselages in its own inventory by the end of July.”
(2) Boeing has said that ** most of the 225 undelivered 737 MAX jets in its inventory ** will require repairs, as will ** several more aircraft structures still in assembly **.
(3) Boeing has not reported the number of aircraft in service that will need repairs.
Based on the “most of” syntax in (2), it’s reasonable to assume that most of the in-service fleet in (3) will also need repairs.
Since this comment is about Airbus-
Airbus says engine maker Pratt facing problems with jet support
‘Pratt & Whitney’s lazy response to engine crisis deliberate attempt to kill us’: Go First
Might also be a “state-sponsered” attempt to make like difficult for BA’s competitors…
You know what is sad, I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious?
go with historic precedence.
exceptionalism, jingoism and fascism are close cousins.
Protectionism is alive and kicking in “a certain country”.
From Leeham’s other article about engines-
But going forward, CFM has 60% of the backlog across all types to PW’s 19%–with 22% of the A320neo family orders undecided on engines.
WOW! I remember the prognosticators stating PW’s cool GTF tech was going to clean up the market against CFM/Safran lesser tech LEAP. Just wow.
Looks like BA finally capitulated on price (again).
On the other hand, the company desperately needs deposits — to pimp-up Q2 cashflow — so prices are bound to drop for customers who play the waiting game.
One wonders whether Ryanair again managed to repeat — or even exceed — its previous 69% discount…
Bloomberg: “Boeing Closes In on Mega Ryanair Deal in 737 Max Endorsement”
Fire sale keep going.
‘Airbus celebrates delivery of Delta’s 100th Alabama-built A320 Jet’:
“..Delta flies more than 400 Airbus aircraft, said Heather Wingate, senior VP of government relations for Delta. If you count a few A220-class jets, which Airbus also assembles in Mobile, more than a quarter of them were manufactured in Mobile.
More are coming. Airbus executives confirmed about a year ago that they planned to build a third Final Assembly Line in Mobile. The new line, like the first, will produce A320-family jets. Demand is high for the single-aisle, twin-engine jet and Airbus aims to ramp up production to unprecedented levels to capitalize. It’s also adding a second line to its A320 FAL in China.
“When you look back on where we were 5-10 years ago, I don’t think anyone could have imagined what we are doing here,” said Knittel. “Where we are today in Mobile? I’ve talked about the growth, but it’s not just growth in facilities, it’s growth in employees. We’ve gone from 50, 100 employees, this site now has 1,600 employees and we’ll have well over 2,000 very soon.”..”
Regarding the FAL in Mobile, it seems that A320neo family aircraft are already being manufactured for airlines in other countries. Last Friday, there was the first test flight of an A320neo that will be delivered to Volaris.
Since the story also involves Delta Airlines, does anyone know if the airline is still interested in acquiring some A350-1000s? I never read or heard anything about it again.
About the A350-1000s I don’t know. What’s mainly of interest to me is that Europe-based Airbus is making planes and increasing employment here in the US, while the [nominally] US-based other guys are shifting jobs to other, low-wage countries as fast as they can.
As I recall, Mobile was originally tasked with A321 and then they shifted to a mix of A320/A321.
Of some note and interest, Delta is having a lot fewer problems with the A220 and the GTF. Its a real dilema for P&W, GO seems to be the worst and a bias to better out of Norther Climes but Swiss and Baltic both have issues with grounded Aircraft.
they only gotta fix em if they have cracks
Remember, Delta is a MRO for PW…………If it means anything. More business for Delta! Woohoo!
JetBlue and Breeze are not an MROs for PW — and, yet, these US carriers doesn’t seem to be suffering engine parts shortages.
Remarkable, isn’t it? 😉
No, not really, they are just fortunate………………For now,.
So the A220-300’s for Delta, Breeze and Jetblue are all coming out of Mobile. I had a look at Planespotters for their fleets;
Delta – 15
Jetblue – 17
Breeze – 12
44 A220’s so far. Not bad. 262 deliveries total for the program.
The first A320 came out in 2016.
The first A220 was delivered to Delta in 2020.
…”Looks like BA finally capitulated on price (again)….”
Congrats to Boeing. The Boeing haters want to minimize their humiliation. It’s funny. Looks like Bryce has no proof, “Looks like…” Lol…
Bryce has presented plenty of proof — with lots of links.
The problem is that the BA “back office” has a short/selective memory.
BA makes a loss on every plane delivered — surely you saw the numbers?
Bryce, Bryce, Bryce ,
Bryce, never established ANY evidence regarding the historical 💯+💯 787 order from United Airlines.
Neither the 27 + 💯 787 as the 5th biggest order from the 2 Saudia.
No more proof on this once again humiliating and unbearable order + option 💯+💯+💯 737MAX-10 order! You know that aircraft you cherish so much?
Bryce is pissed, Bryce is not happy, Bryce is having a bad day while Rayan Air as much as United Airlines, and Boeing are popping the Champagne…
Bryce tried to make a guess thinking “it can work” through a lie… Please be serious and come back talk about the aviation industry respecting people who come here with real sources and not with ridiculous Boeing bashing.
“Bryce, never established ANY evidence regarding the historical 💯+💯 787 order from United Airlines.”
Bryce promptly posted a Bloomberg article regarding the UA deal…and he posted several links on the Saudi deal …and he posted today on the Ryanair deal.
Time to put the bottle down 🙈
Airbus celebrates production of Delta’s 100th Alabama-built A320 jet
You mix the facts to make an untruth in order to continue to do Boeing Bashing.
According to my sources Boeing made a rebate of 200 million USD / 737MAX-10 to Ryan Air.
-> Discounts are common and normal practices in the trade, Airbus and any other industrialist also do it to their loyal customers. Boeing did not yield anything as you assert.
Acknowledge that you had a mistake in order to lessened the nice deal between Boeing and its customers
No links to back any of that up?
This one does not suit you 200 million USD?
Not enough for you?
We ain’t gonna play Liar Poker Bryce…
OK…so, as expected, no links.
A pipe dream 😉
Lol, Bryce is 400 million USD the deal. No chimera. Not everyone is like you Bryce…👍
per plane or for the batch?
any reference links you could provide?
otherwise: soundd ftorm a rear orifce.
Prices are not as low as Bryce wants to claim. It’s a way to keep Boeing’s business less so that his day isn’t boring. But unfortunately it is for Bryce.
The best case scenario is that the first negotiations for this 737MAX-10 deal a few months ago certainly because the Ryanair CEO MOL had certainly asked a price of 300-400 million USD / MAX-10, it is a sound negotiation practice and clever Boeing had to refuse to say certainly 50 million USD. It’s such a wise and clever technique to keep the deal for Boeing.
MOL had to be furious through the.ledias to maintain its strategy which Boeing salesmen must have anticipated. Boeing had dropped negotiations to return to a basis that MOL had to estimate at an approximate rebate of 150 million USD / MAX-10 When he returned to the negotiating table with Boeing, the sellers had to offer him 100-150 million USD / MAX-10 and to close the deal the last of MOL was probably 200 million USD, which the sellers of Boeing could hope for.
In the final MOL and Boeing are happy.
That may be the most relevant reason.
MOL would have applauded the Boeing sales team for making a deal to make both parties happy (Boeing and Ryan Air)
Congratulations again to Boeing and Ryan Air !
But that’s not what you insinuated without any evidence on your part about so-called catastrophic prices. We don’t believe in this story for naive just to feed the dark designs of a Boeing hater
Put the bottle down indeed….
Bryce is 40 billion USD the deal. No chimera. Not everyone is like you Bryce…👍
Sorry there was a mistake, it can’t be 400 million USD but 40 billion the deal.
This is corrected
$40B is the *list price*.
No customer ever pays the list price: the “standard” industry discount is 45-55%.
Don’t you know *anything* about the aviation world?
The 737MAX-10 list price is 135 million USD per unit.
This represents 2 million discount / per aircraft for 300 737MAX-10’s.
This saves MOL 2 million USD / aircraft.
The deal is 40 billion USD instead of 40.5 USD.
This deal arranged both parties.
Why did you want Boeing to do more? Just to feed your wishful thinking?
Perhaps you weren’t around here when this happened, but I’ll explain it to you;
After the Max grounding and IIRC when the pandemic was in full swing, SWA needed capital. In their 10-Q, they noted that they had sold some of their aircraft, to raise capital.
The details were;
1) They sold 10 Max-8’s
2) They got back $410 million for those aircraft
3) They had to declare a GAIN on the sale of those assets of $70 million
which means that the aircraft were on those books with a value of $34 million each. Those aircraft were a year or two old.
Assets are valued at historical cost – what you paid for them. Then over time, you depreciate them according to a schedule.
Do you understand what those figures mean?
I think he needs further spoonfeeding by pointing out to him that the list price of a MAX-8 at the time was $110.
34/110 = 0.309…which thus indicates a 70% discount.
Mind you – depending on the age of those jets, depreciation will have a slight effect on that number. To be safe, call it $36 million-ish. Maybe $37, no more than that.
What posters need to keep in mind is that the pricing of jets is very opaque – purposefully so. Therefore, all we really have to go on are tidbits like this and the BA financials, like you’ve detailed in numerous posts, on what the end results are.
But even in the financials, it’s kinda tricky though;
Let’s say Bryce Airlines had an order for Max’s that you ordered at $45 a pop. Grounding hits. Covid hits. You wanna cancel. You can cancel. But BA makes you an offer you can’t refuse to keep those orders there. Maybe they sell you half of those jets at a big loss, so that the others they sell you will get them to the break even point.
You can bury the difference in the DPB and hope to make it up on someone else’s order.
This opens up another bow to the string – why would they do that? Better to walk away from a losing situation and cut your losses, unless the real goal was to keep orders there to prop up share price (which leads me back to our convo about buybacks).
As long as they are beholden to Wall St and share price, they’ll keep making deals like this.
This company really needs a team in there that wants to start making solid aircraft at good prices and let everything else take care of itself…
As regards pricing:
We often get tidbits of info from persons “close to the negotiations”.
And there are also people who carefully pore through financial releases so as to distill out the actual prices paid for aircraft. For example, look at this very detailed analysis regarding Ryanair:
Thing is – those who wish to refute your points, can always say it’s not a verifiable, truthful source.
But if you’ve got something in b&w, in a financial statement, filed with the SEC…notice there’s been no response.
I’m not sure if you saw this in the financial article
but there is this score that the author uses
with 5 different ratios used.
‘From about 1985 onwards, the Z-scores gained wide acceptance by auditors, management accountants, courts, and database systems used for loan evaluation (Eidleman).’
We all like definitive answers and certainty. If the car is broke, you want your mechanic to call you up and say “It’s 500 bucks”. Then you show up and he asks for $1000, we all lose it.
There is no exact science in these models.
1) If you look at the ratios, the highest weighting is given to two rations that include earnings.
Z = 1.2X1 + 1.4X2 + 3.3X3 + 0.6X4 + 1X5
X1 = working capital / total assets
X2 = retained earnings / total assets
X3 = earnings before interest and taxes / total assets
X4 = market value of equity / total liabilities
X5 = sales / total assets
2) So much can be played with. Total Assets, for instance. What is Inventory part of? Where is the DPB sitting? Ostensibly, what is the DPB? An expense.
3) As noted in the article about Stock buybacks, BA is sitting on cash in the form of shares, that they can liquidate to pay off debt. They’re still trading around $200. They still have options.
I guess we’ll see.
Are you absolutely sure that BA is still sitting on the cash from the buybacks?
It may have canceled a portion of the shares involved.
Can you find clear data for this in the regulatory filing?
Until evidence is given to the contrary, I’ll go ahead and consider those shares available to be sold – if need be.
I’d love to be able to agree with you, but it’s prudent in this instance to seek more assurance…
Interesting article in french