Boeing’s Calhoun: Be patient for a new airplane

By Scott Hamilton

June 1, 2023, © Leeham News: Boeing CEO David Calhoun remains upbeat about the company’s future despite occasional setbacks and a struggling defense unit.

Boeing CEO David Calhoun

But in a media briefing on May 30 in advance of the Paris Air Show, he was resolute that progress is being toward a full recovery from the “existential” threats posed in recent years by the 737 MAX crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Boeing is still recovering from these events, as well as a delivery pause of nearly two years of the flagship 787 and political tensions with China that began in 2017 when President Donald Trump imposed trade sanctions, thus beginning a trade war with one of Boeing’s most important markets.

China still has not resume deliveries of the MAX, a combination of the MAX grounding from 2019-2021, the trade war and a slow recovery from COVID. Boeing has an inventory of about 230 MAXes from the grounding; 140 of these are destined for China.

There is also an inventory of about 90 787s, the residual from a production quality issue that Boeing discovered. Officials forecast that it will be the end of 2024 before both inventories are cleared.

At a separate investors conference last week sponsored by the boutique company Wolfe, CFO Brian West reaffirmed free cash flow forecasts of about $10bn by the 2025 time frame. Guidance for production rates of 38 a month for the 737 by the end of this year and 50 by around 2025 and 5/mo for the 787 by year end and 10/mo by 2025 remain intact.

A new airplane, no JV and more
  •   At the media briefing, Calhoun expanded on his previously comments that technology beyond engines is ready for support development of a new airplane.
  •   A New Midmarket Airplane (NMA) would not have been sufficiently advanced to support its development, either, he said. Calhoun killed this project when he was named CEO in January 2020.
  •   Calhoun in April 2020 withdrew from the proposed joint venture with Embraer. EMB was to be responsible for developing a new airplane in the 100-150 seat sector and provide engineering for the NMA. The withdrawal is in arbitration, so Calhoun wouldn’t comment specifically about it. But asked whether Boeing might revisit the JV, he said there is less compelling reason to do a JV today than there was then.
  •   Boeing and NASA are studying a trans-sonic Truss Braced Wing (TBW) design, building on research and development Boeing has been doing for years. Calhoun said whether this will become a single- or twin-aisle concept when done is too early to say. But he added that the TBW doesn’t lend itself to a large capacity aircraft.

China Not Included

At its height, China accounted for between 25% and about 33% of Boeing global deliveries. All of Boeing’s financial and delivery guidance for now excludes China. Calhoun said that while Boeing of course wants to resume deliveries to China, the company can get along without this big market.

His media briefing came the day after China’s COMAC C919 finally made its first scheduled passenger flight, with China Eastern Airlines. Entry-into-service is about seven years later than planned for China’s competitor to the 737 and Airbus A320. COMAC had design, development, production and flight-testing setbacks. Nevertheless, Calhoun said the 919 will be a good airplane. Although COMAC officials set a production goal of 150 aircraft a year in five years—a ramp up that LNA believes is highly optimistic—even at this rate, the 919 will pale to the combined estimated production rates of the 737 and A320 family of more than 1,000 a year.

However, Calhoun dismissed any perceived threat to the 737-8 if Airbus launches a stretch of the A220 into the -500 sub-type. Airbus says this is a matter of “when,” not “if,” and there is speculation Airbus could do so later this year.

The prospect of a direct competitor in the A220-500 to the 737-8, the most widely sold model of the MAX family, doesn’t give Calhoun “heartburn,” he said.

Nor does the smaller A220-300, which competes directly with the 737-7 MAX, the smallest member of the MAX family. Calhoun said there are no plans to develop another airplane smaller than the 146-seat 7337-7.

Remaining Number 2 to Airbus

While the MAX was grounded and the 787 deliveries were paused, Airbus began to runaway with market shares–something that actually began during the days of the 737 NG and throughout the painful gestation of the 787. But as Boeing recovers today, in part because Airbus production lines are sold out in some cases to the end of this decade, Boeing’s sales are going gangbusters.

Can Boeing recapture a 50-50 market share? Calhoun is blunt.

“No,” he said simply to this question. Pressed, he elaborated, “Most of the share losses that occurred over the last four years was through the ones that are really measurable are because we couldn’t deliver airplanes.

“With respect to the [recent and current] competitions I’ve been involved in, I don’t feel disadvantaged at all. I’ve been to pretty much all of them. What do you see when you’re in negotiating something? [The 737] Dash-8, Dash-10 whatever, Dash-7? I’ve never felt disparaged. Not for a minute, and I don’t think we’re in pressure to rush here.”

Calhoun said that Boeing won’t make up lost market share from the dark days. Competitions going forward with Airbus give the advantage to Boeing, which has earlier delivery positions available than does Airbus.

Next new airplane

At the Nov. 2 Boeing investors day, Calhoun said the company won’t introduce a new airplane until the middle of the next decade. Technology, he said, was ready neither for the airplane nor the engines.

GE and Safran, partners in CFM International, are developing the CFM RISE Open Fan engine. GE, at its pre-Paris Air Show media briefing on May 15, reaffirmed that the installed economics benefit will be more than 20% better than CFM’s LEAP on the MAX and the A320neo families.

But what will the next airplane look like? Will it be a single-aisle or twin-aisle aircraft? Will it be a conventional tube-and-eiong design? What materials will be used? Will it be a trans-sonic truss-braced wing (TBW) design Boeing is researching with NASA?

Unsurprisingly, Calhoun wouldn’t say.

“My view of the single aisle/twin decision is a decision for later, not for now. I say that because if I say to my team, ‘Make that choice now,’gGuess what happens? We develop that airplane just like middle of the market, everybody runs full speed. Can you imagine what our life would be like if we had a middle of the market airplane in full development right now without any of these new technologies embedded in them? Imagine what that would look like,” he said.

“You have to be patient, you have to get ducks lined up, the technologies lined up and matured. Then whatever they cater to with respect to that next airplane, it’s got to be a big enough market to satisfy our investors. I really don’t want to get to that question until other things are ready.”

A hint

But Calhoun did give a hint about what the next Boeing airplane will look like.

“That middle of the market airplane, we’re not going back to whatever that design was. I’ve never even looked at it. We’re simply going to continue to progress with the technologies that we have available to us. Composites. It’s hard for me to imagine us not taking full advantage of everything in the 787 and its composites. I have no doubt that will play a pretty significant role. All things with respect to the autonomy and flight controls that runs full speed and it’s transonic. Trust brace wing is also a very important technology once we get forward.

“[But] that would not lend itself to something at the high end of the seat capacity. That’s the best I can tell you. I know everyone would like me to stand up here and design the new airplane for you. That’s not going to happen.”

331 Comments on “Boeing’s Calhoun: Be patient for a new airplane

  1. Pure PR exercise:

    We are # 2 & we try harder…. Sounds like Avis!

    Not much meet there except the explicit acceptance of the 40 % share – now described as a positional advantage for nearby deliveries – and the continued blithe assumption that B will work out of its remaining distressed inventories by 2024 or so.

    No mention either of the possibility that other issues may be lurking in the B wood pile as some insiders are wary of.

    To be continued…

    • More like “we’re #2, and we’re proudly complacent about that.”

      “Not disadvantaged at all”, per Mister Calhoun [plus extra servings of Word Salad].


      • I would put it more accurately as reality while ignoring what got them there in the first place.

        In the -8 area, the best they could come out with is an A220-500 me to. That would kill off the -8 and when would you get a return with Airbus ahead in that area (and not profitable with the A220 despite getting it for $1 – and yes there is more involved but all post mess clean up)

        A 767 replacement or something in the 757-300 category likely has traction, but a huge investment in current tech.

        Now its a good question if Calhoun would go for it if it was snake tech and bit him in the arm, but I don’t see said tech there and none of us know what BCA marketing arm has on interest let alone commitment. Talk is cheap, Atlas (as I recall) was huge into Airbus A380F discussion but never made any commitment and dropped out.

        So, you gambled away your lifes savings (stock buy backs) and are up to your neck in debt and you only borrow money if its a sure thing.

        For all the dis on the 787, Boeing hit that market spot on and is the kind of commitment and interest you would need to put a bet down on a new aircraft.

        So yea, If I was in Calhoun’s shoes I would right the ship. There is a good product line in the MAX, 787 and the 777X (nice freighter sales).

        No question if the ship is righted Calhoun would go back to stock buy backs and excessive dividends but he will be gone in 5 years (or we can hope) and Boeing can get someone with vision and not a Welsh bean counter.

        • I actually thought what he said was quite promising. Previously he had ruled out an aircraft for 25 years, now it’s 10. And for a Boeing Exec, it’s not all cash flow, spreadsheets and business cases, he actually wants to build aeroplanes and is talking about the right stuff. Composites, TBW, its all stuff they should absolutely build on, and in regards to TBW (and perhaps the RISE) they are not going to turn up in the next 5 years, I think the timescales are lining up all right.

          • AW:

            The problem is can you believe a single thing of what he is saying?

            His past record says no and words are meaningless, its actions that count.

            In ten years Boeing will have a different CEO, we can hope in 5 years and get someone who truly has a track record of balance of the employees, the company and the stock holders (stock holders last, if you do the first two right then the third takes care of itself).

        • No reason to expect the next CEO to be anything other than another ex-GE clone of Jack Welch. Look at the history: Stonecipher, NcNermy, Muilenberg, Calhoun. All except Muilenberg were Welch’s guys, and Muilenberg turned out to be worst of the lot. (He boosted percentage of FCF returned to the shareholders from around 50% to over 100%.)

  2. “CFO Brian West reaffirmed free cash flow forecasts of about $10bn by the 2025 time frame”

    Did he give a breakdown as to what portions of that are expected to come from BCA, BDS and BCS?

    He’s already started rowing back on the projected cash flow for 2023…I suspect it won’t be long before we see a similar erosion of the 2025 projections.

    It’s hard to have consistently positive cash flow when you have no earnings.

    • If the C-Suite boys (and gals) can’t even manage to meet their FCF for current year, what chance they can get their act together as promised??

      Take a look at their own delivery projection: December 2020, Bloomberg
      -> “The forecast for depleting that inventory is roughly a *two-year time frame,” Calhoun said. “We are confident that can be done*.”

      What’s the success/failure rate of BA’s 737 MAX inventory clearance projection?

  3. Looks like supply chain issues may be easing somewhat:

    “Airbus seen delivering at least 60 jets in May”

    When I last counted (Tuesday evening), BCA’s May’s deliveries were also good:
    – MAX: 37
    – 787: 9
    and there’ll be a handful of 777Fs and 767Fs in there also.

    As with April and March, there were very few inventory planes among the MAX deliveries. However, it’s interesting to note that a 4.2 year-old MAX-8 delivered to United on May 30 was ntu by Hainan Airlines…so it looks as if BA may have quietly recommenced re-assigning ex-China frames to other customers. In contrast, about a quarter (14) of AB’s A320/A321 deliveries in May were to Chinese customers.

  4. “Competitions going forward with Airbus give the advantage to Boeing, which has earlier delivery positions available than does Airbus.”

    If that’s the case, then why is BA discounting up to the hilt on pricing…?

    • It’s not established that they are heavily discounted. Boeing has refuted this. And the market share with Airbus also supports this. And the majority of analysts also don’t see it as a major issue.

      • There’s plenty of evidence for it, and its starting to become clear to an increasing number of analysts.
        Of course Boeing has tried to refute this — it wouldn’t make for good news if it the company confirmed it, would it?
        It certainly is a major issue because it’s eroding earnings to the point where there’s no meat left on the bone.

        • Yep, Ryanair got their usual Boeing pays us to take the plane discount.

          Clearly Boeing discounted the 787 sales to Hawaiian Air, Airbus screamed like a gut shot pig. How dare you.

          But no one said it was at cost, just below what Airbus has determined the world has to sell aircraft for profit wise.

          Sorry Airbus, its a product, people wheel and deal, get over it.

          • I recall BA has recognized forward loss of $3.5 billion on the 787 program. It’s quite apparent even BA’s top executives realized sales proceeds are not sufficient to cover costs. Lol. What evidence do you want??

          • Its ironic that Airbus would moan about discounted pricing. Has Mr. Leahy been retired that long Airbus forgot?

          • @ williams
            Who’s “moaning about discounted pricing”?
            Discounting is standard in the aviation industry: the usual rate is 45-55%.
            But what’s not standard, is discounting to the point where no profit remains. This occurs at discount levels of about 65%.

            Now, have you seen BCA’s operating losses for the past 3 quarters? Good delivery numbers, and still a flatline EBIT. Know why? Over-discounting.

            In contrast, AB Commercial Aircraft has a very healthy EBIT. Can you guess why?

          • That is truly hilarious.

            Boeing can do what it wants and feels in its best interest on any transaction.

            And no one said Boeing did not make money on the Hawaian deal, they likely made less profit than Airbus has determined is what is allowed.

            But then Airbus speaks for itself. And the discounts on the A380 were truly insane. Airbus felt they had to and the reality was they did, it would not sell and hence went out of production.

            The MAX and the 787 are in production.

          • No. They don’t. But you believe otherwise and we’ve had that discussion before.

          • @ Rob

            Oh yes, Rob, the financials most certainly do say otherwise.

            But that just doesn’t suit your narrative, does it?

            And, yes: you did have that discussion before — and you got your ass handed to you on a plate 😉

          • Its perfectly clear Boeing has put itself in a hole and how much they are in the hole.

            Airbus will never tell us what the status of its subsidized aircraft are or what they claimed they would sell before they turn any money back (we know they have on the A320, claims are made for the A330 that have never been proven and the A380 was a total loss).

            What the deal on the A350 is remains a secret. Not what I would call transparency.

  5. Airbus will get more A321neo lines in production (China, Mobile, Toulouse) that the airlines need to compete against AA, DAL, Wizz, Ryanair, UAL +200 seat narrowbodies that now are becoming the norm. It used to be 150 seat 737-800 /A320 and now are 196-240 seats A321’s the norm. Another 15 years it could be 250-300 seats (like a oval carbon A300MkII with UDF’s).

  6. “You have to be patient, you have to get ducks lined up, the technologies lined up and matured. Then whatever they cater to with respect to that next airplane, it’s got to be a big enough market to satisfy our investors. I really don’t want to get to that question until other things are ready.”

    Satisfy the investors….

    Tells you all you need to know about the mindset, right there.

    • Frank:

      I am sure Boeing investors were satisfied until they were not.

      Its, keep the long range health of the company intact, then the money is truly there for the investors.

      That short term gain for long term pain is the wrong approach.

  7. On the same subject as the current LNA article:

    “Boeing’s 1st priority is current certifications before new jet”

    “Boeing will focus on successfully completing plane certifications, shoring up its supply chain and improving technologies in development before launching a new plane model, said Chief Executive Dave Calhoun.”

    “”It’s an enormous amount of work at scale to move through all of those certifications,” Calhoun said.

    “Mike Flemming, who heads Boeing’s development programs, said Wednesday that certification of the 737-7 was taking longer than expected.

    “The amount of documentation that we’re producing on these airplanes relative to what we’ve had to produce in the past is considerably much larger,” said Flemming, adding that the company still hopes to receive final approval for the jet by the end of the year.”

    Poor BA: now that self-cert is off the table, trying to get stuff up to certification standard has turned into a real slog…particularly with the EASA now being more actively involved…

    • The certification issues are well established as being related to increased rigor in preparation of documentation. Has nothing to do with “self-certification”, which all the regulators have denied, and was basically invented by the media.

      Very few design changes have come out of the increased rigor. It’s mainly a matter of closer adherence to, and support of, the statistical models for aircraft performance and safety.

      • -> “Designed by clowns … supervised by monkeys.”

        Nothing’s changed??

        • Obviously not with you, no.

          Here you have quoted Mark Forkner, whose attorney told the court those statements were exaggerations and not true.

          Which you know perfectly well, but are here again openly posting falsehoods. Doesn’t say much for credibility.

          • Didn’t it reflect what’s the mind set of those working in BA?
            The pressure for those BA workers to avoid flight sim training, the pressure to avoid mentioning MCAS in manual … oh, all falsehood??

            To bad no one is being held accountable. This is how the system works!

          • The usual sarcasm to justify a request from scavengers who always fly above a potential prey even if the lion is there (no pun intended)

            Pathetic to see motivated lawyers for a piece of the cake 🍰🎂

            It has already gone “pshit” the first time and will still “pshit” a second time, it won’t be the effect of a bomb.

            I feel bad for them…

          • The charges against Boeing resulted from the actions of the very same Mark Forkner. And the DPA specifies that he concealed those actions from Boeing as well.

            Boeing still is responsible for actions of their employed. So they agreed to the DPA

          • @ Rob
            Regardless of where they “come from”, the charges are against Boeing as a company.

            Hence, @Pedro is not indulging in “exaggerations”.

          • Pedro quoted false statements to make his point. Which is routine around here.

          • @ Rob

            Pedro posted perfectly correct statements.

            However, those statements didn’t suit your narrative, and you thus tried to create an alt-reality counter-narrative to dispel them.

            You do that a lot 😉

          • @Rob

            Of course it’s an exaggeration, it’s figurative speech. The text messages are there, the exchanges are there, what’s false??

            Hilarious that the same poster denies at every chance Boeing is selling below cost.

            BA should pull their act together and build a safer, better aircraft than waste effort on reputation management.

      • Good Lord — Rob is trying to tell us that “self-cert” never existed 😉
        Desperate times call for desperate measures!


        “How the FAA allows jetmakers to ‘self certify’ that planes meet U.S. safety requirements”


        “F.A.A. limits self-regulation privileges for Boeing.”


        “Boeing 737 MAX crisis: FAA to review self-certification program”

        • An *”invention”* of the media I guess, to badmouth a law abiding good citizen of the society. We live in alternate reality.

          • Rob, Bryce and Pedro …

            Anyone remember how the A340-500/-600 was certified?
            Launched in 1997 and roll out in 2002 without the wing being folded? The wings were completely new and the central box in CFRP.

            SO ?

            (!) Rob, don’t fall into their game

        • You are confirming what I said, it’s an invention of the media. Show me any authoritative source that makes this claim. I’ll wait.

          • Let’s turn it around, Rob: I’ve provided 3 links to back up my stance, but you’ve provided zero to back up yours.
            Provide us now with some links — otherwise this is just another one of your fantasies.

          • Then no authoritative source. As I stated. Check.

          • Still waiting on a relevant link from you, Rob.
            I suspect we’ll be waiting for a long time, seeing as it’s impossible to post a link to something that doesn’t exist 😉

            Meanwhile — although fond of accusing others of engaging in conspiracy theories — Rob indulges himself in the fantasy that the aviation media are somehow conspiring against Boeing…

            Desperate times call for desperate measures.

          • @Rob

            Only those messages authorized by BA can be accepted. Got it.

        • @Bryce

          Well, technically – he is correct.

          Boeing PAYS the ODA’s who certify the aircraft. They are supposed to work without pressure and act independently, as a rep of the FAA…but we all know how that works out.

          Now the authority for the ODA’s to certify the aircraft is revoked.

          “Employees within Boeing’s self-certification division are split nearly evenly on whether the company has made progress in addressing the problem of improper interference in the aircraft certification process.

          That is according to a new internal survey conducted by Boeing as part of efforts to improve safety following two 737 Max crashes and subsequent allegations of significant shortcomings.

          The survey found that 45% of “unit members” within Boeing’s Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) group say their concerns about internal interference remained unchanged during the last year.

          Another 49% said their concerns had lessened, while 6% said they had got worse.

          ODAs are divisions within aerospace manufacturers charged with performing product certification work on behalf of the US Federal Aviation Administration. Crucially, they are intended to be free of company interference.”

          Technically – they are working for the FAA.

          Ostensibly, they are BA employees certifying the aircraft.

          • Reportedly bullied and pressured by their BA supervisors. Oops.

      • Rob:

        While Boeing no longer can self certify, that was what got them into the problems in the first place. We can go back to the battery debacle on the 787 (from a tech standpoint its like watching the most gruesome horror show)

        The AOA assessment was cherry picked to justify not doing it right. Anyone who works with safety backups screamed when they saw a single AOA out could trigger the MCAS debacle.

        Shades of the single cowl position switch almost taking out a 747-400 over Jo Berg, same insane thinking so its not new (or was not)

        Boeing has been dragged kicking and screaming into compliance and each aircraft line has repeated it.

        So, yes its true they can’t self certify anything and they kept fighting the paperwork requirements until it was clear that was getting them no where.

        The FAA statement on the 777X was clear, Boeing group on that project were not getting it and trying to pull wool and getting smacked down for it.
        It taken too long to get their attention but each project seems to have got there.

        Boeing as so arrogant in its belief that it answered to no one it was a shock to find out that is no longer true.

        We need to see how it all plays out and if they can maintain new standards of behaviour.

        • TW, there is no authoritative assertion that Boeing ever self-certified. The IG report into the MAX certification confirmed this was not the case

          Also refuted by both FAA and EASA. It’s fundamentally false.

          People may choose to have that opinion if they wish. As some members of the media obviously have. But an opinion is all it is.

          • Rob:

            The tech end was that Boeing was allowed to set standards (MCAS and AOA) as well as specifications (787 battery)

            When the FAA is not doing its job, yes the self certified is fully justified (EASA also did not do their job).

            You can argue all you want, but when you do what you want when and where and how you want, then yea, its a self certified duck.

            That is no longer the case and the Duck is adjusting. Slowly, painfully, one program at a time kicking and screaming (behind the scenes) all the way.

            The system is now working hugely better.

            Having no accountability was fatal to two aircraft and a huge amount of luck others did not come down (and not all of those were Boeing related, the Trent 1000 engine debacle a case in point)

            It also lead into a huge gap in 787 production (yea, an ugly pun if there ever was one).

            That stopped when engineers started coming forward and it reflects a report done years back about massive issues on the 787.

            Boeing has no choice other than to comply. Hopefully the FAA sticks to its guns down the road and Boeing gets used to accountability.

          • Rob’s definitions:
            “Authoritative” = that which backs up Rob’s narrative.
            “Speculative” = that which is inconvenient to Rob’s narrative.

            Apart from that:
            Got any links to back up any of these otherworldly assertions, Rob?
            Or are they just the usual rabbit hole stuff?

      • I guess if you want to be specific – it’s the ODA’s that had the power to certify aircraft removed from them

        ODA unit members may be authorized to issue airworthiness certificates. The work flow for issuance of these certificates must meet FAA requirements, including an inspection of the aircraft and review of the aircraft certification data.

        You call it potato, I call it….still potato, but you get the point:

        Half of Boeing self-certification staff see improvement on improper company interference

        Employees within Boeing’s self-certification division are split nearly evenly on whether the company has made progress in addressing the problem of improper interference in the aircraft certification process.

        That is according to a new internal survey conducted by Boeing as part of efforts to improve safety following two 737 Max crashes and subsequent allegations of significant shortcomings.

        The survey found that 45% of “unit members” within Boeing’s Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) group say their concerns about internal interference remained unchanged during the last year.

        Another 49% said their concerns had lessened, while 6% said they had got worse.

        ODAs are divisions within aerospace manufacturers charged with performing product certification work on behalf of the US Federal Aviation Administration. Crucially, they are intended to be free of company interference.

        • Good comment and an added note, the one step still needed is for the ODA to report to the FAA per previous.

          Still not perfect but nothing is and it would be the best there is to ensure no backsliding down the road by the FAA as there is always pressure to do so.

          Maconda is a case in point, regs put back into place and enforced and then they immediately began to try to dismantle them.

        • Again if you read the IG report, it documents that FAA distributed the MAX certification responsibility in the expected way for aircraft certification.

          And even now, there has been only a minor shift in the timing of how that responsibility is distributed (FAA retains more initially before distributing).

          Nor was there any claim that the ODA distribution contributed to lack of recognition of the MCAS changes.

          As explained, the major difference now is in the rigor of standards for documentation. That is where the failure ocurred. The ODA authority remains an integral part of aircraft certification, as much as it ever was.

          This is why the self-certify claims are false, and have always been. As has been reinforced by every authoritative source, without exception.

          • Ahh, I see my friend Rob is going with the ‘No True Scotsman’ ploy here. Maybe that commenter can
            help us understand if Boing has *any* aircraft
            programs not presently undergoing re-work..

          • You mean this report?


            ‘Moreover, the Boeing ODA process and structure do not ensure ODA personnel are adequately independent. While the Agency has taken steps to develop a risk-based oversight model and address concerns of undue pressure at the Boeing ODA, it is not clear that FAA’s current oversight structure and processes can effectively identify future high-risk safety concerns at the ODA.’

            One of their recommendations:

            ‘Revise ODA program requirements to ensure ODAs have internal controls in place and are organized in a way that prevents interference with ODA unit members.’

            Even Donnie’s claims of ‘fake news’ are catching up with him…

          • So, Rob, pulling smoke out of the rabbit hole again, are you?

            Why do you even bother, seeing as you get caught out every time?

          • Yes Frank, independence of the ODA delegated was flagged as an issue because of interference and obstruction from Boeing managers, which was documented in a few instances.

            In response, FAA did not do away with ODA, they strengthened the reporting chain and independence.

            But that is not at all the same issue as “self-certification”. The report found no evidence that occurred.

            Again, if you can find any authoritative source that says it did, I’m listening.

            In the meantime, representing one thing as another is not very credible.

          • @ Rob

            Still no links to back any of that up?
            My-oh-my, you do have a very vivid fantasy, don’t you? 😉

          • To be clear, there were issues under the original ODA and there were worse ones after the congressional changes.

            Anyone that has worked for a living knows that its all about who you report to and what pressure is brought.

            To flippantly contend it was a lack of a documentation signore the regulatory putrefy Boeing had achieved with the FAA.

            Picking one AOA for activation was knowingly cherry picking as Boeing is well aware of ALL the AOA failures and types (and we saw one of each in the two MAX crashes).

            Its not a documentation issue when you ignore ramp hits and bird strikes as major factors affecting an AOA. That is beyond stupid and clearly is deliberate.

            Seeing as how Rob did not have a camera and a voice recording on all the activities that went on with MCAS, he is creating fiction.

            There was no in depth line by line investigation, it picked up on the broad points of it but it did not get into all the details of who put pressure on who and when and where.

            I had those same occurrences and in the end I quit calling out safety issues. If anything had happened I would have had to live with it.
            I did not hide from myself what I was doing , when management joins the dark side and there is no system in place to catch them at it, you make those decisions.

          • Following these comments proves any belief that BA has turnaround and put safety as its top priority is apparently misplaced.

          • I would put it as Boeing is being forced to adhere to safety. The other MAX issues or the gaps on the 787 would not have seen the light of day (and this is an assume, at least some inspectors feel safe enough to report those issues now).

            Frankly as long as Boeing makes safe products I don’t care how they get there.

            Well I do, preferred is a culture of safety but with the mess that was there, take what we can get and continue to work on it getting better.

            But take Calhoun word for anything? No I am not buying that Bridge in Brooklyn.

    • The EASA ?

      This also seems for the A321XLR and the A350F.

      The certification would have slipped too…👍

  8. (Calhoun:)“That middle of the market airplane, we’re not going back to whatever that design was. I’ve never even looked at it.”

    Don’t know what to think about that. Half the industry was specifying, guestimating & doing pre-announcements, commitments for MoM, NMA, 797..

    And Calhoun says he never even looked it. (while Airbus started selling A321s by the thousands).

    Akward.. or simply not truth, again? This all sounds like a CEO dictated by his creditors, authorities, stakeholders.

    • That caught my eye as well!

      I personally was never very interested in the whole thing as it looked a bit like Boeing fanboys searching desperately for a niche that Airbus had overlooked. Endless debates on going into mind-numbing detail, which to my engineer’s eyes had more than a hint of blowhards thinking they knew better than everyone else.

      Anyway… glad to hear that there’s a hint of something new at last – after years of navelgazing and trying to squeeze every drop out of the old designs (and suppliers) maybe it took some calamities to shake them out of it.

      • While I agree you should alwyas look at a project and see what is there so you can evaluate future ones.

        Calhoun reminds me of a dwarf potted plant, it came up but its going no where.

      • Norm:

        Please do not give cowboys a bad name, I know a number of them and they are hard working sober people (and cowgirls)

        Yea back in the day at the end of a cattle drive the herders raised hell in Dodge city but that was not all cowboys, its a rough life, drinking was the only way to get over pain (we got better stuff now!)

  9. A buggy chatbot couldn’t have designed a worse CEO of an aerospace company

    • For what ?

      What would you have done in his place as CEO?

      Did you just have an idea?
      I’m all ears…!

      • Well even a zero has use as a placeholder!

        So I have to agree he is the perfect guy for doing nothing which may be the right thing at this time and place but its also what got Boeing into this time and place in the first place.

        • TransWorld

          So you admit half-word that it is no more responsible than the “Boeing before”, you know those who could have replaced the 737, instead there was the NG.
          This one was very good but it didn’t have enough ground clearance, while the 737-900 was limited and then the 737 was pushed to the MAX limit.
          Calhoun worst decisions?

          Boeing could have paired the program with the 777 in the early 90’s as seen with the 757/767 a decade before…

          So don’t build yourself with Calhoun

          • Checklist:

            I am having a hard time sorting through the verbiage.

            I always advocated for a replacement 737 before the NG came out.

            To be clear, I think you could replace Calhoun with a rock and do just as well.

            What I do not know nor have I any link into Boeing market research and what would or would not work let alone the aircraft that would achieve that (or try to)

            It seems that Airbus has set the standard with the A321 going over 50% or the market (between it and the A320).

            If true then the A220 becomes an adjunct and it may not be a market you want to do a product development in. A nice one for Airbus as they have the product for it and don’t have to develop it and a natural takeover of the A320 in an A220-500 version.

            Unless Boeing had a market direction that they could point to as a huge success, they are better off with the existing. They do worse in the single aisle, the 787 can’t be beat and we have to see where the 777X goes.

            Boeing has a lot of debt to pay off. They still have programs that are erratic, MAX7 and -10 are behind and the 777X ship needs to be righted.

            There may be an area in the 250 pax class single aisle or as Bjorn would say, heart of the market and it may be a light weight wide body or a modern and lighter 767.

            It all needs to know the market and interest / commitment and only Boeing and Airbus to a degree know that.

            In the meantime as long as Captain Zero is not doing any harm, he is not going to be replaced though he is clearly the poster child for failure.

      • I’ll bite:

        Remember that $43 billion in buybacks? Sell those, pay off the debt, get the balance sheet in order and get the bean counters out of the way.

        How’s that for a start?

        • I think they tried but priced them at $300 a share and got laughed out of the room.

          I guess Calhoun has not been back since.

          Now, sell that same stock for $100 a share and you would have a land rush.

          • You saw the buybacks article?

            Those share are still worth more than they paid for them, at it’s current market value around $200.

            The money is there, to pay off the debt and right the ship.

          • @Frank:

            I heard the inventory is as good as cash, just cash flow “deferred”. Good times are coming, too. Give *hope* a chance(TM).

          • Frank:

            I am not looking at a mild share success, I am looking to created a land rush so that they sell so much stock they pay off the debt and stash 15 billion for a new aircraft.

          • Ah who’s looking after shareholders’ interest? They want quick return to flip stock, not long-term success.

  10. “Boeing CEO Sees 737 Max Gaining in China Amid ‘Fits and Starts’”

    “The US manufacturer is working to restart deliveries of the 737 Max, its top source of revenue, in China after a four-year halt. Over that hiatus, arch-rival Airbus SE grabbed the lead in a market that had traditionally been split evenly between the two manufacturers. China’s home-grown planemaker, Comac, has meanwhile gained a foothold with its recently launched C919 jet.”


    Three Chinese carriers have canceled MAXs since December, one Chinese carrier recently returned a MAX to a lessor, and ex-Chinese MAXs are still being delivered by BA to new customers outside China (most recently just 2 days ago). Maybe such phenomena are just examples of the “fits and starts” to which the article alludes…

    • The reason for this is well known. The US opposes the military expansion of the Chinese in the Western Pacific, at the behest of all the nation there, except North Korea. And the Chinese Communist Party controls what the Chinese airlines do.

      Each time the US does a freedom of navigation exercise, or provides for the defense of Taiwan, Boeing’s opportunities are in China are diminished. But it’s an accepted cost for the benefit & stability it brings.

      Airbus has taken advantage of that, with Macron visiting China to help secure those deals, while the US has his back. Which is fine, we don’t begrudge them those opportunities. But neither do we forget what makes them possible.

      • Rob:

        Speak for yourself, I begrudge Macon every bit, piece and rivet.

        At some point letting China play off Europe and the US needs to stop. Airbus is not a Chinese company no matter what Macron thinks.

        • Macron looks out for his people. Unfortunately U.S. is bold enough to tell Koreans not to eat its lunch. Shouldn’t Yoon have the backbone to stand up for his people? 🙁

      • @ Rob
        We don’t need a tired, polarized lecture in how the US is “bravely standing up to China”; in the rest of the world, this is just seen as posturing out of frustration that there’s a new kid on the block.

        My comment centered on the fact that recent developments vis-à-vis the MAX in China are at complete variance with Dave’s stance in the quote.

        • But you do still need to represent the truth correctly. Still a learning curve on that, unfortunately.

          But no worries. I will continue to assist you in that endeavor.

          • We love receiving your “assistance” here, Rob — it’s always so entertaining…particularly your very personal definition of “truth” 😉

          • Rob:

            Well that was funny, now to get back to the real world and reality.

            You clearly do not have a balanced look at Boeing. That can be as off track as Bryce comments.

            In a very long career, I found that if you learn from your mistakes, you can make progress as being better and even good.

            I was once accused of patting myself on my back for how good I was. Nope, success just meant I knew what I was doing, it was the thing I was off track on or had wrong I needed to deal with and went home every night with that attitude.

            Boeing went the wrong way and share buy back and stock share to execs is not the way to success. It not just rewards failure, it encourages it.

            Calhoun should have all stock options removed and his salary pegged to how much debt Boeing has.

  11. Thanks Scott, a pretty good summation. Calhoun better not speak about future products, its not the venue to do so. That is the NDA and airline customers domain.

    Impressed with Calhoun’s statement on marketshare. It happened, it was lost and now moving forward.

    • He’s executed a plan for 3+ years that has failed to make a profit or hit any BCA milestones, so since this isn’t a book, let’s narrow to only the 737.
      1) Would not have canned 737 VPGM Eric L.
      2) Would have transitioned from Eric to Elizabeth L smoothly, giving her full prioritized RAA to get back 2019 rates and to empty stored aircraft
      3) Would not have allowed BCA senior people to take voluntary layoffs in 2020 w/severance. Would have financed this with the free money uncle sugar offered during COVID-19 that he poo-poohed

      I could go on for a thousand more words just on the 737, and it goes on for the rest of BCA, let alone BDS and the support functions.

      Back to u. His most significant accomplishment as CEO is???

      • Stabilizing the company.

        But he is not the future. Hoping my brother from another mother Mr. Colbert gets that role.

        • How do you possibly come to the conclusion that the company is “stabilized”?

          It’s down to just $8B in cash, and still has no earnings (and won’t have in Q2, either, according to analyst consensus); it has barely scratched the surface as regards paying off debt; it still bogged down trying to get basic certifications done; it’s lost several high-profile customers to Airbus; it’s selling at discounts that strip the meat off of the earnings bone; it’s reeling from the effects of a brain drain; and it won’t be coming with any new aircraft for the next decade.

          And that’s “stabilized”…?

          • @ williams
            Got any links to dispel the issues that I mentioned in my list above?
            Of course not, since that would require you to post actual substance…

          • No its your opinion, not going to argue with you on your opinion.

            If I jump back into Boeing again, it would have nothing to do with your opinion. But you are welcome for the links to share your insightful knowledge.

            One more thing Google generation. Not every piece written was saved to a link. Yet that does not mean it was not printed or said.

          • @ williams

            Not an “opinion” at all — just take a good look at BA’s quarterly reports and regulatory filings from the past 3-4 years…it’s all in there.

            But such a hands-on action would be very inconvenient for someone who prefers to cling to an “all will be well” fantasy, wouldn’t it? 🙈

          • “How do you possibly come to the conclusion that the company is “stabilized”?”
            Limping along on the floor is good enough when the bar is set low enough.

  12. Weren’t composites considered and previously rejected due to insufficient savings on single-aisle aircraft?

    • Wasn’t BA’s MoM pipedream going to be a small widebody, à la 767?

      Apart from that: of course he’s going to try to and talk about composites, because “composites” is one of the “hot terms du jour” on his Bullsh#t Bingo card.
      It’s a wonder that he didn’t try to talk-up “AI” somewhere. Other essential terms du jour are “sustainable”, “shareholder value” (he certainly mentioned that) and “technological leadership” (he referenced that, also).


      • You forgot the whiz bang production design thingamajig. Supposed to save billions….

        • hes already explained the ‘whizbang production design thingamajig’ – a childish explanation’- is not yet mature or non existent ( engines)
          Do try to keep up

          Many forget now it was 14 years between the 777 go ahead and that for the 787 ( then called 7E7) and instead theres the derivatives ( Max) and almost all new 777X since the 787.

          Customers it seems cant get enough of planes like the 35 yr old A321 so be it.

          • @ Frank wasn’t referring to BA’s (non-existent) next plane — he was referring to this meaningless bullsh#t:

            “This quarter, we stood up an integrated product team to bring together a digital environment where the next commercial new airplane and production system can be designed together. While we have not launched a new airplane, this is an important step in our digitization journey and our development journey to evaluate how we holistically design, build, test, certify and support the airplane and production system. It will build on the invaluable experience of our recent Defense programs.”


            Forgotten already?

          • Spot on, Bryce.

            I find Scott’s last paragraph very telling:


            Preparing for the NBA
            Setting aside that the derivative 777XF appears to be the next Boeing airplane, what Calhoun and Boeing are talking about is the next clean-sheet design. Boeing hopes to compress the launch-to-entry into service to four or five years. The 787’s original plan was 4 ½ years (December 2003 to May 2008). EIS didn’t occur until October 2011, but there were extraordinary issues as we all know. Recent airplane development typically took about seven years launch-to-EIS.

            Given Boeing’s recent track record in developing new aircraft, it faces huge challenges in converging all the advanced technology into one commercial aircraft and successfully bringing it to market. A major shift back to the basics, returning to its engineering roots, is a must.

            Let’s see if Calhoun will pull this off.


            Since Calhoun will be out the door by 2035, he’s not pulling anything off.

          • ” While we have not launched a new airplane, this is an important step in our digitization journey and our development journey ..”

            Which is in finer detail exactly what the technologies arent mature enough means
            *Important step* is how they are working on these methods now so they are ready when the go ahead comes – which also connects to the plain fact of no new launch yet

            Do try to read your own quotes in future.

    • @ Ron

      Yes, the benefits of composites vs costs are nil on a NB. With that said, over time the costs of composite manufacturing has come down. So we will see.

      • And there is agreement that a composite wing is the way to go as it can be designed and built with maximum efficiency.

    • Yes, it is much harder to make the cost efficient saving on a narrowbody doing 1-3hr jumps all days. You do only the wings in carbon and maybe the most corrosion sensitive areas of the fuselage. Lots of other parts are made of medium strength composites like cabin and cargo panels and floors.

  13. Thank you LNA for this interesting article. We see that LNA wanted to get Calhoun to talk and responded in the most honest way…

    Are there still people in 2023 who think that building an aircraft is like building a car, or a bus or a truck?
    The market is huge for them, and Mercedes or Man can’t be wrong. What if aircraft could be delivered with much less risk and as quickly as buses? But this is not the case.

    Calhoun is straight and right.
    He criticizes the middle of market because it’s a real niche
    The -XLR only sold 600 copies against 1,200 737MAX-10s to compare the two, launched a year apart!

    He’s saying if you think I’m going to “run my team” to “collect the crumbs of the market”, (or be 50-50 or sell 200 NMA/797 only) and then look ridiculous in front of shareholders “this- it just won’t happen”


    Nothing has changed since his declarations in November 2022, and I have always said here that MOM is too weak to launch anything including the -XLR at rather poor sales

    He was honest when he returned to the drawing board in January 2020 when he was taken
    of function as CEO.

    He wanted to “know everything about widebody and narrowbody” as he said, but that is no longer enough and “things have changed with China”, … “We have to do something with China”, so an even tighter market because of the path Trump took in 2017.

    Then, “the basics of the concept were thrown” (in the Metaverse) in September 2022, and was inconclusive.

    Calhoun had previously said that the size of the aircraft matters very little but that inexpensive assembly was the bit aimed at.
    So he says he “don’t watch it” means it’s no longer interesting to watch as long as
    the CFM RISE Open Fan engine does not come to market which would favor a Ultra-efficient 2-class 130-150 seat small aircraft launch.

    The initial plan to launch NMA or other “development effort” with GEnX or Leap-56 is no longer “watchable”, as RR stepped away from the competition in 2019. This is the most relevant interpretation and reasonable that one can IMHO have.

    If Boeing launches something now and you run people around with something other than the CFM RISE when a TBW is soon to be flight tested, that would be absurd to any employee and ridiculous to shareholders.
    Therefore it will not “happen” to please everyone, is not enough…

    • So if Boeing replaces the 737 (in the air with revenue service in 2035) that would make the 737 production run (1965 to 2035) 70 years….case study in harvesting a product line? might not be recoverable…

    • Whoa there Sport,

      You comparing the Max 10 and the XLR?

      The XLR is the 757-200 (3,900 NM) replacement, with a range of 4,700NM.

      The Max 10 get’s you 3,300 NM, the shortest of any of the Max family. The A220 can fly the same range.

      The 757-200 sold 913 units. So 600 is two-thirds of the niche, so far – and it’s not even in service yet.

      Your Max 10? That competes with the A321Neo, which has 4,667 orders (600 of them being the XLR) and 1,000 in service.

      4 to 1.

      • Max 9 and Max 10 as there is only 2 seat rows difference, together compete with A321

        XLR is a different sub type , with much higher weight and internal fuel capacity, uneconomic on the 90% of single aisle routes that are under 2500nm. Its a poor cousin to the 757 replacement market

          • Absolutely, sales are poor for an aircraft with quite deep modifications (600 A321-XLR’s)

            Look at the LCC / A321 /737MAX-9/-10 market especially the last one which was launched almost at the same time and you will understand…(+1200)

          • The MAX-200 is just one subtype.
            Boeing didn’t even need to certify it, it’s still a MAX-8 with an increased density in the number of seats and an additional door for evacuation. (like -9 and -10)

            Unlike -XLR which brings quite profound changes. It’s not the same case

          • “Boeing didn’t even need to certify it”

            -> On April 6, 2021, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) granted certification for the Boeing 737 MAX 8200 aircraft, the high-density variant Boeing developed for the low-cost market.

            Following in the footsteps of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European regulator approved the commercial use of the MAX 8200


          • The 8200 Max variant:
            “Boeing said. It required a separate FAA approval because it has an additional exit and some associated training, an official said.”

            It would be the smallest level of certification change, the training as mentioned and some more words on the TCDS ( which starts with the 737-100!)

          • @Duke

            Still it a separate sub type, isn’t it? You can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth.

            How come these posters all share similar mentality: pick whatever is convenient and discard ASAP when it doesn’t fit their narratives?

          • My comment is based on original sources explaining why – Easa fact sheets and other information – the training.

            Even a increase in gross weight requires certification , doesnt make them a variant either . They are practically purposes trivial changes and certification work would reflect that.

        • Sure….Max 9 and 10…1,400 orders vs 4000 A321Neo’s.

          Two seat rows, huh? 12 pax is nothing, right?

          I guess the proof is in the pudding and the airlines have spoken…

          …with their pocketbook.

          ‘Its a poor cousin to the 757 replacement market’

          Didn’t you ever hear that running down the competition is poor salesmanship? What does BA have to offer to counter the XLR?

          • I thought for years top executives from BA insisted they had hit perfectly the bullseye, the core of the market with MAX 8 and that’s where they focused their efforts.

            Still our posters adopt similar effort to persuade whoever listen to them.

    • Short and medium-haul routes from 200 seats:

      MAX9 orders = 306
      MAX10 orders = 1070
      total orders: = 1376
      In services: = ~ 120? (all MAX9)
      As of April 2023

      A321Neo Orders = 4,072 (without XLR)
      On service: = 990
      Data through the end of March 2023

      NMM area
      A321XLR Orders: = ~ 600
      In services: = 0
      Data through the end of April 2023

      No aircraft on offer

      The MAX9 and MAX10 (not even certified) are significantly underperforming 1 to 3 in orders and 1 to 8 in service.
      The MAX9 and 10 do not compete with A321XLR. Both types clearly lack the range for this. Each A321NEO is clearly better in range with significantly more seats. The LR subtype with 206 seats is clearly the king here.

      The XLR has no counterpart from Boeing and will not get one either. Airbus can generate high margins with the XLR without much discount. The XLR will make Airbus rich and will probably sell off 1000 units, at least at a profit of 15 to 20 million US dollars per aircraft, since there is no competition from Boeing!

      Finally, stop making that silly dumb comparison of MAX9 and 10 versus the XLR. This is elementary school level and deeply unworthy of this blog.

      • Sam:

        The -9 indeed does not compete with the A321, its a nice adjunct to the -8/800 and may be come the new normal.

        The -10 does indeed compete with the A321 though they have not tried to make it an uber long range aircraft, that is a niche market.

        The MAX and A320 series are often vastly over ranged for the missions they fly.

        Considering Boeing was late to the A321 space, the -10 is doing well.

        At least they have a generally competitive product in that segment which they never had previously (let me amend that, they are working to certify it)

        • They had the 757, then discovered it was too expensive to update as it had unique engines that became very expensive to operate vs the A321 that had a slightly wider fuselage that came creeping into 757 territory. By then Boeing should have bit the bullet and made a modern version when they did the 777. The 777 started as a 767 derivative but wiesly enough they listened to its customers thru working toghether teams and came up with a winner. They could have repeated that with a 757 replacement just 1-2″ wider than the A320 instead of spending the money on other things. That decision was the end of old Boeing.

    • The problem for Boeing is that 200-240 pax is the new norm. It was different in the 757 days when 130-150 pax was the norm and 200 seaters was for the heavy trunk routes only. Now they are limited when a number of customers ask for more flexibility in range of the 240 seaters with the economy of a 737-800.

  14. Michael and Bryce

    Am I the only one who thinks that the Boeing haters are taking over the situation as wishful thinking ?

    Do they hope that Boeing will throw anything (now) and make a major mistake?

    Yet everything leads to believe it. Doing something better than the A32Xneo family in 2035 seems like a cataclysm for them lol…

    My point is that they are wrong and
    Calhoun is right 👍

    • What we do know is Calhoun was a full on participant in stock buy back and dividends and no product.

      Its like having a Pet Rock lead your company.

      Doing nothing now may be the right strategy, but Calhoun showed he was a do nothing regardless (want to count up on all the failures he is involved in?)

      Right strategy for the wrong reasons.

      • Calhoun is strategy forward is wishy-washy, from a digital environment to lower cost of development and production, to hail Mary we sit on our hands until angels descend to tell where to go for the next design.

    • Checklist,

      I sincerely think you are taking this the wrong way.

      Losses in 2019. 2020. 2021. 2022. Same thing in 2023.
      65-35 narrow body split.

      We’re telling you what’s wrong – but you’re saying it’s right.

      OK. We’ll see you at the end of the quarter.

        • …and yet you fail to accept it, calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you a ‘hater’.

          I tried…

          • Precisely you have “tried” the thing too much and you have more than worn it out

            we are talking about potential aircraft launch in 2030…

            So please bring your “toy” figures elsewhere.

            Off topic

          • Jeez Checklist

            These are all Boeing’s figures.

            Why are you so rough on them? Why so hard on Calhoun? He’s the one who said they are conceding the NB market to Airbus for the future…

            Are you going to write BA and tell them their figures are ‘toys’? Let us know what West has to say about your comments.


  15. Everybody trashing Calhoun because he said he’s not launching a new plane. You people need to get over this crap. Because anybody asking Boeing to launch a plane right now, sounds like a child with an aeroplane obsession. There’s a gap in the MOM for a reason, it’s not worth the investment. The best MOM aircraft is the 321NEO. People praise the NEO but forget one of its biggest advantages; commonality with its smaller sibling. That ability to grow to the size of the 321 from the 320 is so so crucial to the business case of the jet. Launching a clean sheet in that space is a dead horse. The business case never ever ever closed because it was lukewarm. I don’t know why that is so hard for people to understand

    Had Boeing had the max10 ready 3 years Ago I’m sure it would’ve done a good job at giving the NEO a bit of a competition but it’s just not there. Even as it is now I think it’s gotten to about 1000 orders if not more. That’s twice what the 900ER got and we haven’t gotten to the end of the year.

    Calhoun is doing what best he can. A business struggling to get its already in development planes out should launch something else? Like which business case can possibly support something so stupid.

    Even XLR is looking like a 2025 EIS at this point with the regulatory hurdles.

    I think Calhoun is doing what needs to be done focusing on actually fixing the line-up, instead of wasting money on obsolete tech.

    • Nnaeto:

      You need to read at least my remarks.

      I am not trashing Calhoun for not bringing out a new aircraft.

      I am trashing him for being the zit he is and representative of what got Boeing into a mess in the first place as well as a full fledged participant.

      The “Oh I did not know what was going on” when he was on the board is more lame than the dog ate my homework.

      Calhoun has all the leadership skills of my mentioned potted plant.

      Boeing if it has a future is under someone a whole lot more capable than a rock.

    • What’s this, childish views expressed here at Leeham? People bashing on Boeing and Calhoun without cause? How could that possibly be? 🙂

      All kidding aside, this is a good assessment. Calhoun has steered Boeing though some potentially fatal circumstances. Recovery and improvement has been slow but sure. Most important has been the return to openness about issues they face.

      • @TransWorld

        What do you have to prove with such charges?

        This one goes back much further than Calhoun.

        Although I have respect for P. Condit ex Boeing CEO he led to the absorption of Mc Donnel Douglas and had a deep admiration for the GE CEO J. Welsh.

        So if Boeing was where it was again what is the point of your post if not polluting sarcasm? Where is the objectivity?

        (!) Please understand my point.
        It goes way too far to accuse just ONE man…

        • Rob:

          On the other side of all those rain clouds is sunshine, hmmm.

          I don’t see Calhoun has done anything other than fail the company. He was on the board for years before and his response was he did not know what was going on.

          You are trying to present Calhoun as something other than Captain Clueless.

          Sure the Captain of the Titanic did a good job of being stoic after he hit the iceberg, better (something around 1500 dead) would have not to hit the iceberg in the first place.

          Clearly Boeing issues are long standing and Calhoun is just the last of a series of zits in charge. Equally the FAA has long had issues that needed to be addressed and it is not as simple as the ODA though that is a major factor.

    • Who’s bashing Boeing?

      Boeing bashes itself every day…and we’re just commenting on it.

      • Pot looked at the Kettle and both just got up left the room after reading that comment.

  16. I have been a critic of many aspects of Calhoun’s leadership.

    I give him credit though for turning around the flagging sales effort at BCA since the beginning of the year.

    The newly appointed head of sales is off to an amazing start with deals like Air India and Ryanair.

    • Here’s the thing about those sales;

      Like Rob is quick to point out, we have no way to know how deep BA is discounting their orders, in order to secure them.

      What we do have are the financial results and the margin it generates. Those aircraft are going out the door losing money…

      • There’s plenty of indirect evidence regarding discounting on recent orders.
        But that’s inconvenient to the narrative from the BA Back Office — who thus discount the evidence because it doesn’t come from an “authorative source”.

        As you point out, the quarterly financial reports reflect the excessive discounting — but the BA Back Office doesn’t actually understand those reports 😉

      • And those sales are there for the taking as Boeing has a lot of room in the lineup to make those. Airbus can shift and shuffle but they have firm commitments and if the ones who want the aircraft now insist, then Airbus can’t sell them to someone else (yes you can work various deals and discounts to help out).

        BCA is the one driving the sales bus not Calhoun, he is too busy counting his beans and what his stock is worth and can he cash out and run?

        In reality its not Bryce doom and gloom and its not Rob that its a bright sunny 65 deg day with humidity at 40%.

        I want to see Boeing succeed, all evidence says Calhoun is nothing more than a placeholder.

        What we have not seen is what he would do if Boeing suddenly was out of debt.

        His track record says its back to share buy back.

        • Only 3 Asia -Pacific airlines have 777X orders, 7 or 8 airlines with 300 of the 350 orders are not focused there at all.

          Like most of your other factoids , just inventions

          • Duke, speaking of “inventions”- do you have an update on the ABC article about the ongoing Boing 737MAX issues from *last year*, that you said would quickly be retracted as incorrect? “Stay tuned!” were your words if I’m not mistaken, so I’m just checkin’ back..

            [sound of crickets]

  17. “Calhoun said that while Boeing of course wants to resume deliveries to China, the company can get along without this big market.”

    …that’s a screaming 180 from a C suite executive! Was it a decade ago the such people were saying that if you are not in China you are not in business? This is another dot from an insider to be joined up.

    Only a few weeks ago Berkshire Hathaway revealed they had divested their interests in Taiwanese chip maker TSMC having only bought into it last year. BH NEVER makes such short term trades. Another dot.

    I’ve looked at the flight deck videos of the C919 and from what I’ve seen, I can’t fault it. There’s a dot right there.

    Joining up the dots, only a few of which are from the world of commercial aviation but important non-the less what picture is emerging?

    BCA’s new 777 is an Asia/Pacific airliner with EIS that will coincide with the China wars the effect of which will linger well into the ’30’s depriving the type of its raison d’être.

    Past 2032 the world will be unrecognisable from the world we live in today. Whatever world we do live in (if any) post the China wars BCA’s model line up will consist of only two types; B787 and the NMA.

    • In a recent epitome, BA revealed that it’s setting its sights on India rather than China.
      Mind you, the Air India order still isn’t firmed up — for either OEM (though A321neos are being delivered to Air India from lessors).
      Akasa, though, has willingly taken BA whitetails that nobody else wanted.

  18. “Boeing Indefinitely Delays Starliner Crew Flight Test as New Problems Emerge”

    “Boeing and NASA said today the Crew Flight Test of Boeing’s Starliner commercial crew transportation system, scheduled for July 21, is delayed indefnitely. Two new problems were just discovered and a new date cannot be set until they determine exactly what needs to be done and implement the fixes. Boeing is under a fixed price contract and will have to absorb any additional costs. Just last week, NASA’s panel of outside safety advisors recommended an independent review of the Starliner program, but NASA has not agreed to create one.”

    • So once again, here is the truth, from the authoritative source:

      1. Parachute soft links were found to have an error in the ultimate load calculations. In actual tests over the last few days, the links failed at the lower loads of the corrected analysis. The links satisfy the limit load requirements, but without the desired safety factor of twice the limit load. So the links will require reinforcement or replacement.

      2. The wiring protection tape was found to have a higher flammability potential in the application, due to the adhesive, than the certification rules allow. There are specific vulnerable cables that may require over-wrapping, for additional safety margin.

      The parachute problem was found during spacecraft certification, when the contractor Airborne was asked to reproduce their calculations for the as-built case. They found the error and notified Boeing.

      The tape problem was found in earlier incidents with other spacecraft, which changed the requirements for using the tape. Due to ambiguity on the revised specs, they were not applied to the entire Starliner harness. The limit is on the ability of the power carried in a cable, to initiate flammability in the adhesive, assuming the tape and wire insulation are damaged.

      The tape is used throughout the space industry, on ISS and many spacecraft. After the 2019 incident, the application rules were changed, and the changes were not applied to Starliner,which was already constructed. But it cannot be certified without those changes.

      On the ASAP panel recommendations, NASA responded by embedding engineers in the certification, who have a reporting chain up through the office of the chief engineer, who prepares reports and documentation for ASAP. Thus ASAP has direct insight into the process.

      This is the standard method by which NASA addresses those concerns.

      • We don’t need your “clarification” Rob — the story is perfectly clear from the link I posted.

        Boeing has postponed the launch of the Starliner indefinitely due to the discovery of 2 new serious glitches — and it has to foot the bill for the delay.

        No waffling required, thanks.

          • About half the delay has been due to scheduling conflicts at ISS. There are only two ports available to receive Dragon and Starliner.

            One question asked in the media conference, was whether Starliner will get bumped again in the fall, due to low priority. The ISS manager said he would avoid that if he can, but he is constrained by other missions.

          • @Rob

            In layman’s terms, BA has significant delays and fails to deliver what it promised?

        • Facts and context, to which you are allergic. And why you refer to selected quotes from Internet articles, rather than the authoritative sources which provide the true information.

          • Tell me again about how well the thrusters worked?

            The reality is Space X has been up and running for some time and Boeing has not got its act together.

            To quote NASA, we thought we could trust Boeing to do things right and we put our efforts more into Space X. We were wrong.

            A mental picture of a clown car comes to mind.

            Any one item, yea things happen. When you have so many and your capsule is not even ready to dock, then Houston, we have a problem.

            Boeing should just give it up. Its obviously no longer in their tool set to build space capsules.

          • “authoritative sources” according to the R.o.b., of course. The ones that daily butter his bread..

            #noTrueScotsman fallacy

          • @ Rob

            Plenty of facts and context in my original link.
            No need for your panicked “damage control” narrative on top of what I already posted 😉

  19. Regarding AB vs BA in China:

    “Safran delivers first A320neo propulsion systems made in China”

    “Safran Nacelles has delivered the first LEAP 1-A propulsion systems, namely engines and nacelles, to Airbus from its new site in Tianjin, China.

    “Safran delivered LEAP 1-A engines and nacelles, one of the two engine options available for use on A320neo family aircraft, from its Chinese facility on May 31, 2023.

    “According to the French company, which has a total of four nacelle integration sites across the world, the delivery “embodies Safran’s desire to be as close as possible to its aircraft manufacturer customers, to support the growth of the Chinese market”.

    “The company went on to explain that the Tianjin site includes the assembly of engine equipment or Engine Build Up (EBU), nacelle components, namely air inlet, engine cowl, thrust reverse, and exhaust nozzle integration on the A320neo engines. Further processes include painting, buy-off by Airbus and the airlines, then delivery to Airbus’ Final Assembly Line (FAL) and support for on-wing integration.

    “From 2024, Safran expects to deliver 90 propulsion systems annually, with between 15 and 20 employees working at the facility.”


    No mention of LEAP-1Cs for the C919 (yet).
    No mention of LEAP-1Bs for any future MAXs that might be ordered (if ever).

  20. Fastship

    …”I’ve looked at the flight deck videos of the C919 and from what I’ve seen, I can’t fault it. There’s a dot right there.”…
    What does that mean ? What is a reproachable cockpit in your opinion?
    …”Past 2032 the world will be unrecognisable from the world we live in today…”

    Lol! I really like your science fiction movie synopsis in 2032 “the world will not be the same”.

    Let’s be serious, the 777-X should begin deliveries in 2025 and there will be +400 777-X to deliver. Expect future orders from Turkish Airlines, KLM, Korean Airlines and others who have replaced their 777-300ERs, 747s and A380s.

    Expect other further Emirates orders to preserve a continued youthful fleet. The program will reach 480-500 frames in 2035. The 737MAX is selling like crazy and Boeing will be motivated to replace it when in 2030 CFM is ready to produce RISE…

    • “What does that mean ? What is a reproachable cockpit in your opinion?”

      …A B737 MAX cockpit.

      “Lol! I really like your science fiction movie synopsis in 2032 “the world will not be the same”.”

      Not science fiction, mostly observations of capital flows and the rhetoric of the business and political worlds. Is the airline world the same post pandemic to pre-pandemic? What do you imagine it would be like after a major Pacific war with China?

      “Let’s be serious, the 777-X should begin deliveries in 2025 and there will be +400 777-X to deliver. Expect future orders from Turkish Airlines, KLM, Korean Airlines and others who have replaced their 777-300ERs, 747s and A380s.”

      Yes. Do let us be serious. War is a serious business. How many new airliners does BCA have in storage as we speak? How many of those 480-500 777 frames would be actually made should the market go away, which it would following war with China?

      Before I give my question marks a rest I should say that I got into the business around the time of GW1. I remember the effect on the travelling public that minor skirmish (compared to a war with with China) had. The COVID crisis, by comparison will be trivial. BCA will do well to survive it (we all will) but they will emerge as a two line company.

      The railway timetables are being drawn up. They will not be altered.

      • China and the USA are nuclearized states.

        Seeing powers tearing themselves apart as you wish is just pious wish It won’t happen like that. Even Russia has not taken action.

        If that happened it would be the same Armageddon you see in a Science Fiction movie. It’s funny that you say that, it reminds me more “MAD MAX Fury Road” movie than the 737MAX…

        • What on earth makes you think I want a war?

          You seem to have been living under a rock for the past year, fifteen perhaps. The Maidan Uprising was engineered in 2013 to remove the elected gmt of Ukraine and install one friendly to certain interests in the USA. What followed was systematic persecution of ethnic Russians in that part of the world with many atrocities committed to the point where Russia had to intervene to protect their fellow citizens. This provocation was the plan all along. The Russians on that occasion therefore, did take action. Did you not notice? As a result the collective West are now in a proxy war with the Russian Federation.

          Like most people I want only to be left alone.

  21. “Boeing CEO says resolving supply chain constraints is ‘frustratingly slow'”

    Interestingly, Dave now evidently also sees himself as being a spokesperson for AB:

    “But the ability for aircraft makers like Boeing and European rival Airbus to meet customer demand for new planes will still be constrained “five years from now,” he added.”

    • Bryce

      What world do you live ?

      Do you think Calhoun won’t preach for his parish and tell his shareholders :
      “All is bad at Boeing and all is well at Airbus”?

      You don’t seem like a psychologist enough to understand that Calhoun is speaking for himself, not for Airbus. So interestingly things are going badly at Airbus too!

      It’s a very good piece of evidence !
      Thks Dave 👍

      • Well we don’t have to buy it do we?

        Mullally was honest with and at Ford, that is the way to run a business. We are in trouble and here is the plan to get us out of it.

        Ford never went bankrupt.

  22. Wasn’t “Dave” part of the decision making process for Boeing’s suppliers “Partnership for Poverty” program. “Dave” should start considering there will a 25 year gap between the launches of 787 (7E7) and the 737 replacement. Most of the tribal commercial aircraft engineering knowledge in Boeing and the supply chain will be gone. No reason for suppliers to invest in product development for another 10 years

      • Bryce

        No it’s just that we measure that the Airbus fanboys have forgotten that the successive crashes (1988-90-92) of the A320s at the beginning difficult did not prevent Airbus from developing. Unfortunately for you Bryce,
        I just have the relevance and good memory to not “forget”

    • I think “Dave” thinks the gap between Boeing’s latest development (777-X not 787) is a gap of only 10 years, if we take into account 777-X EIS 2025.

      I think “Dave” think the fact that people are having fun and think it’s good that the FAA/EASA are slow with aircraft certifications let alone the 777-X which naturally shouldn’t be grandfathered with the 777-300ER /-200LR/-F.

      So I think “Dave” thinks it will have to be taken into account that the 777-X is naturally a completely new Boeing development.

      Well I think “Dave” thinks people have selective memory and he thinks people should think twice or even thrice before writing. “Dave” tell you no hard feelings…👍

  23. -> “Boeing is optimistic it will soon restart long-stalled exports of its 737 MAX jets to China, especially with President Xi Jinping slated to visit the U.S. later this year, the planemaker’s top executive said Tuesday.”

    Sounds familiar?? 🤣

    -> ‘To support the investment, new airplane development programs “have to be 50, 80, 100-year programs. They can’t be 20 years,” Calhoun said.’

    • ‘To support the investment, new airplane development programs “have to be 50, 80, 100-year programs. They can’t be 20 years,” Calhoun said.’

      Airbus must be thinking about 80% market share for the single aisle program now with Boeing position on -50-100 years programs.

      I wonder if “Dave” solicited input from Boeing airline customers on his 100 year plan with no new technological development for the commercial product lines

      But then again, “Dave” strategy is on the mark, the Boeing 737 program is 58 years old. 777 is 31 years old and waiting for 777x in service revenue in 2025…then go for another 30 years….it will make it 61 years old production program.

      Just keep buying back stock and paying out those dividends to the shareholders!

      • Boing’s what-us-worry? attitude reminds me of the US auto makers in the early 70s, when the Japanese quietly started cleaning their clock with superior products.

        “first slowly, then.. faster.”

  24. I deleted my posting twice. I did not have anything positive to say. This time I will say the -7 and the -10 are coming and will help to generate cash to be used to create an NSA and an NMA. Same with the 787 production increase. Leadership both in business and in politics are generally lacking World-wide like hasn’t been seen in many decades. But back to Boeing and this article, the company needs money. The power of the Duopoly allows Boeing to misstep and still be in the game…

    • “… the -7 and the -10 are coming and will help to generate cash…”

      That very much depends on the price for which they were sold, doesn’t it?

      For example, the ca. 400 planes (narrowbodies and widebodies) that BCA cumulatively shipped in Q3 + Q4 (2022) and Q1 (2023) didn’t generate any notable cash for BCA — even before debt interest payments. Why? Because they were sold at a price that was just enough to cover (pre-interest) costs, with no residual margin.

      Not a very good cash generation model.

      • Boeing owes a lot of people, a lot of airlines… But again, the power of the Duopoly. Airbus is sold out to 2029. The Max, the Dreamliner, they are good on gas. I just cannot imagine Boeing not doing Ok on pricing. But time will tell.

        • SamW

          …”Airbus is sold out to 2029. The Max, the Dreamliner, they are good on gas….”
          I think your knowledge is good on gas.

          The Dreamliner outsells both the A330neo and A350-900 but if its lets you sleep better at night,
          So ok lol

          I have a big doubt about the supposed lean margins of BCA especially concerning widebody aircraft

          • I can agree with that. The A330NEO has not had much success though the mantra that it was 10 years too early rings in our ears.

            The 787 is clearly in a class of its own and is selling great. Boeing hit the wide body sweet spot and its there for another 20 years.

            The downside is Boeing shooting the program in the foot repeatedly. It still needs to dig itself out of its own debt load let alone build profits for Boeing.

            Where the 777X winds up when its out of its issues? Smaller market up there but nice freighter sales to supplement it. Maybe a wash with the A350-1000 (which itself is not a huge seller)

            Its possible with production increase and slots, the MAX may reach back to 45% or the market but Airbus will remain top dog there.

  25. David Pritchard

    …”To support the investment, new airplane development programs “have to be 50, 80, 100-year programs. They can’t be 20 years,” Calhoun said.’..”
    Lol !
    The facts prove Calhoun right…(again)
    Can’t be 20 years like the A380, the A340, A310. 30 years for the A300
    David Pritchard

    …”Airbus must be thinking about 80% market share for the single aisle program now with Boeing position on -50-100 years programs….”

    Airbus thinks like Boeing.

    Only the (real) delivery which does not always match sales (virtual A380s orders;
    Kingfisher, Amedeo, Virgin Atlantic etc. to name only this model and its airlines. We also have the A330neo not yet delivered to Airbus Asia X… )
    Let’s move on…

    I strongly fear that Airbus will take a long time if it is NEVER to deliver ~80 A32Xneo/ Month. I already said it.

    Your 80% possible market share is a ridiculous mockery that has no place when you take off the rose-colored fanboy glasses. Finally, I have already explained why Calhoun cannot be must not launch a new aircraft which would be useless. The 737MAX and 787 are selling well.

    Reread my point above.

    • How A320 FAL around the world? Airbus already has in place 70 a month capacity with another FAL going to Alabama…..forget 80 a month by early 2030 figure 100 a month single aisle of Airbus

      • 70 /month ? Are you kidding?

        Airbus does not currently deliver 70 A32Xneos at all.

        The FAL are at low speed because of the supply chain problems…

  26. Bryce

    …”For example, the ca. 400 planes (narrowbodies and widebodies) that BCA cumulatively shipped in Q3 + Q4 (2022) and Q1 (2023) didn’t generate any notable cash for BCA…”
    About Q1 (2023)

    I have already expressed here that Boeing delivered more than Airbus but unfortunately there was a quality problem at Spirit.

    I also predicted that people like you would come with a reprieve to come and spit their anti-Boeing hatred…

    We’ll see in Q4, and anyway your comment is just useless on the subject.

  27. Lol !

    -> Boeing Stock Price today 214.09 USD +6.19 (2.98%)

    A jump of 6 points on Boeing’s stock price today.
    In general, like the last time, this indicates excellent news that will follow in the coming days as we have seen for the next order from Turkish Airlines, and Air Algerie, Interesting…

    -> Airbus stock Price today 128.38 EUR +2.44 (1.94%)

  28. “Boeing Max 7, 10 Programs Awash in FAA Documentation Work”

    “While Fleming noted that Boeing’s documentation work on the Max 7 has neared completion and that the company anticipated certification “this calendar year,” he wouldn’t reveal Boeing’s internal timeframe target for the largest member of the family, the Max 10…”

    “When asked whether certification of the Max 10 could get pushed beyond 2024, Fleming wouldn’t discount the possibility. “There’s a chance that the certification could be pushed past anything,” he said. “As I mentioned earlier, I’m surprised how long it’s taken us to get [certification for] the 737-7. I did not see it moving into this year at all…”

    Effect of self-cert having been taken off the table:
    ““It’s really all about documentation more than anything else,” he said. “The amount of documentation that we’re producing on these airplanes relative to what we’ve had to produce in the past is considerably larger than it has been.”

    Although he calls it “documentation”, it’s actually “analyses” he’s talking about — as opposed to just mundane forms. Via various different SSAs, BA has to satisfy the FAA of the correctness of various assumptions that it made in designing the plane — particularly as regards flight crew response to various primitive systems present on the flight deck. BA has tended to drag its feet in providing up-to-scratch SSAs…

    • And yet, we must remember that it was the MAX-7 that served as the platform for the rectification of the MAX-8 and MAX-9 today.

      So how could these analyzes have been produced with the MAX-7 for the MAX-8. Doesn’t that surprise you? What’s really going on? It is said that the -XLR and the A350F are also late…

    • More self-cert nonsense. Your own quotes and articles contain the reason. Greater rigor in the production and review of documentation.

      The reason for that is also clear, in that this is where the changes to MCAS fell through the cracks.

      • Poor Rob — still trying to assert that self-cert never existed…and still failing to provide any evidence to back up his wild claim.

  29. Understand the skepticism of the CEO. Problem is the turn around is going to take time, lots of time. Years. In a world where patience is a negative, it will appear Boeing is doing nothing.

    This is not the car industry when a new gen car can be designed tested and built in 4 years. These projects take a decade or more to be produced. So yeah, they better have a 50 year shelf life.

    • Unless its a failed market (A340/A380) then yes, 50 years is not a bad estimate.

      The 767 has outlived the A300. Right size aircraft in the right slot with lots of F sales late in life (not to mention the KC-46A)

      Granted the 737 is ridiculous but its still viable. Amazing.

      The A320 is also viable though more so in the A321 variant. The A220 is a nice adjunct but I do not see it going mainstream like an A320 or -8 as the market is moving up size wise. Not room for two competitors (no one makes money, call it the ATR of the 150 size aircraft).

    • 50 year shelf life
      So here’s the Boeing pitch to suppliers for a new commercial aircraft You can be supplier on the program for 50-100 years Aka you can make little or no profit as Boeing supplier on the new program for 50-100 years
      It will be interesting to see what suppliers will come to plate in mid 2030 for the new Boeing commercial aircraft program Might be time to find another industry for their products

      • Boeing 100 year statement reminds me of Kodak in Rochester NY who was the global lead in film (no longer in existence) They didn’t want to obsolete film product line with digital (they had early patents on digital cameras).
        Boeing lack of innovation in new commercial aircraft technology will put the US supply chain behind other global competitors. Don’t be surprise to see 100% indigenous version of C919 by 2040 with new Chinese technologies and Chinese suppliers (not hard to do with 737 no having fly by wire technology)

        2040 Market share 70% Airbus, 23% Boeing 7% Comac for single aisle?

        With Boeing investing $100m in new 737 wing riveter equipment, 737 probably will run production to 2040

        From Leeham article in January 2023 “Richard Aboulafia sees a risk that Boeing’s market share in the single-aisle market will dip below 30% without the entry into service of a new aircraft before 2035.

        • DP:

          New tech lacking? The 787 is still ahead of the current tech. A350 is bleed air.

          Now a lack of a new aircraft? True, but with the current situation, wait and see is what needs to be done. The time for a new aircraft would have been a modern A320 type. In time it would have been worth a composite wing.

          The C919 is not even current tech, its decades old tech. China can Chinese the C919 all they want, its still an A320 (given FBW).

          The 737MAX matches the A320 series for efficiency. That tells you a lot about the state of the aerodynamic. The C919 does not even have a composite wing (the A220 does).

          China aircraft is like a Supertanker trying to turn. Yea it can do it eventually, like 20 miles after the rudder is shifted.

          The C929 is dead.

          While Boeing needs to come out with a new jet, I don’t begin to know what tech it should be nor the shape it should be. No one does.

          All we know is there are ideas and those are being tested.

          The other key metric is what Boeing management does if they get their debt paid down to at least a reasonable level. Is it share buy back or do they invest in a new product based on the research for what works.

          And the tech is changing. Now out of autoclave composites are here and that is a tough one to target. When do you freeze your tech approach as you are stuck with it for the next 30 years at least.

          You can’t just decide to build a composite frame that was designed as an aluminum one, nor a frame and panel when you have spun fuselages.

          And you need to hit the market that sells.

          • Thank you for repeating verbatim Mister Calhoun’s talking points, all found in the LNA article

          • “The 787 is still ahead of the current tech. A350 is bleed air.”

            And BA reverted to bleed air on the 777X.
            Bleedless didn’t work out as well as imagined — all those heavy batteries turned out to be a headache.

          • To keep this correct, Boeing stayed with Bleed Air on the 777 because its an older era aircraft that was desinged for bleed air and you can;t just add mostly electric like the 787 was desingted with from the start.

            Its a tech aspect which I know is hard to fathom, but more electric means generators and wire and a completely different power distribution system.

            As the 777X is a variation on the 777, you stay with what you have (same on the 747-8).

            You really can’t have it both ways. Either its a variant or its not and if its not a variant then you can’t certify it under grandfather clause which it is (as is the 787 and A330NEO). Trying to insists its both is a logic bust of monumental proportions.

            Now argue all you want about Grandfathering, that is truly valid. But a 777X is as much a grandfather candidate as is the A330NEO.

            The 737 may not be state of the art FBW but it works just fine.

            If you were doing all new, then different story and it would be FBW (like the C919 aka 80s tech)

            The A350 stuck with the old bleed air system, Airbus designed what they understood and they were reaching on the A350 as it was (successfully).

            The A350 is really a size up category from the 787, nothing wrong with that, but the 787 is the sweet spot for sales and by the nature of larger aircraft, they sell fewer (the 777 was an excption because it had no peer so they sold a lot of them)

            The A330 was in a category of its own and the mess up on the 787 meant it sold gobs as well during that period Airlines needed aircraft.

            Now they are pretty much buying 787s or A350s.

            Time will tell if there is really a decent market for the A330NEO, but they sure not not anywhere near the 1000 Hazy claimed it would sell.

          • @ TW
            BA likes to tell us that the 777X is a thorough upgrade of the legacy 777.
            If the upgrade is that thorough, then it really isn’t that difficult to add some extra wiring and remove some superfluous air conduits. If bleedless had been seen as advantageous, BA could/would have made the necessary modifications.
            We’ll see if BA’s next plane — more than a decade from now — is bleedless.

          • Bryce:

            I agree the 777X is a huge change.

            I really don’t care how its certified as long as they adhere to the standard and are made to prove it (which thy are.)

            Equally I don’t care about the MAX, as long as its safe which it is now, so what if its not FBW?

            If you look at a 737 cockpit, its been upgraded to glass standards though I am an adherent to the old steam gauges.

            My area of concern is the manual trim system that is not being addressed and should have been.

            Backup instrument is now a small format in the center and from the crashes, no one looks at them because they are (conjecture) hard to see and read.

            But you have to be a tech guy to understand where the issues really are.

            A C-152 does not fall out of the air suddenly because its not an FBW and it does not need a glass cockpit (pilots should have to go back and fly one of those often to keep them up to real piloting skills.

            A really nice thing on a 737 is when its has an issue, a red light comes on and tells you it has an issue and where.

  30. @David Prichard,

    Don’t be disappointed

    The 787 ) Dreamliner and the 777-X should also fly for a very long time.

    The 787 will be very difficult to dislodge because Boeing has made sure to give the bare minimum so that no competitor comes to attack from below the 787 ) Dreamliner

    Getting 1-2 inches maller than the 787 cross section will no longer allow Boeing standard for cabin Crew Rest, and bag width above passengers lanched by Boeing in 2000 for the
    very successfull, remarkable, and inimitable 777-300ER/-200LR program

    It will be quite possible that the 787 ) Dreamliner will fly for 💯 years.
    Calhoun knows very well its quality products that have established themselves on the market!

    Add to this the 787-F version and probable future tanker 787 KC-X for a future request from the
    ***American army***!

    Yes Boeing knows how to make aircraft that lasts 💯 years

    Calhoun is RIGHT while the others are CRYING into their handkerchiefs!…👍

    • I wouldn’t be bragging about 100 years program with no technological advances.

      ps it will take Boeing 12 years to get an upgraded 777 into revenue service!

      • ..Assuming the Boing 777-X finally enters service in 2025.
        We’ll see how it goes.

        I wonder when the 737MAX-7 and MAX-10 will actually enter service, as compared to their beleagured maker’s [ever receding] claims for EIS, as well.

        • In any case, customers are rushing to the 737MAX-10, the airlines do not seem anxious. This is not a problem for them

        • At the end of the day, its the shareholders are to blame. They keep the same BOD in place. They need to get serious about technology development in the commercial division Maybe the shareholders should impose their own poison bill scenario No stock buy backs or dividends until Boeing launches a new commercial aircraft model Then cash and resources can go into R&D and product development

          • David Prichard

            This does not prevent R&D, because shareholders also like projects for the future because they also create momentum.

            The CASCADE ® App, the autonomous flying taxi Wisk, the flying bench TTBW in preparation, do not invest in the future?


            Boeing CEO Calhoun says:

            “Boeing’s next new jet could have a transonic truss-braced wing and autonomous flight controls”…

            This is why, 2030 is the best tire window…


          • Checklist:

            That is patently false. Shareholders want their money and they want it now. They do not care as long as they get it (that is why Ponzi schemes are so successful, they all know that 20% returns are a scam but in they go like lemmings, its who hold the bag at the end and they think it won’t be them)

            Management is supposed to be responsible in balancing dividends with the health of the company.

            10s of billions went into Boeing share buy back that should have gone to research.

            But when a CEO salary is based on shares (not how the company performs) then you have the corruption of share buy back. It pads the CEO and top execs pockets.

            So base their salary on company performance metrics.

      • The 787 is a technological advancement. But you don’t seem to understand how popular products work.

        An aircraft must also tick boxes such as features.

        Look for exemple at the A350 as technologically advanced and understand that sells less than the 787, if you can understand.

        In short, a successful aircraft must not only bring technology but also value for their customers. This is what many Boeing products do and have historically done.

          • Vincent

            Say what you have to say, I will answer you. Otherwise, you know my point very well. Boeing does not make such a pronounced discount as you claim, especially on widebodies such as the 787 (Dreamliner…

          • Checklist:

            That is a true statement on Boeing and value of products.

            Its the mess involved with the MAX crashes and the various impacts that bad management has had on the 787 that is really at issue.

            The 777X has major delays and bit part of that is the 777X program office tried to bull their way through the certification paperwork. Again, bad management.

            Calhoun at least has stopped making stupid statements. Someone finally slapped him and made him realize it was counterproductive and they had to adjust to a new sheriff in town.

            Clearly the 787 is the crown jewel of the Boeing program.

            And yes its making money (or was until the shim gap debacle). Cost of production is lower than cost to buy.

            Boeing will wheel and deal with it depending on a lot of factors. Hawaiian Air was a deal they wanted so they went all in.

          • Dont forget that during the 777X certification the FAA has changed the rules and wants more assessments but they themselves dont have the staff or knowledge to quite define what the assessments should include .
            Sure Boeing miscalculated by wanting the cert to be a variant rather than brand new type
            “The FAA proposed a rule to update the criteria for conducting safety assessments to reduce the likelihood of potentially catastrophic risks due to undetected failures. Revising safety-assessment regulations would eliminate ambiguity in, and provide consistency between, the safety assessments that applicants must conduct for different types of airplane systems.”
            This now includes TAB as Technical Advisory – for the 737 Max and 777X which they never had before. Any sort of committee will delay building a footpath let alone a modern aircraft

            Airbus has found the new approach has considerably delayed its XLR too, and thats a series of minor changes

          • Is Airbus making any money on the A350-A350K-A350F ?

            You will never know because of the not reporting financials for its types ( as Boeing does) and combination of program and unit accounting for a type – as a baked cake- not side by side as Boeing does

            Airbus (financial) HQ is in Leiden, Netherlands , the home of creative accounting in EU- Commercial planes is Toulouse, Military jets in Manching ( outside Munich) , helicopters Marignane (outside Marseille)

          • @ Duke
            “Is Airbus making any money on the A350-A350K-A350F ?”

            Here you go, dearie:
            “Airbus A350 Break Even Target Achieved In 2019”

            “Airbus’ long range widebody A350XWB has reached break even point. This means that the costs of setting up the program have been paid back, and the aircraft can now start making the manufacturer money. As it’s only been flying since 2015, a break even within five years is an impressive feat for the European manufacturer.”


            Interesting quote from the article:
            “Boeing predicted a break even on the 787 after 10 years back in 2011, and is still a way off that point now. Even if it hits 1,000 aircraft delivered in 2020, the break even point keeps being pushed out (the latest estimate was at 1,600 aircraft) so despite its success, the 787 is yet to make Boeing any money.”

          • @Bryce

            Here it is, in black and white, straight from the horse’s mouth;


            Back to the Q1 financials:


            At March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787 program: deferred production costs of $12,416 and $12,689, $1,821 and $1,831 of supplier advances, and $1,711 and $1,722 of unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs. At March 31, 2023, $10,211 of 787 deferred production costs, unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs are expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that have firm orders and $3,916 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders.


            I stress this:

            ‘$3,916 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders.’

            Boeing has a backlog of 592 in the 787 program (533 after ASC 606), for a total of ~1600 aircraft.

            That still isn’t enough to clear the DPB, which if their estimates are correct, will still have about a $4 billion balance sitting there (and this is after writing off $3.5 billion a couple of years ago).

          • “The breakeven target for the A350 was achieved in 2019.” said Airbus accounts in 2019

            Seems to be a throwaway line separate from the A350 financials, mixed amoung the A320 dialogue

            Thats because the *breakeven target* was the sales number – which was 900 planes in 2019
            Doesnt say the ‘breakeven cost of sales’

            What fool would think that a 10 year development program plus launch pricing for an all new carbon fibre wide body could reach ‘breakeven cost of sales’ after only 350 planes delivered.

          • @ DoU

            The A350 program cost $11B to develop.
            $11B divided by 350 is $31.4M per plane.
            When last published, the list price of an A350-900 was $317M and that of an A350-1000 was $366M.
            Taking the A350-900 as a reference: $31.4M represents just 9.9% of the list price.
            With an industry-average discount of 55%, and unit production costs typically around 35% of list price, this leaves a 10% earnings margin per unit — which chimes perfectly with the 9.9% quoted above.

            Now do the same sum for the 787, bearing in mind:
            – Higher program cost ($32B).
            – Lower list price.
            – Higher discount.

            It really isn’t complicated.

          • Bryce:

            When do we see where the secret number for paying back the Free Launch money on the A350?

            Oh yea, in accounting they call that a gotcha. Well as long as we don’t have to address the real numbers we can claim anything we want.

            I want to see all the numbers and have the accountants weigh in as to the BS on them.

          • The A350 development cost was in the $15 bill region , and no doubt some more for the A350K and the A350F in development now.

            Its for an opaque reason they werent specific about the ” the break even” TM . The production rate , the orders achieved or what ever .
            As usual no journos ever asked what it really meant.

            The usual repeaters just chime in as if you could be just in profit for new planes in the large widebody category 5 years after EIS.

            Maybe they did corruptly offload some A350 costs onto the A400M program when that went bad.
            EU8 billion losses seemed a tad too high when it was focused only on engine issues and the airframe was all good ( Lockheed and Douglas never managed that on their C-5, C130 and C-17 programs)

            Double Dutch sandwich accounting to the rescue!

          • Airbus financial statements for some years now have said that development costs , plus tooling and jigs are capitalised over the life of the program.
            eg page 18
            So that is in reality program accounting for research and development $15 bill for the A350.
            Add to that the ‘program accounting’ for launch orders production costs which may be 75 to 150 planes , who knows, so it means the accounts dont show anything about any particular airliner line

    • Eh…the whole Dow-30 went up yesterday because of the debt ceiling vote in the US Senate and the encouraging non-farm payrolls report for May…

      “The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged Friday for its best day since January as traders cheered a strong jobs report and the passage of a debt ceiling bill that averts a U.S. default.”

      Airbus went up 1.94% yesterday, and the broad European STOXX600 index went up 1.51% — for the same reasons.

      In after-hours trading, Embraer was up 2.52% yesterday, and the Brazilian stock index was up 1.8% — for the same reasons.

      Time to put the bottle down 😉

    • Its going to be 50 years before you see autonomous flight controls if you ever do.

      I don’t even see a one pilot cockpit.

    • Oh, Goody: “Autonomous Flight Controls” from an outfit that can’t even get the basics right [see all of their programs currently undergoing QC re-work].

      The Boing 737MAX had some nifty autonomous flight controls, didn’t it? 346 lives and ca. $20,000,000,000 lost were some of the more significant results of Boing’s corner-cutting, that time.


      • The rest of the MAX worked fine. The stupidity of a small bit of software morphing into a Frankenstein monster is stunning.

        Automation has not saved Airbus either, bad piloting can take down the best aircraft.

        • The selective memory of Vincent and others is astounding.

          The A320 was almost sealed after the rescue of the BEA during the early 90s…

          It would really hurt a replacement of 737 in reality. So look at the mindset of the Boeing haters, who come to pollute LNA…👍

          • [Comment deleted as a violation of Reader Comment rules.]

        • “The rest of the MAX worked fine”

          Yes, indeed — particularly the cockpit alerting system and manual trim wheel!

          Always handy to have a cacophony of totally non-informative horns blowing at you when trying to deal with an emergency — almost as handy as a stick shaker that can’t be turned off…

          But best of all: the fantastic manual trim wheel… which — even with all the strength of both pilots — can’t succeed in trimming the plane once a certain airspeed is exceeded…

          A perfect design! What could possibly go wrong? 😉

      • So Airbus FBW software and its interface to the pilots understanding is prefect is it. FBW is a major advance but human nature means its can contribute to crashes too.

        A Paris court just found the company ( Airbus) negligence contributed to the Air France A330 crash from high altitude over the Atlantic.

        Air Inter Flight 148: The Story Of The Airbus A320’s Third Hull Loss
        The crash uncovered deadly flaws in regulations, cockpit design, and human nature.
        Theres a long list of related A320 accidents where the FBW did things the pilots didnt want or expect.

        • Gotta watch out for those prefects [sic], don’t we, Duke?

          Unable to parse the rest (likely by design).

          Please learn to write, if you want to be understood. Thanks!

          • Bryce, Bryce, Bryce…

            The game can’t work the other way when you know that the A320 flew almost 20 years after the 737.
            Which is completely normal.

            You have NO rational and intellectually honest reasoning. So your lame argument can’t work.

            The 20-year gap between the 737 and the A320 is also the key for the A320 to be competitive against the 737.

            We see for example the 777 which massacred the A340 (Airbus had in fact not even bet on the A330, that is to say the amateurism at Airbus sometimes!)
            launched only 2 years after the twin program of Airbus.

            Since 2000’s decade the 787 (Dreamliner spanks the A350 with 1,600 orders against +/- 850-900 A350s and the gap is widening decade after decade. A shame when you know that Airbus has been on the drawing board several times to be able to be competitive. I expect exciting times for 2030. when Airbus will have to do something because there is always the storm even after the calm…

            This is why it is wise to believe that the replacement for the 737 will no longer position Boeing in this spiral which was simply a victim of its own success.
            And the 737 was a victim of its own success…


  31. David Pritchard, thanks for that link to 787 Deferred Production Costs, and others, above.

    “almost there!”

    • I don’t know if you saw this, in the bottom half of the web page, but BA has broken out the figures for unit cost vs program accounting. For example:

      BCA lad a loss in Q1/23. From their financials:

      Commercial Airplanes Deliveries 130
      Revenues $6,704
      Loss from Operations ($615)
      Operating Margin (9.2) %


      At the bottom table here, they have this:

      Commercial Airplanes Unit Cost vs. Program
      Commercial Airplanes Segment Information – Earnings from Operations

      Program Accounting (615)
      Unit-Cost Accounting * (1,871)


      So what does that mean?

      Well – under Program accounting, they had a loss of $615 million in BCA. Had they used unit cost, it would have been a $1.871 billion loss.

      So where did that ~$1.2 billion in expenses go to?

      Into the Deferred Production Balance, sitting in Inventory – which is an Asset account. To be expensed against future deliveries or to be written off in one lump sum, like the $3.5 billion write off on the 787 program and $6.5 billion on the 777X program.

      • “At Boeing, we sell every plane at a loss — but we make up for that in volume ” 😉

        Impressive: delivering 130 airplanes and still managing to make an astronomical loss of $1.871B. Debt interest was (at most) only $640M of that, so that means that the (quasi-)EBIT in this case was (at best) ($1.231B).
        That’s an average loss (before interest payments) of $9.47M per plane.

        And remember: there were no one-offs in Q1 2023 — this loss was purely from normal operations.

  32. Bryce

    …”At Boeing, we sell every plane at a loss — but we make up for that in volume ” …


    “At Boeing, we sell every plane a LOSS for Airbus but we make up for that in volume ” …

    Let’s check this with simple numbers

    –> 2000 New Boeing Widebody was selling since the 787 ( Dreamliner and 777-X was launched


    –> +1000 New Airbus Widebody was selling since A350 and A330neo was launched

    You see spanking, don’t you?

    Sorry but…

    • Are you also going to compare generated earnings on those sales? 😉

  33. “China Southern Eyes $2.46 Billion Fund To Purchase 50 Airbus A320neo Aircraft”

    “Guangzhou-based China Southern Airlines has set its sights on raising $2.46 billion through a private placement of shares. This fund aims to facilitate the expansion of its fleet by adding 50 Airbus A320neo aircraft, the airline announced in its stock exchange filing. The news was first reported by”

    “China’s prominent airlines, known as the Big Three—Air China, China Eastern, and China Southern—have been actively expanding their fleets. In a seemingly coordinated move, both Air China and China Southern made announcements in July 2022 stating their plans to acquire 96 Airbus A320neo family aircraft each. Similarly, China Eastern revealed its intention to purchase 100 Airbus A320neo family jets.”

    No sign of any orders for the MAX — or even a resumption of deliveries: China Southern has 24 MAX-8s in its fleet, another 26 currently on order, and 8 “not built/NTU”.

    It’s interesting that we’re often told that Chinese carriers aren’t taking/ordering BA aircraft because there’s (still) an aviation downturn in China — and, yet, they’re taking/ordering AB aircraft hand over fist.

      • From Boeing’s own projections:

        ‘Despite the impact of the pandemic on China’s near-term growth, Boeing predicts that demand for air travel and air freight will continue to trend upwards through 2041, with the country’s commercial fleet growing from around 3,900 airplanes to more than 9,600 through 2041.

        China will require 8,485 new airplanes valued at $1.5 trillion to serve passengers and trade. ‘

        That’s 425 aircraft a year, for the next 20 years.

        • I hadn’t noticed previously in Planespotters that eight of China Southern’s former MAX orders had been fully nixed, with status changed to “not built / ntu”. Does anyone here know when this status change was made?

        • @ Frank
          “That’s 425 aircraft a year, for the next 20 years.”

          With aircraft from Airbus, and the homegrown C919/ARJ-21, and the MC-21 / SSJ100 from Russia, and a more cuddly relationship with Embraer…they should be able to fill that need. And I suspect that the CR929 will make an appearance in one form or another, too.

        • Great laugh of the Seemingly Coordinated by China big 3.

          Its all choreographs by the Communist Government.

          The reality is China will delay any more MAX as long as they can and when they need the lift capacity they will take the 140 they paid for.

          Then they will take buy more if they need to.

          Nice thing about being a dictator is you can change policy on a dime and the populace will accept it (or find themselves in a crossbar hotel)

          The C919 is always going to be too low numbers to make up the lack of the MAX. Airbus has other obligations and can shift and shuffle only so much.

          Time will tell of course. All we have to do is wait.

          • @Bryce

            You’re not wrong. But as a non-engineer type what I have learned is that the curve is a lot tougher in aircraft making.

            You have to look no further than Boeing. LNA has written about the loss of engineering talent there and the problems it has created.

            And this is a company that has been making aircraft for over a century.

            Yah, China plays the long game but look how established companies falter. Rolls & Pratt with it’s engines. Bombardier had to shed the A220 & RJ business. Look at Mitsubishi! Even Airbus goes through teething problems until they get it right. I can’t begin to imagine the brain power needed, experienced engineering talent – to get it done.

            IMO the 919 isn’t going to be a Max or Neo killer, but the follow on jet, when they learn to do it right, will give the big guys problems.

          • Gosh, Frank, you’re very courteous all of a sudden, aren’t you?
            Is this behavioral switch determined by the day of the week? Sports results? Weather?

            Yesterday: let’s steamroll Bryce, wildly misconstrue his comments, and accuse him of sympathizing with deranged despots.
            Today: let’s switch back to civilized, level-headed discourse.

            What’s in store for the rest of the week, I wonder?

          • @Bryce

            Aviation is aviation. Russia is Russia. You assume it’s personal. If I think you’re wide of the mark, I’m going to let you know.

      • Yes.
        But, perhaps even more so: the Ukraine-related “weaponization” of trade, freezing of currency reserves, exclusion from SWIFT, and starvation of spare parts / services….are viewed by some countries as having gone too far. Many countries now have a reduced appetite to be dependent on a country that is willing to employ such measures “on a whim”. This has resulted in an accelerated desire to achieve (more) “disentanglement”. In that regard, note, for example, the various steps being taken toward “de-dollarization”, by multiple countries / trade groups.

        • ‘are viewed by some countries as having gone too far.’

          Which countries?

          Because you see, I am on the other side of the argument, which says that the victim in all of this are the poor people of Ukraine – who are bearing the brunt of a Russian invasion.

          There would be no ‘whim’, as you put it, if Putin didn’t have his forces where they shouldn’t be.

          No one has the appetite for sending their sons and daughters into battle. The next best thing – help Ukraine as much as possible and hit them economically.

          Gone too far, you say?

          Ask the people of Ukraine if they think it’s too far….

          • As the saying goes here in the US, this has gone off the reservation.

            I promised Scott I would stay on the sidelines on this area and will of course. I do foresee a hammer coming down.

          • @ Frank
            You’re giving an emotional response to a purely technical-economic comment. Can we leave the emotion out of it, please? For the record: I’m just as outraged by what’s happening in Ukraine, and just as disgusted by the attitude and actions of the Russian government. There are 100,000 Ukranian refugees here in The Netherlands, with several hundred in my municipality: I see these people every day, and I’ve contributed to community efforts to make life easier for them while they’re in exile. Okay?

            Now back to business. You’re looking at this through the eyes of the 40 countries that support the sanctions; in contrast, my comment above is based on the discussion in the 176 countries that don’t support the sanctions — and it’s important to remember that there are powerful countries in that group. One burning question in that group: why the difference in the way that invading powers are treated?

            The freezing of dollar assets and dollar clearing (via SWIFT) is viewed by these countries as “economic statecraft”, an abuse of privilege, and a violation of law. The reaction is a powerful drive toward de-dollarization. A simple internet search will provide you with plenty of data on this, but here’s an example for you:


            This link discusses the effect of interest rates, but also:
            ““Economic statecraft” is a roundabout way of saying economic warfare. The unilateral sanctions the United States has imposed on countries all across the planet, in flagrant violation of international law, are backfiring. Many nations are now seeking financial alternatives, afraid that they could be the next target.”

            Here’s another:
            “Will economic statecraft threaten western currency dominance? Sanctions, geopolitics, and the global monetary order”


            That’s just the currency aspect.
            The trade aspect is even easier. Other commenters here have remarked on this in the past: Russia was cut off from US aircraft parts when it mis-stepped, so the same will happen if China mis-steps. With that in mind, why would China want to increase the number of US aircraft that it uses?
            For now, the Chinese see the EU as being less aggressive and more amenable to dialog — or, at any rate, a more constructive trade partner than the US.

          • @Bryce

            ‘You’re giving an emotional response to a purely technical-economic comment. ‘

            Don’t know how you got that, but sure – if you say so.


            ‘The freezing of dollar assets and dollar clearing (via SWIFT) is viewed by these countries as “economic statecraft”, an abuse of privilege, and a violation of law. ‘

            A violation of law, huh? Wow – that sound serous. I guess in your eyes then, violating international law is a big no-no, even in the face of an invasion and occupation, huh?


            ‘The unilateral sanctions the United States has imposed on countries all across the planet, in flagrant violation of international law, are backfiring. ‘

            I would postulate the EXACT opposite. What is the goal here? To worry about some economic pain, or to kick Russia out of Ukraine? It does seem to be working as the Russia military crumbles…

            That is the goal.


            It’s nice that we can sit in the safety of our homes in Holland and Canada and wax poetic about the niceties of international law and what country isn’t getting it’s aircraft and what OEM’s are hurting because of it.

            I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if Russia (or anybody else for that matter) invaded and occupied parts of Holland….

          • And Bryce

            Good on you and Holland for doing your part in taking in Ukrainians. We’re trying to do our part, as well. Hopefully one day, they’ll be able to go back home to a free and sovereign country that is theirs.

          • @ Frank

            You asked me above “which countries”, and I answered your question. I also provided some links in which the mindset/rationale of those countries is expounded.

            There’s no need to jump down my throat simply because you don’t like the narrative: shooting the messenger doesn’t achieve anything.
            Just because the weather man says that there’s a storm coming, doesn’t mean that he’s pro-storm.

            Whether we like it or not, there’s a large, powerful, affluent block outside “the west” and that block has its own world view. Being cognizant of that world view does not equate to approving of it. Ignoring that world view isn’t an option, because we’re actually far more dependent on that block than many would like to admit. Know thy enemy!

            Returning to what was discussed above: the Trump trade war may have initiated a desire in China to disentangle itself from the US, but the “economic statecraft” alluded to above has accelerated the process greatly. Whether we like it or not, that has transpired to be a consequence of the unprecedented sanctions that we imposed.

            Now, can we please get back to calm, friendly discourse without the finger-pointing and misplaced accusations?

          • As I recall my history, Germany in 1940 occupied most of Europe.

            No one in those formally free countries seemed to appreciate it.

            In fact when all was said and done, something around 50 million dead because someone did not like the treaty that ended WWI!

        • @Bryce

          Yes, you posted two articles which mention that China and Russia are seeking to circumvent trade in US dollars. China cutting a deal with Brasil. Big surprise there. I’m sure China will be only too happy to take US dollars when they sell them their goods, right?

          ‘In response, rival great powers, notably China and Russia, are diversifying away from Western currencies and developing counterstrategies to maintain economic and foreign policy autonomy.’

          The chair of the Financial Times’ editorial board and US editor-at-large, Gillian Tett, wrote that “US banking turmoil, inflation and looming debt ceiling battle is making dollar-based assets less attractive”.

          Well – Donnie weakened Frank-Dodd and got the bank mess. The debt ceiling battle is done and dusted. The world is fighting inflation.

          ‘There’s no need to jump down my throat simply because you don’t like the narrative: shooting the messenger doesn’t achieve anything.’

          No, the problem I have is that you would include a reference to Ukraine. Short of sending our kids to fight there, what are the other options? Harsh language?

          Perhaps in the past the US has thrown it’s weight around where it should have. No argument there. But in this case…

          …every sanction, every weapon system, every bit of help that can be provided to Ukraine, should be.

          There would be no ‘whim’ as you call it, if Russia didn’t go back on it’s promise of the Budapest accords. They invaded in 2014 and nice-nice didn’t work then, so Putin got emboldened and went further.

          ‘Just because the weather man says that there’s a storm coming, doesn’t mean that he’s pro-storm.’

          Storm? Or maybe overcast with a chance of light rain? A couple of opinion pieces hardly means the sky is falling.

          In the context of aircraft OEM’s, the trade sanctions by Donnie have created a far bigger mess for Boeing then ever imagined. Both AB & BA have to deal with the Russia sanctions. Everyone is dealing with inflation.

          Finally, if China really wanted to mess with the US dollar, all they would have to do is dump all their treasuries they hold. Almost $900 billion of it.


          I guess what I am really trying to say is;

          Countries are trying to de-dollarize because of sanctions?

          Too bad.

          Many countries now have a reduced appetite to be dependent on a country that is willing to employ such measures “on a whim”? (which is by the, your opinion)

          Too bad.

          These things are a consequence of standing up to Russia, then so be it. The fact that you put it out there makes it seem that you are sympathetic to Russia in their endeavors, especially when you use words like ‘on a whim’.

          Do you understand the language you are using here?

          • “Do you understand the language you are using here?”

            Yes, I certainly do — but you seemingly don’t.
            I chose my syntax carefully and accurately; unfortunately, it seems that some readers don’t (or can’t) read that syntax with equal care and accuracy.
            It’s a problem when people pounce on “trigger words” without paying proper attention to the surrounding syntax and/or the context in which those words were used.

            It’s impressive that you somehow managed to COMPLETELY misconstrue everything that I wrote!
            VERY impressive rant, too, by the way.
            The adrenaline levels underlying the latter might offer some explanation for the former.

        • And for the record Bryce

          I was talking about a trade war which has directly effected Boeing in it’s efforts to sell aircraft and get those in inventory delivered in China.

          YOU went into the Ukraine, weaponization, de-dollar, disentanglement and whims.

          You also kinda left out the part about Russia breaking it’s Budapest memorandum, invading Crimea in 2014 and the recent ‘special military operation’, which is the whole reason that kicked off this mess.

          • Nato member Turkiye invaded its neighbour the island of Cyprus in the 1970s , and still in occupation of 1/3 of the island. Apparently* rules* dont apply to Nato countries as they faced no sanctions . Greece has the highest defence spending as %GDP in Europe , much more than even say Poland, so they know who the threat comes from.

          • @Duke

            Watch very closely Duke:

            You are right. Turkey should not be there, occupying Cyprus.

            It doesn’t change the stance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine one iota, the sanctions or any other help that can be provided to them.

  34. OK, so, I know that people have an increased desire to travel post-CoViD, and that airlines want to cash in on that, but isn’t the current order bonanza getting a little out of hand? At this rate, the first economic downturn that comes will see record levels of deferrals/cancellations.

    “Airbus heads towards 500 A320-family jets order from IndiGo”

    “Airbus is closing in on a potentially record deal to sell 500 narrowbody A320-family jets to India’s largest carrier, Indigo, industry sources said on Sunday.
    “The European planemaker has emerged as front-runner for an order eclipsing Air India’s historic provisional purchase of 470 jets in February, the sources said on the sidelines of an airline industry meeting in Istanbul.
    “Airbus and Boeing are also competing in talks to sell 25 wide-body jets to the same airline, they said.
    “IndiGo, which is already a major Airbus customer with a large number of planes on order, and the France-based planemaker both declined comment. Boeing also declined to comment.”

    • And on a similar note:
      Thai Airways — just out of re-structuring/bankruptcy — is shopping for 30 new aircraft, including widebodies:

      “Thai will formally issue a request for proposal with Boeing and Airbus, although it is believed that the A350 is the favorite to win the campaign. Thai already operates thirteen A350-900s and has redeployed two of them within the network to serve China and Australia. The new aircraft should be delivered from 2026.

      “Thai Smile operates a fleet of twenty leased A320ceo’s with an average age of almost ten years. They could be replaced with A320neo family aircraft. It isn’t known if Thai Airlines prefers to source them directly from Airbus, which would mean that the airline must join the cue as the A320neo family is sold out until 2029. The alternative is leasing.

      “Airbus and Boeing’s Chief Commercial Officers are reportedly both in Istanbul to negotiate with Thai. If they are quick, either one of the airframers could announce a deal in two weeks at the Paris Airshow.”

    • And a general, background article on this subject:

      “Airline orders point to resurgent post-pandemic travel demand”

      “Airlines placed orders for close to 1,200 new aircraft in the first five months of the year, underlining the resurgent demand from the industry as passenger traffic continues to rebound in the wake of the pandemic. The figures were bolstered by three standout deals, including the announcement in February by Air India to purchase 470 single-aisle and long-distance widebody aircraft from Airbus and Boeing, according to research by aviation consultancy IBA. Total orders to the end of May — including options — were 1,198.”

      “Airlines are rushing to get capacity back, bringing stored aircraft back and ordering new ones. They are all keen to get to the front of the queue for deliveries,” said William McClintock, manager of market analysis at IBA. Net orders, which take account of cancellations, in 2022 were 1,592 — almost double the 812 orders placed in 2019, the year before the Covid pandemic all but brought air travel to a standstill, according to IBA data.

      “The bulk of the net orders, or 1,436, were for single-aisle aircraft, notably Airbus’ best-selling A320 family of jets. Net orders for widebody aircraft which are used on long-haul international routes were 156, a fraction over the 148 tally in 2019.The wide-body recovery now “looks sustainable,” said McClintock. “Before the pandemic, delivery rates were outstripping orders and did not look sustainable.”

    • 1. There was an article pre covid looking at the Airbus backlog and how suspect possibly 20 percent of the then backlog may be.

      2. Congrats to Indigo for locking in “nice” discounted A320 family prices at 2023 prices for aircraft delivered 7-10 years out. With that stated, money is more expensive now then in the past. At 500 aircraft, Airbus will work with them on the initial and interim payments.

      3. As regards a bubble, I stopped listening to av experts when the they Covid air travel rebound so wrong. The airlines in India have barely scratched the surfaced, so I can see this order being for growth, not replacements.

      With that stated, this constant churn of orders where the business plan is too order new aircraft to replace a 7 or 10 year aircraft before they go into D check is ludicrous to me. It’s akin to flipping houses. Again, its more expensive to borrow money now, so it will be interesting to airlines tweak this business plan.

      Congrats to Indigo and Airbus

      • At one time Ryanair did that turnover except it was when the warranty expired at 5 years.

        Lionair bought A320 and then opened up a leasing branch.

        It all gets pretty murky.

        Or you can be like Norwegian Air and orders lots of MAX, then order lots of A320 and then go bankrupt and it all goes back to the bank or leasers.

      • Orders placed this year are subject to inflation clauses for those 7 years later deliveries so will be paying 2030 prices.
        Its been covered before on LNA

    • Not hard to get an order if your airline is captive to the government.

      Unless something shows up that is fatal (always possible when the AHJ is owned by the government) the C919 will serve nicely as a 737 classic replacement.

      All the Chinese airlines will run as few as they can manage and still not tick off the Government. Its a balancing act.

      As long as its equal numbers of C919 for each airline, then the lower efficiency and support does not hurt any one more than the other.

  35. @Brice

    …”No sign of any orders for the MAX — or even a resumption of deliveries: China Southern has 24 MAX-8s in its fleet, another 26 currently on order, and 8 “not built/NTU”…


    Bryce, wasn’t there (it seems to me with a high probability) that there were some Chinese 737MAX which resumed service a few weeks ago where did I dream?…

    • Well he has got to get something write (pun intended) sooner or latter.

    • No sign of orders ….thats because the LNA ‘intell’ was any Chinese orders were undisclosed- you read about it on this blog. But feel free to dig another hole denying the inevitable like you do over these things

      • It wasn’t “intel”: it was a conjecture, made in a comment from Scott.
        Go back and check it.

        • It was ‘intel’ that wasnt firm enough yet (probably another source) to confirm. Conjecture is your own way of making it up.

          • Actually, what happened is the following:
            – 2 large Chinese carriers came with fleet plans for 2025, which included significant numbers of MAXs.
            – It was assumed by certain commenters here — including yourself — that these had to represent new orders (forgetting that they could be just inductions from other Chinese carriers — or a red herring, as Scott opined in another article).
            – Seeing as such new orders aren’t visible on BA’s books, Scott opined that there might be Chinese orders in among the “undisclosed customer”orders at BA.
            – So, no “intel” at all: just a list, a potential red herring, and a new order theory.

            Remember now?

  36. on another topic Starliner

    “Thursday’s disquieting announcement from Boeing that it found two serious safety issues with its Starliner spacecraft—insufficiently strong parachute straps and hundreds of feet of flammable tape inside the vehicle—within weeks of its first crewed flight raises questions anew about the viability of the program.

    To date, Boeing has taken nearly $900 million in charges against its earnings for setbacks in Starliner’s development, and this latest delay, which is likely to take at least six months to resolve, if not much longer, will undoubtedly push those charges higher. It is difficult to see Boeing ever making money on Starliner after nearly 14 years of involvement in commercial crew.”

    • I wonder if this is an example of what can happen when there is a big gap in design programmes – a different generation of engineers not having the previous engineers and their experience to draw upon? If so, perhaps there is a lesson for the C-suite to draw upon too – lose the people and you lose their experience too. You’d have thought they might have got it by now but if they’re mostly accountants maybe it will take quite a few iterations to sink in.

    • Forgotten already that that item was already posted above?

    • Indian airline orders – for both manufacturers- are like a bouncy castle, looks a lot of fun until the air goes out and the castle is moved on and starts up somewhere else.

      • I agree,

        Airbus above all, risks suffering from a chimera…

      • That’s a bit of a sweeping generalisation, don’t you think? Indigo and the new Air India are the ones placing the big orders and both look to be well run and stable – and Air India has as many orders with Boeing as Airbus so if you’re looking to score points about the “quality” of the respective order books it would probably be better to look elsewhere…..

        • Lol! Oh no, not at all,

          I’m only targeting Air Indigo, hoping that Airbus can deliver nearly 1,000 A32Xneos to it,
          if this order occurs,

          Recognize that it is (a little too) colossal and that trying to boo our words despite the evidence.

          We’ll have to look for something else too…

  37. Here are the people responsible for what happens at Boeing. I’ve railed about what they have let the people they have hired do, but at the end of the day, these are not a pro-active bunch. They’re the owners. This article says 25 entities own 47% of the shares and 54% of the company is owned by institutions. These folks that manage these positions might have so many resources that they do not, that’s do not, take an active role in overseeing the management of the company… Something like that.

    “New plane? That costs money! We’re a duopoly! Let’s just milk what we got. I’m out of here! I got to go to an Exxon shareholders’ meeting. We’re trying to get more drilling rights in the Artic today.” Something like that…

    Link to ownership article:

    • These institutional investors are generally ETF issuers, who are merely “holding” the stock (and other stock components of their ETFs) on behalf of smaller investors, pension funds, etc.
      The article mentions Vanguard — which is a large issuer of ETFs…one of the most popular of which is the Vanguard S&P500 ETF.

      • Yes, passive investors. It would almost be better if the family still owned a major controlling share.

  38. Never a dull moment at BA:

    “New 787 Dreamliner production issue could slow delivery of 90 jets in Boeing’s inventory”

    “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Boeing said on Tuesday it is slowing deliveries of its 787 Dreamliner after the company discovered a new production flaw, but expressed optimism that it can still deliver 70-80 of the widebody jets this year as planned.

    “The problem, which does not pose a flight safety concern, involves a fitting for the 787’s horizontal stabilizer made by a Boeing production facility in Salt Lake City, Utah, the company said. Boeing will need to inspect all 90 Dreamliners in its inventory before they can be delivered, and it expects it will take two weeks to fix each aircraft, the company added.

    “Boeing said it found last week that the fitting used shimming – a material that fills gaps between the surfaces of an aircraft – that was improperly sized and did not meet specifications. On Friday, it stopped deliveries of 787s suspected to have the flaw, the company said.

    “The issue does not immediately impact in-service 787s, Boeing said, but the company could not say how far back the issue stretches or whether Dreamliners currently operated by airlines will need a fix.”

    • This is why the MAX-10 is getting a fair amount of orders. The plane probably won’t carry any more than the MAX-9 for airlines like United and Delta; but it will have a large quantity of those spacious first class, money generating seats…

  39. An overview of the stock price today of some aeronautical industries

    Lockheed Martin $462.42 +3.63 (0.79%)
    Northrop Grumman
    $452.86 +4.85 (1.08%)
    Boeing $211.39 +4.10 (1.98%)
    Airbus EUR126.44 −1.00 (0.78%)
    AerCap $59.86 +1.12 (1.91%)
    United Airlines $49.32 +0.53 (1.09%)

    (!) For the first time in a long time the Boeing stock price rose above 210 USD.

    What will happen the next few days? Massive order announcements or something else?
    Time will tell…

  40. Sounds more to me like:
    “We are 2nd, but No. 1 can`t deliver, so we play even strength now. “”

    And he has a point. If you need planes quick, you need to buy Max.

    B787 is selling well, but the delivery issues plague it.

    B777x is on the way, and with the block cut to 350, and the write off, it`s fair game now. Depending on how good the GE is, Boeing might even have a winner with growing demand and all the other VLAs out of production.
    A35K is still 40 seats smaller.

    Emirates announced to order more planes to replace B77W and A380, there`s a huge chance that Emirates will increase its` B777x order.

    Boeing might be the dog now in SA vs. A220 and NEO, but Airbus doesn`t have more slots.
    But A330neo and A350 are not making that much sales, Boeing is agressive to the market and has now sold over 1600 B787, that`s a lot.

    • “Boeing is agressive [sic] to the market and has now sold over 1600 B787”

      And not a penny profit from the whole program…

      • 2000 new Boeing widebody jets of which Airbus will be deprived… 787 1600 orders/ 777-X +400 orders…

  41. Oh my god !!!

    Boeing’s stock price soars to 220USD!
    Another extra ~7 points

    What is already happening that I announced a few hours ago that Boeing had just reached 210USD and that this has not been done for a very long time!

    Can anyone speculate?
    Big order from EK, JAL and others?

    To watch closely…

    Boeing Stock Price 218,85 USD +6,72 (3,17 %)

  42. 1600 widebody jets of which Airbus will be deprived… 787 1600 orders/ 777-X +400 orders…

    • Lol!

      Made an emergency landing.
      you have a stopped engine.
      The military sector does not concern us.
      Please be more creative next time.


    • Assuming that article’s facts are correct, that’s quite an impressive ROI that Mobile AL and its citizenry are getting from Airbus, in terms of good jobs and their spin-offs.

      I wonder how things are going for the other guys in Charleston, and other places.

Leave a Reply

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