Leeham News and Analysis

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

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

Pontifications: Freighter outlook for the next 20 years

Download

By Scott Hamilton

Aug. 8, 2023, © Leeham News: The cargo conversion market faces the prospect of oversupply of certain types, the consulting firm IBA said last week in a webcast.

The aftermarket conversion of Boeing 737-800s is already at 60 this year, according to IBA’s estimate.

Figure 1.

The forecast doesn’t extend beyond this year—and therefore is incomplete. IBA notes that the Airbus A321 P2F supply is a fraction of the 737-800 conversions, which are undertaken mainly by Boeing and aeronautical Engineers Inc (AEI). There are more than 100 A320 family conversions orders (all but a handful for the A321) that will be coming on line in future years.

Figure 2.

Likewise, IBA’s forecast for widebody conversions doesn’t extend beyond this year. There are also more than 100 orders for Airbus A330ceo conversions (all but a handful for the A330-300). Figure 2, like Figure 1, paints an incomplete picture.

 

20 year forecast

CargoFacts Consulting’s 20 year forecast shows how the Airbus models, coming from a low base, are on a trajectory to capture 47% of the P2F market. The Boeing 757 P2F model is nearing the end of its conversion life as feedstock dies up.

Figure 3.

A330 conversions are on track to overtake the 767, which still has a solid future in conversions. New 767 aircraft production must cease by the end of 2027 under noise and emissions standards that become effective then. Boeing hopes to exempt the 767 from the standards, but it’s too soon to say if this effort will succeed. CargoFacts also assumes Boeing will proceed with a freighter version of the 787. A P2F of the 787-8 and a new production model of the 787-9 are under consideration.

The consultancy sees a 20 year market for the new freighter entrant from Airbus, the A350F.

777F: Long life, good demand

CargoFacts sees a long life and good demand for the Boeing 777F. This includes the remaining new-build 777-200LRFs (production must end in 2027 per the emissions standards), conversions and the new 777-8F.

Figure 4.

Boeing is becoming more confident in the 777X program’s backlog, which includes more than 50 777-8Fs. Under an accounting rule called ASC 606. Boeing must classify orders that are iffy (usually for concerns whether the customer will take delivery). At the end of last year, 110 777Xs and 17 777 Classics were identified under ASC 606. In the June 30 10Q quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, only 45 X and 14 Classic orders were categorized under ASDC 606.

Boeing drastically improved the 777X orderbook quality situation.

Boeing doesn’t publicly identify the customers under ASC 606. LNA believes these are the Classic customers:

For the 777X, the ASC 606 customers are probably 25 for Etihad, 10 Unidentified, and another 10 that are harder to identify.

 Category: Airbus, Boeing, Pontifications

 Tags: , , , , , ,

235 Comments on “Pontifications: Freighter outlook for the next 20 years”

  1. Interesting – thanks for the summary Scott. One related item that I’ve been wondering about is how the airframe market overall will be impacted by the gradual replacement of aluminum structures with composite ones. It’s hard to say when aluminum structures will be no more, but certainly a century from now that should be the case. Once we get to that world (which none of us will get to see), it may be as common to remanufacture or refurbish older planes for passenger use as it is now for giving them a second life as freighters. I don’t think the early 787’s, or perhaps any of the BSC built ones, all of which have their issues, are going to provide any insight into this. Surely most of them will eventually be scrapped. But at some point, that could (or is it should?) be a fairly uncommon fate for composite structures.

    Reply

  2. Scott,
    Volga-Dnepr is Russia based. Aren’t they under the sanctions and not allowed to take deliveries?

    Reply

    • they are based on Ulyanovsk Russia (also happens to be the location where AN 124 was produced and has 17 aircraft in their fleet
      “As of March 2022, Volga-Dnepr’s subsidiaries AirBridgeCargo and ATRAN were both forced to suspend all operations due to sanctions against Russia”

      Reply

      • Yep I know all this. I worked with these operators when I was with Boeing.
        Scott chart has V-D with 6 777 freighters on order. So my question is they obviously are not able to receive these due sanctions and shouldn’t be listed on this chart. NBD.

        Reply

        • Hi, those 14 orders were believed to be categorized under ASDC 606.

          Reply

        • The list is what Leeham thinks Boeing is including in its ASC 606 numbers.

          There’s a very high probability that those 6 777F will never be delivered. That’s precisely why Boeing has categorised them as being “at risk” and included them in the ASC 606 total.

          Reply

  3. Main question in the freighter market for me is: Will Airbus bring an A330 Neo freighter?
    Will Boeing bring a B789 based freighter, if B767F is done in 2027?

    There are 2 modern 70m freighters available now, but what about the smaller WBs?

    Airbus has the A330neo based freighter ready to go. From the A332F and MRTT cargo door and loading system exists.
    The A339 has more range and could be an ideal frame for a 63m freighter.

    Development effort should be small. There is enough production capacity available.
    Market wise there should be demand for it, the question is how much of that is covered by A330s and B772s that are ready for conversions.

    I thing a A330 Neo freighter will come.

    Reply

    • There are lots of A330’s mainly with RR T700 power getting in the right age and price for cargo conversion. So Airbus calculates of how many A330F with RR T7000 there is a market for vs. the already decided A350F that is a jump in technology and capability. The A330-900’s will eventually also be converted when its second hand market price is right.

      Reply

    • Sash:

      That is a good question and clearly Airbus missed big time on using the A330-200CEO as the basis of a factory freighter.

      All this gets into the complexities of feed stock. Converting an A330-300 CEO only works if you have enough hulls to make a go of it.

      You see some aircraft just get torn down when retired as the parts are worth more than a complete hull.

      That was a Boieng issue with the 777, getting enough hulls to use for a P2F program.

      I saw what occur ed with FedEx who via Boeing thought they would get a decent group from Singapore Airlines who rather than sell them off put them into the Scoot group. I think there were 20 and without that as a base no P2F at the time.

      And none of that accounts for the crash of all the programs as the situation changed the way everyone knew it would when Wide Body traffic came back and the belly cargo capacity came back with them.

      Many of the P2F programs are go ind to fail and the question is, can a factory Freighter succeed. Boeing is running on FedEx and UPS both of which operate in a different world (both buy new aircraft and have the money to do so if that suits them).

      It will be interesting to see how it all works out. Airbus clearly has the foundation to do an A330NEO if they so desire.

      I don’t remember if the A3309NBEO fixed that floor slant the ground as the CEO had to extend the gear in a pod to get an even floor for the cargo to move on)

      Reply

      • By gaining (yet another) waiver or exemption Boeing will in fact be losing:
        around the end of the decade they’ll have an almost entirely obsolete product lineup, and no institutional memory of how to build a new aircraft.

        For now, I’ll stick with my idea that Boeing is being wound down.
        Evidence to the contrary is very welcome.

        Reply

        • Well as they don’t have a replacement Boeing looses a lot more if they do not sell 767F.

          Mostly its FedEx and UPS and FedEx is pulling its horns in, so more orders are iffy.

          Boeing has been giving its future away for some time, Calhoun is just the latest pillager.

          Next CEO may be better or the same. Can’t be any happy shareholders these days when they see what the pillagers have wrought.

          Reply

          • Trans……
            Hows this for a dodge. The law says you cannot SELL the current 767 after 2027. What if a leasing company places a 400 aircraft order with options for another 400 in 2026. This would keep the line open until who knows when. Then when all the demand is filled, the outstanding order gets cancelled. Boeing wins, the leasing company wins, the customers win, the engine makers win.

            I expect BOEING AIRCRAFT TRADING to do this.

          • In current market, I doubt FedEx or UPS has any appetite for a major order of 767F.

          • Bryce….
            Sorry I wasnt as clear as I could have been. If there was s very large continuation order placed in 2026 for a few hundred aircraft, purchasing long lead parts such as gear forgings and trunion fittings and wing skins places all of those aircraft “in production” prior to the 2027 cutoff. How you complete the queue of in work aircraft started before the production cutoff date with respect to their individual delivery dates is the dodge. The law does not prohibit completion of aircraft in production prior to the manufacturing cutoff date. The cutoff date ends the start of new aircraft production after that date. I think you might want to let this roll around in your mind for a few minutes…. have a great day

          • @Scott

            ‘How you complete the queue of in work aircraft started before the production cutoff date with respect to their individual delivery dates is the dodge.’

            Simple. You just hire a competent engineer planner and tell him:

            “We cannot produce any more after this date. Please, make us a plan”

            You know anyone like that who could do such work?

          • Pedro.
            The Navistar example you cite is an apples and oranges comparison. In our case, here is no follow on production allowed to be commenced after 1/1/2027. The example I was using was to commence the construction of a large number of aircraft in 2026. Those aircraft being in work at the time of the ban on new construction in 2027 and would be the last of their kind allowed to be delivered. If you commence the work on a number of years worth of aircraft in 2026 by making long lead time parts for them in 2026, their production, having been started prior to the production phaseout, is allowed by the law.

          • @ Scott Correa
            As Frank points out, it’s really very basic planning — if BA can’t manage something as simple as that, then the end is truly nigh.

            If D is the legal deadline date, and it nominally takes X months to produce a frame, then no production starts should be planned after D-X-M, where M is a small safety margin, e.g. a month.

            As regards “production” in the sense of the law, I think we can assume that it refers to the rolling of a finished aircraft off of the line.

          • Bryce wrote…. “As regards “production” in the sense of the law, I think we can assume that it refers to the rolling of a finished aircraft off of the line.

            No, I must disagree here. You are describing “Delivery” The law is clear that Production cannot be commenced after 1-1-2027. It is silent on delivery. This seems to be because the factory flow times at both BA and AB can be quite long. Understanding that, and having been a Manufacturing Planner for the bulk of my career , I know that a mass start of a nunber of aircraft prior to the cutoff date is a realistic option. We will see how this works out in the future, however your complete dismissal of it is at odds with what Im hearing…..

          • @ Scott Correa
            We disagree once more.
            It’s possible to have production without delivery — BA’s inventory of MAXs, 787s and 777Xs is proof of that.

            The quote that I gave above refers to “produced” — not “start to be produced”.

            I guess we’ll just have to see how it pans out.
            BA will probably get an exemption…seeing as it seemingly can’t do a lot of stuff these days without exemptions.

          • Bryce. Yes, they are driving towards an exemption, but there are production planners advocating the mass start. We will see how it all works but in any case, Im glad to be out ot there because it isnt the BA I remember……. I got out in Nov2016… Take care and enjoy the day

  4. “EFW launches Airbus freighter conversion work in China”

    >> EFW said in a LinkedIn post on August 7: “Kick off for the very first Airbus conversion! This week, the first A321 aircraft arrived in China, Tianjin with our conversion partner Haite (Tianjin Haite Aircraft Engineering Co., LTD.).

    >> “The aircraft has been inducted for an EFW P2F (passenger-to-freighter) conversion. Haite is well experienced in conversions for B737 as well as in heavy maintenance for the A320 family.

    >> “With Haite there are meanwhile eight modification sites with conversion lines for Airbus aircraft in EFW’s global P2F network in operation, including in China, which is one of the largest and fastest-growing aviation markets in the world.” <<

    https://www.aircargonews.net/services/freighter-conversions-mro/efw-launches-airbus-freighter-conversion-work-in-china/

    ***

    Looks like someone is gearing up for a lot of business…

    Reply

  8. TransWorld, Re 767F

    It is too early to make an analysis of anything. Especially to take stock of Calhoun.
    You shoot before aiming, it’s very clumsy. You couldn’t have done better than him.

    Regarding the 767F, Boeing may obtain an extension of time to fly the 767F beyond 2028. After all, many aircraft, even non-Boeing, should no longer fly.

    Anyway the market for the 767F with FedEx, UPS as the only customers is not a big loss. Think about what you say. For me it is not very relevant…

    Thks

    Reply

    • Between them, the pilot and FO had only 620 hours of flying time on the 777.

      They also didn’t report the incident: the NTSB only got involved after news media drew attention to the incident.

      Weren’t we told after the LionAir MAX crash that US carriers had much higher professional standards?

      Reply

    • -> Western Global Airlines acquired more aircraft under the mistaken belief the bull rush in air cargo during the pandemic would continue, leading to a cash crunch …

      -> Delta TechOps, the maintenance, repair and overhaul division of Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL), is owed nearly $5 million, according to Western Global’s bankruptcy declaration. Western Global Airlines is also $10.4 million in arrears to Lufthansa Technik (DE: LHA), another aircraft repair company, and $7.4 million behind to GE Engine Services Distribution (NYSE: GE). Evergreen Aviation Technologies, a repair station in Taiwan, has a $4.5 million claim against Western Global.

      -> Earlier this year it quietly *canceled an order with Boeing* for two factory-built 777 freighters.

      https://www.freightwaves.com/news/bankrupt-cargo-airline-western-global-owes-millions-to-delta-lufthansa

      Reply

    • Seemingly a well-known phenomenon in older 767s…

      Does anyone have wrecked fuselage examples for hard landings by aircraft from other OEMs?

      Reply

        • Got one where two fuselage sections nearly separated along their joint?

          Inelastic deformation/severance of fuselage section joints is now documented in the 737, 767 and 747-8.

          Reply

          • “Got one where two fuselage sections nearly separated along their joint?”

            Do you? I see skin wrinkling due to buckling, but no tearing (even though the video claims this, it is never shown), and definitely nothing close to section separation.

            “inelastic deformation”? Structural engineers usually speak of plastic deformation.

          • Well, you’d have to see the inside in order to properly determine if there was tearing or not, wouldn’t you?

            There’s (effectively) tearing near the rear bulkhead of the 747-8, due to improper shimming.
            “un-shimmed or incorrectly shimmed gaps that were larger than engineering requirements caused excessive and sustained internal tensile stresses and resulted in stress corrosion cracking in the stringers”.

            https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/faa-ad-b747-8-shimming

            And then, of course, there are those well-known photos of various 737 crashes in which fuselage sections separated at/near joints.

            I prefer the term “inelastic deformation” because it more accurately describes the causal mechanism: a wave propagates through the fuselage, and encounters a joint that can’t transmit the wave from one fuselage section to another — accordingly, instead of the wave’s energy being harmlessly dissipated elastically, it gets dissipated inelastically at the joint, causing buckling/tearing. Once tearing occurs, the deformation is no longer plastic, is it?
            In this video of the ANA 767’s hard landing, you can see a wave propagating through the frame as a result of the nose gear impact.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-aUVa3a0U

            One wonders if BA does any/much dynamic load testing of its structures…

          • Well, you’d have to see the inside in order to properly determine if there was tearing or not, wouldn’t you?

            Thank you for agreeing with my point, which is you haven’t shown any evidence of tearing in this particular 767 incident, aside from the video stating there is without showing any. As for separation, not even close.

            So, you are assuming there is tearing inside the 767 fuselage associated with this type of damage mechanism because you found an article on the web that talks about stress corrosion cracking on the 747-8? You do know that stress corrosion cracking is very different from damage caused by an overload condition right?

            And then, of course, there are those well-known photos of various 737 crashes in which fuselage sections separated at/near joints.

            Wow! Breaking news here, folks! There exists an aircraft where the fuselage can suffer severe damage during a crash! Even at or near the joints! What is the world coming to?

            I prefer the term “inelastic deformation” because it more accurately describes the causal mechanism

            You may prefer the term, but apparently no-one else does. While the term might be helpful for you, and while your explanation might not be incorrect, it is very general and leaves out details important to understanding what actually goes on and how the situation could be improved.
            Ductile materials suffer plastic deformation leading up to failure. In fact, most failure models depend on the accumulation of plastic strain (not inelastic strain). Once the accumulated plastic strain reaches a certain threshold, the material fails. The threshold is itself dependent on various things, like pressure-deviatoric stress ratio, temperature, strain rate, etc. So, understanding a material’s plasticity is of paramount importance to understanding how/when the material will fail.

            Once tearing occurs, the deformation is no longer plastic, is it?

            The answer to this question is not a simple as you think it is. It depends on the situation. I’ve seen cases in my own work where a material under highly dynamic loading suffered such a sudden failure that the unloading wave caused reverse plastic deformation at a nearby structural interface. In any case, my point above is that a ductile material, like aluminum, will have to suffer significant plastic deformation at least before failure (tearing). Calling plastic deformation by anything other than what is common in the community only really serves to obfuscate.

          • Bryce.
            The stress corrosion cracking was found on a 30k hours 747 at a scheduled maintenance check. It is proof that a crack management plan for metallic aircraft works. There was a specific inspection planned to be run at this interval and the process worked. When I was a lead fuselage planner on wide body aircraft fuselages, we had never had an accident where the aircraft ripped apart unless the loads were so high that no engineer walking the earth could have built something that wouldn’t fail. Im not seeing the point of your line of thinking here, even airbus fuselages are subject to this type of damage. Could you please tell me what your point here is, because Im really having difficulty understanding it.

          • @ Scott Correa
            My point is that, once again, the issue of improper shimming has raised its ugly head at BA — this time in a different aircraft model (the 747-8).
            It’s great that the cracking was found before it caused a disaster — but the cause of that cracking should never have been there in the first place.
            Bad shimming is a manufacturing process quality issue: the 747-8 AD shows that manufacturing process quality issues are/were even more widespread at BA than recent events have indicated.

            A second point that I’m making is to show that bad shimming eventually leads to actual structural issues. The BA Back Office likes to cite that the shims were only off by a tiny fraction of an inch — perhaps because that makes the issue sound innocuous. But it’s not innocuous at all, because it can/will lead to structural failures.

            A third point that I’m making is that it’s time for the FAA to more seriously address the issue of inspecting the in-service fleet of more than 1200 787s. The issue hasn’t gone away.

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            We don’t know that it’s plastic deformation, so why call it that?
            I see a buckled, mangled joint: some of the damage may be plastic, and some may not.
            One thing that *is* for sure: the response of the joint to a dynamic load was inelastic — because, if it had been elastic, the joint wouldn’t have undergone damage.

            One way or another: I find it fascinating that waves propagating through BA fuselages are encountering fuselage section joints that aren’t able to transmit the waves elastically — with mangled joints as a result. Still waiting for evidence that a similar phenomenon occurs in frames from other OEMs.

          • Bryce……
            Google the exceptionally low time A340-600 scrapped at the factory when the fuselage buckled and the nose was left ripped open at a 45 degree angle. Fuselages failing at the joints happens to everybody

          • @ Scott Correa
            I’m going to respectfully disagree with you again.
            The Etihad A340 which you referenced (see photo in link) was a monumental wreck — but I don’t see failure at a joint. I see a lot of tearing of the floor, and I see compound tearing of the roof / side walls — but not clearly located at a particular joint…the damage is far more distributed.
            I also can’t see any joint damage aft of the ledge on which the fuselage is perched — though there may well be damage that isn’t visible in the photo.

            https://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/nieuwsfoto%27s/airbus-a340-ground-collision-in-toulouse-france-on-nieuwsfotos/110836705

          • Bryce,

            We don’t know that it’s plastic deformation, so why call it that?
            I see a buckled, mangled joint: some of the damage may be plastic, and some may not.

            These statements represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the behavior of ductile materials. If you are going to attempt to engage in a technical discussion, you would do well to spend at least a little time educating yourself on the subject matter. It’s easy to find the info. Wikipedia has a passable article on strength of materials. You should at least start there.

            I’m 100% sure that the fuselage wrinkling is due to plastic deformation. If the loading was such that the material deformations remained in the elastic regime, these elastic deformations would disappear once the structure was unloaded. As it is, though, the structural loading was large enough that the material was pushed beyond the elastic regime into the plastic regime. The resulting plastic deformations, being permanent, didn’t disappear once the structure was unloaded.

            With ductile materials, there is ONLY plastic structural damage. There is no such thing as elastic damage. Structural damage is always due to plastic deformations that are permanent. Until, of course, someone decides to pound out the wrinkles which means they would be plastically deforming the structure in the opposite direction to get back to the original shape. However, this would add damage the structure, bringing it closer to failure, even though the shape might look acceptable again.

            Still waiting for evidence that a similar phenomenon occurs in frames from other OEMs.

            You’ll be waiting a long time, then. Different designs have different strengths and weaknesses. Airbus structural designs have weaknesses as well. The engineers who participate in this forum actually understand this.

          • @ MB
            Spare us the lecture.
            You’re not “sure” of anything — you’re making assumptions which you’re attempting to present as certainties. And, in so doing, you’re (deliberately?) missing the whole point.
            Not the first time.

          • Bryce,
            Don’t spout BS while trying to appear like you know what you’re talking about, and you won’t get a lecture. Simple as that.

          • Bryce,
            Again, I’m 100% sure that the fuselage wrinkling on the 767 and the fuselage damage on the A321 that I posted is all due to plastic deformation. The reason I can be 100% sure is that I’m an engineer who uses strength of materials concepts in my everyday work. The fact that you’re not sure indicates you know very little about the subject.

          • Looks like somebody needs to check the definition of “sure” 🙈

            As opposed to “convinced”, for example.

          • The English Professor is back! At least with comments like this you’re sparing us all from having to to endure more of your “technical insights”.

      • @Bryce
        Seemingly a well known phenomenon on older 767’s ..
        Really …can think of 2 other incidents regarding damage to landing gear.in 40 + years of active service..
        Hardly commonplace !!

        Reply

        • RobertL
          In 2014 the 767 fuselage was redesigned and the old style stringer splices were replaced with machined terminal fittings at major section joins where this buckling damage was occurring. The project was called Paddle fittimgs and the team that did it was selected as the Engineering group of the year for Everett. The changes were made to inprove the vehicle and to take 3 flow days out of the factory schedule eliminating the need for 1 fuselage FAJ tool. Of note was that the 767 fuselage repairs were common enough that Boeing AOG had a prepackaged flyaway kit to do these repairs on site……

          Reply

  15. Mike. This is not the same damage mechanism as the 767 fuselage buckling that occurs at the section joints where all the finger joints at the stringer splices occur. On the older 67s, the fuselage may be damaged by buckling if the landing is hard enough. The airbus damage is a localized failure of the nose gear trunnion mount/fuselage interface where it was overloaded on a very hard landing that bottomed the nosestrut. Heres a video of what abuse a 767 absorbs to wrinkle the airplane

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-aUVa3a0U

    Reply

    • Hi Scott,
      I know the example I posted is not the same damage mechanism as with the 767. It is plain to see just by looking at it. I was just answering the question.

      Reply

      • Giving rise to an interesting question:
        If the AB frame hadn’t failed at the point of impact, would an inelastic failure have occurred at a fuselage section joint further along the frame, as with various BA models?

        Anyone got any more data on this?

        Reply

  17. “1 Big Warning Sign in Boeing’s 737 MAX Order Book”

    “With the A320neo family backlog increasingly tilting toward the A321neo, the downside of cannibalizing A319neo and A320neo sales decreases. A stretched A220 would primarily eat into Boeing’s sales, as the A321neo would remain well differentiated from the A220.

    “A larger A220 probably won’t enter service until 2029 or 2030. But when it arrives, it will compete against an aging 737 MAX lineup, setting the stage for further market share gains by Airbus.”

    https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/14/1-big-warning-sign-in-boeings-737-max-order-book/

    Reply

    • Good reasoning in that article. I wonder how soon the -500 will be launched.

      Reply

      • I also found the reasoning very good.
        So did the Nasdaq site content manager, it would seem.

        Reply

  18. Chinese lessor CALC is transferring “order book of 64 B737 MAX aircraft” to Dubai lessor DAE:

    “Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Ltd today announced that an affiliate had signed a definitive agreement to acquire the rights, interests, and obligations of a portfolio of 64 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft from a wholly-owned subsidiary of China Aircraft Leasing Group Holdings Limited (“CALC”).

    “The portfolio includes 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 variants. Delivery of the aircraft is scheduled to occur between 2023 and 2026.”

    https://airlinergs.com/dae-to-acquire-order-book-of-64-boeing-737-max-aircraft-from-calc/

    ***

    Looks like another move by China to distance itself fron the MAX…

    Reply

    • What is China / Comac waiting for to launch a C920 / A321neo derivative ?

      The C919 being like the 737MAX8 in terms of length. Does COMAC/China want to torpedo Boeing? How difficult is it to launch an additional strech C919-> C920 ?

      Could it be a secret agreement between Europe and China to leave Airbus alone?

      -*- American investigators should work

      Reply

  19. Looks like Indigo is going with the 787 for their future widebody order..
    Even with the early delivery slots available for the 330neo, and huge waiting list for the backlog of 787’s , .
    unmatched economics and proven fuel efficiency trumped out over a program in desperate need of orders !

    Reply

    • More like unmatched discounting from BA, which is desperate to get a foot in the door at India’s biggest airline:

      “According to one of the two sources, who spoke anonymously, Boeing is actively pursuing this deal. Further, it is highly interested in securing the order from IndiGo, as the airline currently does not have any Boeing aircraft in its fleet.”

      https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2023/08/14/indigo-in-talks-to-order-25-new-boeing-787-dreamliners/

      Bloomberg estimates that UA got a 60% discount on its recent 787 order, so just imagine what discounts are being offered to Indigo. Shades of Ryanair’s 69%? 😏

      But the cat isn’t in the bag yet, is it? Maybe prudent to wait until the deal is done. Same applies to the reports that El Al is about to order 32 A321s.

      Reply

      • So every order the 330n is missing out on, is because Boeing is giving away the 787 ..Okay Bryce..
        Not like the 787 is desperately seeking orders…..now, quickly approaching 1800 !!.
        When your the dominate player in your market segment,
        You can run your discount theory into the ground , sooner or later even you will realize , yesterday’s technology , simply cannot compete with today’s.!!.

        Reply

        • Boeing *is* giving away the 787: it hasn’t made a single penny on the whole program.

          Also, for many quarters now, BA’s average unit revenue has been significantly lower than AB’s — which reflects lower selling price per BA unit. Strange, seeing as BA generally has more (legacy) widebodies in its delivery mix, which (should) have a (much) higher price tag…

          Reply

          • Evidently, they know a good thing is worth waiting for..find it very amusing that you think AB is not discounting the 330 n , considering the mega discount they received for the 500 narrow-body order, yet somehow doesn’t apply to the 330..lol.
            Obviously ,they could have acquired the 330 n as early as next year, with such a low backlog !;
            Really says alot , about how far apart the 2 really are in the small to medium widebody market !!

          • “..find it very amusing that you think AB is not discounting the 330 n”

            Who said AB isn’t discounting?
            Every airframer offers discounts — but there’s a difference between discounting and over-discounting.

            One airframer consistently makes a profit, and is swimming in cash.
            Another airframer consistently makes a loss, and is drowning in debt.
            Mmhh…I wonder which one is over-discounting? 🙈

            Remember that an important advantage of the A330n program is that it offers a relatively straightforward way to squeeze BA’s pricing on the 787 — LNA and others have written on this.
            Nice trick 😏
            In the meantime, 250+ orders for a development cost of just €2B. The 787’s program cost is now at $32B (and counting).
            Who’s the real loser here?

        • @Robert L

          ‘yesterday’s technology , simply cannot compete with today’s.!!.’

          Absolutely. One has to look no further than the competition between 737 Max and the A320Neo family to see that effect. Completely concur.

          ‘So every order the 330n is missing out on, is because Boeing is giving away the 787’

          No. But Boeing is selling the 787 below cost. It says so right in the financials:

          ‘At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787 program: deferred production costs of $12,193 and $12,689, $1,765 and $1,831 of supplier advances, and $1,600 and $1,722 of unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs. At June 30, 2023, $11,823 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 $1,970 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders. We are currently producing at abnormally low rates resulting in abnormal production costs that are being expensed as incurred. We expensed abnormal production costs of $693 and $595 during the six months ended June 30, 2023 and 2022.’

          Having written off over $6 billion on the program that is never coming back, means the program is a loss. Didn’t sell the aircraft for enough to cover costs. Charged too little.

          They also need MORE sales to cover $1.97 billion in expenses they have sitting, waiting in Inventory. Sales they don’t have yet.

          Yah – sure, they cornered the market as the follow on to the A330Ceo. It only cost the company over $6 billion to do it. Not including monies spent out of the development budget.

          That kind of domination, you can keep….

          Reply

        • I was wavering, but the multiple exclamation marks now have me convinced.

          Reply

          • I thought everything in CAPS was the cat’s pajamas.

            But I’ll defer to your exclamation marks….

    • Lol! Oh yeah !

      It’s hard of our detractors to believe that Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner launched two years earlier than the competing Airbus A350 (launched twice 2005-2007) had to be worse than the CFRP widebody with problematic CFRP skin layers.

      But Boeing’s spanking is pretty painful it seems 👍

      Reply

      • and 787 CFRP fuselage gap problems (gaps in the joins and the lack of flatness of the inner fuselage) ?
        Main advantage for A350 is the framed fuselage structure compared to 787 built the monolithic carbon fiber composite structure.
        How will each play out in the future freighter conversion market? Seems like fuselage structure changes (e.g. cargo doors) would be easier on the A350

        Reply

        • David.
          I studied the A350 when I was a lead fuselage planner at BA. I honestly like the choices they made putting it together better than the 87. As the second mover, they had the advantage of not making the first mover disadvantages. The use of 4 separately laminated skin panel assemblies lets you make them faster because they remove a lot of autoclave road blocks. Boeings layups are bigger, and there are fewer of them which makes nailing the airplane together
          faster. Your thinking that the separate fuselage panels makes the 350 a better conversion candidate isn’t a reality. Let me explain. The A350 uses mechanical index fasteners to hold the panels in position while a BUNCH of adhesive is applied to all the stringers , frames and skin. After this cures, the BA and AB fuselage barrels are structurally equivalent. Both are fully cured structures that cannot be disassembled by the removal of mechanical fasteners. They end up being fully glued together sections using a belt and suspenders approach where fasteners jig the structure but the glue does the hard work. Both company’s barrel segments rely on connection parts to mate to the next adjacent barrel section. Both use a bunch of titanium connection parts. Both are OML tooled which drives the gap filling needs to the inside of the airplane. Neither airplane is protecting a cargo door opening in that the longitudinal beams required for floor and ceiling door frames Nor the door jamb structure are in place when initially manufactured. The end result is that Both aircraft, if converted, will have a door opening created by dropping a saw through the skin, and from there the remaining conversion process is identical, with a slight edge to Airbus because Metric parts are ever so slightly easier to make repeatedly. ALSO, its the opinion of many of my respected engineers on both sides of the pond that Metallic fuselages are the future for freighters because of their better handling of fingerprint loads. Have a great day.

          Reply

  20. Good old BA software strikes again:
    “Four Boeing 787 Diversions in Hong Kong Due to Software Issue”

    “ASIA- Hong Kong investigators have concluded that flightpath deviations in 2019 were caused by a software problem within several Boeing 787 autopilot flight-director systems.

    “The Air Accident Investigation Authority (AAIA) of Hong Kong has published its final reports on four incidents, revealing that during ILS approaches to Hong Kong International Airport, the affected aircraft veered away from the intended localizer courses.”

    “During their approach to runway 25R at Hong Kong International Airport, these aircraft, which were on autopilot, deviated from their designated flight paths, veering towards northern terrain and overshooting their intended headings.

    “The Air Accident Investigation Authority (AAIA) investigation in Hong Kong also revealed that three of the 787 aircraft descended below the minimum sector altitude. Two of these (operated by Virgin Atlantic and Ethiopian Airlines) were instructed to execute a go-around procedure.”

    https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2023/08/14/boeing-787-diversions-in-hong-kong-software-issue/

    Reply

    • Lol!
      Reinforcement of the troll with link.

      It’s pretty clean 👍

      Reply

  21. Nice to see your picking up right where you left off… Happens every time, Boeing about to bag another order, to be followed by your usual barrage of insults and excuses for not selected your preferred OEM…

    Reply

    • What “barrage of insults”?
      I don’t see any insults.
      Boeing’s miserable finances are established fact — it’s not an insult to reference them.
      There’s also a large, varied body of evidence as regards over-discounting — not an insult to reference that either.

      So, what did you have in mind?
      Or was this just another sulk?

      Reply

      • Bryce

        Things are better at Boeing

        You still don’t remember…
        And I repeat it like a Mantra here,

        It’s the rule !

        -> 2023 better than 2022, better than 2021 etc etc…
        Don’t forget,
        Stop troll!

        Reply

        • Bryce
          Things are better at Boeing
          You still don’t remember…

          Why does this sound like the Engineer on the Titanic reassuring the Captain that the flooding has slowed……

          Reply

          • Hoover’s “Prosperity is just around the corner” also comes to mind…

  22. Re The Mostley Fool article 737MAX familly vs A220-500X / A321neo

    An error to be corrected about the article The Mostley Fool.

    -> More MAX-10s (~600) were sold than MAX-7s. (+300).
    At this rate it sold x2 more MAX-10 than MAX-7 in less time since MAX-10 was launched 6 years after MAX-7 (2011 vs 2017).

    Key point

    -> I always claimed that the A220-500X was a cannibal to the A320neo variant. That’s what the Mostley Fool says.
    Good,
    They read us?
    Maybe…

    My analysis –

    > I add that the non-cockpit community could be a long-term flaw. This could lose some long-term value while the cockpits of the 737MAX are the same, it is not negligible in terms of value and then it installs a certain complexity.

    -> Note also that the MAX-8, which is selling very well, could also have encroached on the sales of the A320neo variant.
    Therefore, an additional 12 seats in favor of the 737MAX-8 vs A320neo could be a valid argument.

    -> The other gray area of Airbus’ strategies is that in the same way the 737MAX-10 flies less far than the A321neo, how the alleged A220-500X which not only would also have ~12 seats lower than the MAX-8 and would also fly less far would be better?

    (!) Ah, the laws aren’t the same when it comes to Airbus, are they?
    We could discuss the CFRP wing of the A220, but we could also talk about how the A220-500X fuselage is long will be vs the 737MAX-8.

    I honestly think I understand the Boeing CEO D. Calhoun when he says it won’t give him “no sour stomach”…

    Thks

    Reply

  23. Robert L

    …”Looks like Indigo is going with the 787 for their future widebody order..
    Even with the early delivery slots available for the 330neo, and huge waiting list for the backlog of 787’s , .
    unmatched economics and proven fuel efficiency trumped out over a program in desperate need of orders !…”

    —-
    Absolutely, yesterday’s technology will always be better than yesterday’s technology. This also applies to Airbus, not just Boeing 737 vs A320. I would also add that the 787 is a lighter weight A330/777-200ER size at Boeing standard with 777 standards where the A330 does not have widebody Boeing standards. Bryce can break his head. He hasn’t understood anything as usual or refuses to understand…

    The A330neo and A350 often lose against the 787 ( Dreamliner, and that’s hard for them to digest

    ***Congrats to Boeing and IndiGo, that’s great news if true.👍***

    Thks

    Reply

    • Absolutely Checklist…
      It’s par for the course…
      As if he’ll ever change…
      He’s been warned numerous times for insulting behavior, ..
      Give him a few days, and right back to where he left off….
      Umm Byrce;
      The only one sulking here is ..🪞!!!

      Reply

      • Lol!

        I saw a pink elephant and a purple one.

        Source: Reuters. 👍

        (!) The problem on the internet is that we can say and troll as we want

        Reply

  24. Bryce

    ”…Bloomberg estimates that UA got a 60% discount on its recent 787 order, so just imagine what discounts are being offered to Indigo. Shades of Ryanair’s 69%? …”
    —
    Still no sources for UA and Ryanair. This one looks more like a desperate attempt by Bryce to sleep better at night with good digestion! Lol!👍

    Reply

  26. Oh dear!
    “FAA: sideways facing seats Boeing MAX 10 could pose safety hazard”

    “UPDATE – The FAA has released an additional set of special conditions for sideways-facing seats on the Boeing MAX 10. The document, which is open for comment until September 29, identifies new safety hazards to passengers from recent research. Additional safety measures might be considered.”

    “In January 2019, Boeing requested a change of the type certificate of the MAX 10 to install side-facing seats at an angle of 49 degrees to the centerline. This arrangement is in use on some Boeing 787s, but the special conditions for this aircraft no longer apply as the criteria were changed in July 2018.”

    https://airinsight.com/faa-sideways-facing-seats-boeing-max-10-could-pose-safety-hazard/

    ***

    Customers won’t be impressed if they’re impeded in their choice of business class cabin arrangement.
    In particular, AAB won’t be amused if he has to amend his Q-suite product — which already had to be degraded to match the 787’s narrower cabin relative to the 777/A350/A380.

    Reply

    • Bryce.
      While this isnt exactly new news, it does go to to illustrate the unacknowledged brain drain at BA. This is a new installation in a 737, and the engineering package is virtually identical to the 787 from the floor beams up. The cert guys, whats left of them anyway, submitted previously approved engineering in an effort to cert by commonality. Well somebody somewhere decided that the original data package was not in compliance with what congress wanted, so BA gets to resubmit the exact same stuff by doing a giant copy paste of what the 87 guys got approved instead of just being able to point at the original package as a reference note….. Its stuff like this behind the headlines that folks that understand the process shake our heads at….. But then again we are happy to report that the flooding has slowed

      Reply

      • I think the aviation press is well aware of the brain drain at BA…though not necessarily of the daily details thereof.

        Here’s an interesting Seattle Times article from 2021:

        “FAA says Boeing is appointing people lacking expertise to oversee airplane certification”

        https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-says-boeing-is-appointing-people-lacking-expertise-to-oversee-airplane-certification/

        LNA has also written on the subject:

        https://leehamnews.com/2020/08/31/pontifications-wa-state-frets-about-boeing-brain-drain-but-its-already-happening/

        ***

        Be thankful that you got off the Titanic in time 😏

        Reply

        • Bryce.
          I didnt leave willingly. I was forced out by a nasty case of flesh eating bacteria. It worked out ok as Im still here to write stuff…… But yes, Im darn lucky to have gotten out when I did as many things converged to make it work…. I am a member of the last group of employees that had great pensions and bennies…. So remember that im handicapped when you want to beat up on me, lolololol

          Reply

          • Flesh eating bacterial infections can be horrific!
            I hope you’re not too badly affected by the aftermath?

            A sitting Dutch prime minister nearly lost a foot a few years ago due to such an infection…things eventually worked out, but he was in hospital for weeks.

            Shocking to think where we’d be without powerful antibiotic cocktails.

          • @Bryce

            Not just got off of the Titanic at the right time, but our erudite friend dumped BA at a most opportune time.

            Bagholder….he is not.

          • Frank
            Thanks maan. Some think im a BA fanboy because I worked there. BS, I have been quite critical of their mental lapses, their substandard workforce in Charleston and a number of other things….. Anyhow have a great day up there and tell Pablo that Joey wants a playdate………

  27. -> As travel rebounds, understaffed ground crews are getting injured and even killed. “The airports weren’t prepared properly, the ground handlers weren’t prepared properly, the airlines weren’t prepared properly.”

    https://twitter.com/_benkatz/status/1691423766306312192

    -> Injury rates among US airline ground crews are up as air travel surges back.

    “What we’ve been taught doesn’t match what is being done on the field.”

    https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1691470919712018433

    Reply

  28. Bryce.
    The term near miss always bothered me…… Isnt a near miss actually an impact???
    Anyhow I digress

    Reply

    • Nice syntactic point 😎

      I think there’s a difference between:
      – “near-miss”, i.e. a miss that nearly occurred (which, indeed, is technically an impact);
      – “near miss”, i.e. a miss that occurred when objects were relatively near at closest approach, as opposed to relatively far.

      Perhaps @Vincent would like to comment — he takes syntax very seriously 👍
      (bless him for that)

      Reply

    • near miss (noun)

      ‘the girl you met in the club last night who takes up most of the bed’

      That’s my understanding.

      Thanks, I’ll show myself out, now…

      Reply

  29. “Boeing secrets over deadly 737 MAX crashes shield FAA ‘incompetence,’ critics say”

    “Airline safety continues to trouble the flying public, stemming lately from a court decision in June that keeps secret what Boeing told the FAA concerning fixes to MCAS flight control software after two fatal 737 MAX crashes killed 346 people nearly five years ago.”

    ““Boeing and the FAA are now immune from review by outside independent safety experts, can shield negligence, incompetence, conflicts and undue influence in safety decision making.””

    “Gregory Travis, an unpaid expert for FlyersRights.org, and also a pilot and retired software entrepreneur, has long questioned MCAS and its subsequent upgrades and said the FAA or Boeing need to explain what would happen to a 737 MAX plane in flight if the current MCAS system were to fail. “We don’t even know what the pilot should do if the red light turns on that says MCAS is not operating,” he said in an interview with Fierce.”

    “Travis, the software expert for FlyersRights has repeatedly questioned how MCAS could ever have been implemented, once calling it “unfathomably incompetent.””

    “Hudson believes congressional action is needed to reverse the court decision to restore FOIA and require mandatory disclosure of basic information in air safety decisions including flight test protocols and flight test results for the 2020 recertification and ungrounding of the MAX after two deadly crashes. He said there have been “many safety incidents” with the plane since 2020. Two such incident with the 737 MAX were presented to the Senate Commerce Committee in March.”

    https://www.fierceelectronics.com/electronics/boeing-secrets-over-deadly-737-max-crashes-shield-faa-incompetence-critics-say

    ***

    Most Scrutinized Plane in History
    (…yeah, right…)

    Reply

  31. “We don’t even know what the pilot should do if the red light turns on that says MCAS is not operating,” he said in an interview with Fierce.

    Here’s the answer:

    The 737 MAX is a safe aircraft to fly also without MCAS. How can I know, I haven’t flown the MAX?

    No, but test pilots from Boeing, FAA, and EASA have. And they don’t certify an unstable aircraft, they can’t. The flight safety rules for airliners denies unstable aircraft certification.

    The updated MCAS will be deactivated when its sensors disagree. Then the aircraft is flying without MCAS and by definition, it can’t then be unstable. This is why I know.

    -Bjorn Fehrm

    https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/14/why-is-the-737-max-safe-now-when-it-wasnt-before/

    Reply

    • Checks and balances.
      Experts would like to independently evaluate those “findings” by others.
      If BA/FAA have nothing to hide, then why not just release the documents — right?

      Reply

      • Checked by EASA, checked by Transport Canada, the Brazilians, the Chinese.

        Reply

        • One can never have enough experts looking over shoulders when there’s political/commercial motivation in the equation 😉

          We already saw a different outcome from the EASA vs. the FAA — specifying requirements that still haven’t been met, as it happens.
          Plenty of room for insights from others.

          Reply

        • Didn’t those same august entities previously approve the ill-fated MCAS 1.0 ? More, independent, oversight is better.

          “It’s all fixed now.”

          Reply

          • Vincent.
            Try to keep the story straight when you jab people. MCAS 1.0 was submitted to the FAA initially. They said very well press on. BA then found issues with the airplane handling and made MCAS 2.0 which was delivered w/o going back to the FAA for review. MCAS 3.0 is the latest and greatest……. Perhaps you missed the memo….

          • @ Scott Correa
            I’m with @Vincent on this one.
            One way or another, the original MAX — together with its Franken-MCAS — was rubber-stamped by various regulators.
            His point remains valid, i.e. that absolute junk can slip through the cracks…specially when there are bureaucrats involved…

          • Bryce…. I would hope you think this thru a bit. MCAS 1.0, if delivered, wouldnt have crashed the airplanes. All the agencys approving 1.0 were correct to do so. BA installed 2.0 unannounced to regulators and MCAS 2.0 gave the max a lot of stabilizer movement authority that the regulators knew nothing about. This is the crux of the debacle, BA made significant changes to a stab aug program w/o regulatory oversight and it crashed the airplanes. Vincent forgets that the regulators never reviewed 2.0 that was delivered because BS changed 1.0 that they had approved. How you can say that a worldwide rubberstamping occured is beyond me because you cant sign off stuff that was never presented to you…… did you read pg 26??

          • @ Scott Correa
            The original MAX was rubber-stamped — warts and all.
            The fact that BA got away with hoodwinking the FAA w.r.t. MCAS just means that the FAA didn’t have appropriate checks and balances in place.
            In that light, @Vincent’s comment retains its validity: the FAA greenlighted a Frankenplane — even if it wasn’t aware of the plane’s shortcomings at the time.
            The system failed — and it can fail again (for different or similar reasons).

            On that subject: although I have the greatest respect for Mr. Fehrm, his quote above contains a logic trap…has anyone else spotted it?

            P.s. : Yes, I read your article 👍

    • University of Michigan analysis, January 2023:

      “First, through in-depth real-time simulation, we analyze and demonstrate the ease by which the original MCAS design could fail. Our analysis reveals several novel vectors of failure that were not present in the original crashes. We also analyze Boeing’s revised MCAS and show how it falls short of its intended goals”

      Reply

      • So, according to these academics, what were the intended goals that the revised MCAS falls short of? And, how exactly does the revised MCAS fall short of these goals? No link?

        Reply

        • I have the link right in front of me…but understanding it requires proper comprehension of the concept of “sure” 😉

          As regards the goals of MCAS, here’s a neat quote from the analysis:

          “There is an inconsistency in Boeing’s revisions:
          •Boeing originally designed MCAS due to a lack of
          trust for the pilot, defaulting to trusting the autono-
          mous control of the aircraft through MCAS;
          •Boeing revised MCAS due to a lack of trust for
          autonomous control, defaulting to trusting the pilot
          control of the aircraft.”

          Chimes nicely with the link that I posted above.

          Reply

          • Let me get this straight. You have the link in front of you but you refuse to post it? It looks like you have something to hide, Bryce. Perhaps you are just making things up again, like when you made up the term “inelastic deformation”.

          • Yes, I have it right in front of me — a very interesting piece, with very detailed analyses.
            I’d imagine that any qualified engineer would be able to find such an article online…but probably not someone who has difficulty grasping the first law of thermodynamics and the concept of inelasticity…🙈

          • Typical MO of the AB hooligans — no links to back up assertions.

          • “..Boeing revised MCAS due to a lack of trust for
            autonomous control, defaulting to trusting the pilot
            control of the aircraft.”

            “Ahhh, back to you again, Jim!” God, what a maxi-kludge joke MCAS is.

  34. “Boeing China appoints new president amid Sino-US tensions”

    “Boeing named Alvin Liu head of its China unit on Wednesday, picking a Chinese-born representative recently hired from the auto industry as the aircraft maker grapples with a drought in U.S. imports to the crucial aviation market.”

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/boeing-china-appoints-new-president-amid-sino-us-tensions/articleshow/102767093.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

    ***

    Just this week, CALC jettisoned (sold) its order for 64 MAXs…

    Reply

  35. Looks like the German government can’t retire their A340 fleet soon enough after a series of “oops”have left important gov. VIPs stranded on numerous occasions..
    It’s definitely time to say bye-bye to the A340 for good ,if their own government is having trouble’s keeping them airworthy !!😆

    Reply

      • Way to dig into the vault on that one…
        Just love to see you triggered ,
        by anything you find offensive against your beloved company..
        You must be very proud of yourself going back nearly 20 years ,to find one isolated incident.
        And with a757 nonetheless..
        Nice try Bryce..
        If you would find the time to actually read the link, and believe me , you’ve seen it already, you’d see that it’s been happening numerous times ,a huge embarrassment for the German government.!!
        Hey maybe you can go back a little further and find out that the Ford Tri-motor delayed Truman’s campaign for President !!!😂😂😂

        Reply

        • “…And with a757 nonetheless..”

          The VC-25A is a 747-200…not a 757.

          And the German state A340s are 20 years old.

          Don’t get too agitated — not good for the circulatory system 🙈

          Reply

  36. Nice to see the 340 program , meeting everyone’s expectations,
    Twenty years on ,and time for a one way ticket to the Boneyard..
    Plenty’ of 777’s flying well beyond that ..and safely too…
    And don’t fall back on the Pratt engine issues considering an AF a380 had half an engine dangling from the pylon as well !!
    A good thing they got the A350 to fall back on .
    Thankyou ever so much AB for all your splendid WB offerings, A380, 330 n waiting in the wings ..😂😂

    Reply

    • Didn’t two young 787s recently go to the boneyard? 😉

      Who said the German A340s are going to the boneyard?
      The Germans are taking them out of service — but that doesn’t mean they’re going to be scrapped…

      Reply

      • Umm, so how many A340’s are currently flying..??
        Echoes with the sound’s of silence !!!
        😆😆😆…..move on Bryce ..and tell AB to put all their eggs in the A350 basket. …
        And the German government and Lufthansa they’re fortunate to get 20 years out of that antiquated airframe , while your at it !!!

        Reply

        • How many passenger 747-400s are currently flying?
          Just 50.

          And the first 747-8i (N458BJ) has gone to the boneyard.

          Four engines are out of fashion across the board…except for those carriers with recently acquired, un-amortized frames.
          Although Emirates seems to be relatively happy with its four-engine fleet — which generated 85% of Emirates’ profit prior to CoViD.

          Reply

          • Nice attempt at deflection …
            You do realize the the 747 still has a long life ahead of it in the cargo market, meaning it has usefulness beyond it’s passenger carrying days…
            Tell me …
            How many 340f’s do you see flying around ..??😆😅😆
            Face it ..you can’t admit how much of a failure the 340 was ..
            Get used to it …
            The 330 n is about to one up it.🤣

          • The cargo branch is renowned for using old wrecks until they have one foot in the grave 🙈

            But even the cargo branch wants to further migrate to twin-engine frames. In that respect, the A330-300 P2F is selling like hot cakes 😏

            No sign yet of a 787F? 🤔

        • We already knew this — you’re just repeating what you posted above. I told you about a similar incident with the VC-25A in 2006…remember now?

          The article doesn’t say that the frames in question are going to be scrapped…

          Reply

          • I only thought you couldn’t count, evidently, you can’t read either !!!
            The Qantas a220 order comes to mind. You had everyone so confused,. even your bestie Frank couldn’t make sense of your botched comment !!!
            I for one, found it very amusing ,your favorite beloved link let you down ..!!😅😅

          • @Robert L

            Interesting.

            Just because you think that I respect Bryce’s opinion and may agree with him on many points, that I would put that above intellectual honesty.

            This is the world we live in, created by a certain nameless individual IMO, who seeks to avoid prison, these days.

            “You’re either with me, or against me”

            Bryce could be correct in his assessment 90% of the time. Intellectual honesty requires that I respectfully point out any inconsistencies in the other 10% of the time and we can have a back and forth on those points.

            I would expect him to do the same to me, along with others, in here.

            But you go ahead and stick with your B&W views of things.

      • Bryce.
        Lets stay apples to apples in comparing the 340 vs 787 articles people are tossing back and forth. The 787s were reduced to spares because the engines could not be adequately serviced by the engine manufacturer and the best way forward for the lessor was to scrap them and start the alternate pipeline for 787 parts. Im not exactly sure of the 340s particular issues that caused the 340s problems other than they were clearly different than the 787 economic rationale….. RobertL isnt making a credible argument

        Reply

        • With regard to your last line: he never does 😉

          Not sure about your explanation regarding the 787s: was it cheaper to scrap an entire frame than to put replacement engines on it and lease it out for another 10 years — in a market in which airlines are supposedly falling over one another to get frames?

          As regards the German A340s: they’re 20 years old, and the Germans now have new A350s that they can use instead. The service requirements of the A340s were becoming onerous — a bit like the situation with the MDs at Allegiant a few years ago.

          Reply

          • Yes, I had the same question re the scrapped 787s: you don’t normally scrap an entire plane because of an engine problem, no?

            Odd.

  37. My apologies for calling the originally-implemented MCAS “1.0”.

    That the true effects of that first, as-delivered MCAS system- whatever one chooses to call it- somehow escaped the notice of *multiple regulators*, supports my previous contention that more, *independent, disinterested* scrutiny of the MAX and Boeing in general would be a very good thing.

    I won’t mention Boeing’s other ongoing aircraft structural issues, which are a slightly different matter.

    Reply

    • Also, let’s not forget that, shortly after the MAX re-cert in the US, more than 100 MAXs were subject to a new grounding order because of an electrical screw-up:

      https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-electrical-groundings/

      So, the “FAA re-born” still wasn’t/isn’t functioning properly.
      The subsequent 5G debacle reinforced that image — albeit originating from a different branch within the FAA.

      Reply

  39. Robert L said,

    …”A good thing they [AirFrance] got the A350 to fall back on …”
    —-
    Lol!
    Thank you to the French Socialist Party which in 2011 had lobbied in the Senate for AF to order the A350 because the American manufacturer’s share with the 777 and 787 in the fleet was a memorable spanking to Airbus…
    —-

    Robert L said,

    …”Thankyou ever so much AB for all your splendid WB offerings, A380, 330 n waiting in the wings…”
    —-
    Now Airbus has the A350 don’t forget that. Copied from Boeing standards, but Airbus has no real diversified product like Boeing WB jet, such as 787 and 777/777X, that’s why Boeing maintains leadership before launching 737MAX replacement in 6-7 years. It will be over for Airbus when they can’t wait 20 years to launch their A320 replacement like in the 80s vs 60s for the 737…
    It will be the death of Airbus.
    The calm before the storm for them…
    But for the moment Airbus wants this moment to be long

    God bless the USA and Boeing -*-

    Reply

  40. -> About JetZero

    .. “Everything we accomplished on the BWB over the last 30+ years has brought us here. So, think of JetZero as a 30-year old company with the energy and agility of a startup…”

    -> About Mark Page
    Founder, CTO

    Mark is Chief Technology Officer of JetZero. As a McDonnell Douglas program manager, he led a three-year NASA funded initiative to investigate BWB properties.

    https://www.jetzero.aero/

    -> Mark Page explains
    The Ultra-Efficient Blended Wing

    https://youtu.be/LSsxb_R1ZdA

    (!) What is beautiful in this story is one of the talented designers at Mc Donnel Douglas, no longer chained by the Suite C of the former Mc Donnel Douglas. In 2023, finally free being at the head of the Startup!
    In the USA the dream is still possible (Jobs, Musk etc …)👍

    Reply

    • *SpaceX Reported $5.2B in Total Costs Last Year, Up 56% YOY, SpaceX Documents Show — WSJ

      *Preliminary 1Q Results in 2023 Show SpaceX Earned $55M Profit, SpaceX Documents Show — WSJ

      Reply

      • SpaceX has a nasty $12B in debt hanging around its neck.

        “In response to media reports, Musk stated in a tweet this week that SpaceX is unlikely to go bankrupt but that it is possible. It is not impossible to file for bankruptcy while SpaceX loses billions on Starlink and Starship, but this is still highly unlikely, according to Musk.”

        “Despite being one of the most innovative and successful space companies in the world, SpaceX’s financial losses have been mounting. SpaceX has lost $900 million as a result of rural broadband subsidies since 2006. The company has launched three Falcon 1 and two Falcon 9s, which were both complete failures, and one Falcon 9 that was a partial failure. In late 2020 and early 2021, four prototype Starship vehicles failed during high-altitude test launches, resulting in the company’s final failure. Because SpaceX has been involved in these failures, there has been concern about their safety record as well as their ability to complete large-scale projects.”

        https://www.eclipseaviation.com/spacexs-12-billion-debt-how-the-company-plans-to-pay-it-off/#google_vignette

        Reply

        • From the article Bryce linked:

          Despite its heavy debt load, SpaceX is still one of the most valuable private companies in the world, with a valuation of $33.3 billion. The company has continued to attract investors, even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused many other companies to struggle. SpaceX’s debt is a reflection of the high costs associated with developing and launching rockets and spacecraft. However, the company’s strong financial position indicates that it is well-positioned to continue meeting its goals and expanding its reach in the coming years.

          As for reliability, the fact is that the Falcon 9 is the most reliable orbital class rocket in the history or rockets. Current launch success streak is at 226 and counting, and the current landing streak is at 143 and counting. It is also the least expensive to operate (by a huge margin), and offers unparalleled cadence and launch schedule flexibility. No one else in the world has even come close to the level of success SpaceX has achieved with the Falcon 9.

          Reply

          • Remind me WeWork, once valued at stratospheric level. Lol. Do you guys read financial news??

          • Pedro,
            Who gives a crap about WeWork? You should be more concerned that Europe’s answer to SpaceX has launched 2 whole rockets in 2023 compared with 56 launches for SpaceX. Europe’s market share in commercial space launch is essentially zero, and this is not going to change anytime soon.

          • Says the one who didn’t follow financial news. Lol.

            Can you read financial statements?? 🙄

            -> non-GAAP net margins of -13% on a loss of $559 million
            -> use company cash to buy back employee stock at 35x revs ($153mm)

            -> with CapEx, […] is burning $2 billion+ in cash annually

            https://twitter.com/ESGhound/status/1692281934976577859

            This is the winner?? Facepalm.

          • The analysts in “a certain country” always tend to overlook debt — one can only wonder why.

            With a profit of $55M in a quarter, it will take more than 60 years to pay off that $12B debt.

            Not clear how that can be called a “strong financial position”…except by entities with some sort of vested interest.

  44. Did anybody know this?

    https://airlive.net/news/2023/08/16/in-addition-to-the-six-daily-a380-flights-emirates-adds-a-boeing-777-300er-to-london-heathrow/

    ‘Emirates currently serves London Heathrow with six daily A380 flights. The additional flight will operate on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays and will be served by Emirates’ wide-body Boeing 777-300ER aircraft, fitted in a three-class configuration split between First, Business and Economy classes.’

    6 daily A380 flights to LHR and they’re adding 7th? That many people go on to London from connections out east? Astonishing…

    ‘The airline currently serves the UK with 126 weekly flights’

    Reply

    • That’s just London Heathrow: if you throw in London Gatwick, the number of daily London flights rises to 10. And the airline also serves Manchester, for example.

      Most passengers are Brits going to/from Asia/Africa via Dubai, or going to/from Dubai as a destination in itself. Many of the premium passengers are Emirati residents shuttling back and forth between the gulf and luxury residences in London.

      Reply

      • That’s one of the reasons why i think it’s too bad for Airbus not to have considered a CFRP 2-class +400 seater.

        An 10-11 abreast experience and 7-Abreast Business lie flat 81″ @ pitch (Boeing standard cab) would have been a true game changer/more aggressive cross product against the Boieng 777-300ER/777-X widebody.

        Airbus was to believe that the A350-1000 would have been a real game changer and diversified product with the A350-900.

        From a 2-class 350-seats the market likes the possibility of a 7-abresat business seat like the standard 747 and 777/-777X

        A 2-2-2 that Airbus had made a standard (A330/A380/A340/A350) does not work for large aircraft, which is why the 787 ( Dreamliner cornered the bottom if the market while the 777/777-X cornered the top if the market.

        The reason for the success of the A350-900 remains small compared to the 787-9 but remains credible towards the GAP 2-class 300-340 seats.

        Airbus did not want to build something big but less gigantic than the A380, but absolutely had to be bigger than the A350-1000 flop which is an A340-600 flop also

        The error that is confirmed is that Boeing since 2020 has been struggling to certify the 777-X.

        Just imagine the impact of that Airbus CFRP Big-Twin (A360-X) causing 777-X orders to be cancelled!?

        Airbus missed several opportunities to build a truly diversified but complementary product to the successful A350-900.

        It is high time at Toulouse that a senior design office manager go and have a serious chat with the marketing team to knock on Mr. Faury’s door and say this: “Mr. Faury, with all due respect , the A350-1000 joke has lasted long enough. Look at our docs and let’s talk about a launch within two years.”

        Except that it should have happened in 2019.
        The Triple 7X being already delayed in 2019…

        Reply

      • Thks for the article

        I would just like to react on 2 things

        (1. Notice that the US Air Force version of the BWB of JetZero is put forward more than the passenger version.

        (!) However I fully encourage JetZero to carry out its project and would personally like a “passenger BWB” to be a success for them, it could be a new page that turns for American aeronautics. A new challenger, a Startup made up of people from the aeronautical field for more than 30 years at Mc Donnel Douglas and Boeing is only good news for the American and global industry. It will be time to see if JetZero, whatever the outcome, would be a new american player such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumann?
        Civilian and military or just military if you orefer ?

        Only time will tell. But Boeing today also has its “conceptual bias” and precisely this will be point number 2.

        (2. Jon Ostrower and Dominic Gates had joined Guy Norris’ team at Aviation Week 8 months ago to protest, air their grievances, or lament Boeing after D. Calhoun delayed the next aircraft development effort due to lack of development engine and aimed for at least 30% aircraft efficiency.

        But Boeing now has the TTBW which in my opinion would be a great alternative to an efficient tube aircraft and a BWB without the constraints of a “commercial BWB”.

        I am sure and happy to see that american aeronautics is full of resources and talented people. Boeing’s idea could also be the right solution for the journey of the future. Jon and Dominic to be quite ridiculous in gesturing to show that Boeing is wrong and JetZero is right. I would say in reality that it is aeronautics and the American industry which is winning. So please what are these journalists who divide readers like the politicians of the world do? Why not have written their articles in this direction?
        From my point of view, the USA wins and that’s good news.

        Now I would like to discuss my more in-depth view of the future of civil aviation (2035+). There is always a time marker to perform to better understand where things are going.
        20 years ago Boeing launched the 787, apart from the appearance of an industrial mess it remains an innovative, if not revolutionary, aircraft. 10 years ago the 787-9 entered service, then the same year, in 2013, the 787-10 Dreamliner and 777-X were launched.

        Who would have known in 2023 that an MD90 would go to Palmdale to get dismantled and reassembled into Big CFRP wing that will redefine aeronautics for the next 60-70 years?

        It’s a bit like a story that repeated itself with the 707 and DC8 from Boeing and Douglas 70 years ago, this time with two different solutions. The USA are winners with JetZero and/or Boeing and that’s what Jon Ostrower and Dominic Gates could have said…

        Thks

        Reply

      • Lol !!!

        “nO eNGINE oPTION”

        Not bad👍.
        Seriously. Pratt & Witney nobody talks about it.

        Fortunately, they were removed from the competition in 2004 to power the 7E7 Dreamliner, which became the 787 Dreamliner, and Rolce Royce’s Trent 1000 already coughs a little too much. …

        Thks

        Reply

      • According to FAA, it affects 20 engines installed on US-registered aircraft. What da “big deal”!

        Reply

        • An effort by the BA Back Office to detract attention from the MAX engine inlet issues…🙈

          Reply

          • Hey, they gotta say *something*.. I wonder how those MAX-7
            and MAX-10 certifications are going? 2025-2027, maybe?
            I won’t mention the 777-X.

          • How will the MAX 10 fare (poor runway performance) in next twenty, thirty years as more hot days are experienced??

            A 2017 study in the journal Climatic Change found that up to 30% of flights departing at the hottest part of the day may face weight restrictions in the coming decades

          • Pedro
            August 19, 2023
            How will the MAX 10 fare (poor runway performance) in next twenty, thirty years as more hot days are experienced??

            The aircraft will have a better rotation angle due to the extending gear legs. I expect it to better than the -9.

            https://youtu.be/F4IGl4OizM4

          • We’ll see. My understanding is the MAX 10 will be worse than the 737NG.

            https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-largest-737-max-model-flies-for-the-first-time/

            ‘Although Boeing extended the MAX 10 landing gear, pilots still cannot rotate the nose up too sharply on takeoff or the jet will scrape its tail on the runway.

            For the MAX 10 to take off from short runways or at airports that are hot and high, which reduces engine power, an airline may have to lower the jet’s weight by blocking out some seats to carry fewer passengers.

            “For Denver to L.A. on a hot summer day, the A321 is definitely the better airplane,” said Fehrm.’

          • Will United take delivery of A321neo before the MAX 10?

  47. Hey wait a minute.

    Don’t the problems of the P&W 1100 date back to at least the last decade??

    (!)To say a true thing is to detract attention according to you?

    So, you don’t have to tell you anything, right? He keeps silent so as not to offend his Royal Highness? Aaahhh …

    Not everyone is like you Bryce, no offense…

    Reply

    • Downplaying an issue is the best form of defense when they realize that’s all they have to fall back on.
      Actually it’s 30 engines in U.S. and over 200 worldwide that require immediate action, on top of the 1200 waiting in the wings ,on top of hundreds awaiting replacement from the previous issues on both the a320,220, and 321..
      How dare you question the authority of the throne 👑checklist !!!🤣😅🤣

      Reply

      • Robert L
        August 19, 2023
        What’s this , another AB AD!!!
        What’s the world coming too..Even the 330ceo is not immune..

        This is only proof that the system works. Aircraft develop issues and the system exists with a very robust Cause/CA system operating of of historical airframe performance. BA and AB both draw service bulletins and AD notes on their products. Aircraft are the most complicated and heavily regulated consumer products in the world and expecting perfection with a near infinate number of operating permutations that can have differing durability outcomes mandates the system thats in place.
        Thats not avoidance, thats understanding the reality of enterprise. For what its worth, the largest grounding of an airplane was the LET Blanik, and they are still grounded as the manufacturer abandoned support. A few of them are being returned to service because our system is so good that it allows 3rd partys to address ADs with AMOCs alternate methods of compliance. The system works…… I fail to see your glee in pointing out that the system is working by spearing one individual manufacturer, that lacks intellectual honesty

        Reply

    • David.
      We all know that production offsets almost always accompany foreign orders. It shouldnt be a surprise that this is forced to occur.

      Reply

  49. Vincent

    …”2025-2027, maybe?
    I won’t mention the 777-X…”
    —
    This is why Airbus was wrong not to have launched a new CFRP twin engine 2-class ~400 seats in time from 2018-2019 when Boeing was already seeing the 777-X delayed.
    It’s the same slowness when in 2000 Boeing successfully launched the 777-300ER while Airbus, not seeing the threat, stuck with the A380 later that year.

    You confirm my thoughts. Airbus is afraid to do it, yet so simple, you just have to copy the standard of the best widebody manufacturer of all time!

    The Boeing standards we know them through the 777/777X/787)Dreamliner it should not be so complicated for Airbus since the A350 relaunched in the form of “-XWB” does it so well for the A350-900.

    No diversified product for Airbus as long as it just sits there doing nothing.. What a pity, a prospect of 600 +120 Freighter aircraft in 20 years with ~1000 A350s sold would have put Airbus at ~ the same level as Boeing…

    Both better, let them just sit there and do nothing with their arms crossed. How far back is the development of the A350 already?
    I’ll tell you = A hell of 18 years !!
    That’s a lot for an aircraft manufacturer supposedly rid of long-toothed shareholders and which makes money by profitable its programs…

    So it doesn’t matter the certification time of the 777-X because it’s too late for Airbus, they remained seated there (frightened) without doing anything…👍

    (!)The development of the A380, A340-600 and A350-1000 seems paralyzed them…

    Reply

  50. Checklist.
    Manufacturers build what they can sell for a profit. If you are selling everything you can build, why add the risk of another aircraft. What you call fear, those in the business call prudence. You know, I was deeply involved with planning fuselage structures at BA, and my professional opinion of your depth of cluelessness is best not written. Jingoistic blind support is fine if you want to wear a team jersey on weekends, but when we discuss the realities of making these things perhaps you might statt showing the data and processes behind WHY Boeing is so vastly superior to Airbus in every way except profitability………. Mind you, when BA is better I have no problem explaining why, but of late I actually have had limited opportunities. Lastly, and Bryce can confirm this for me, I hold Airbus in very high regard because they do great work, and I never insult their product because they are technically quite good. I may make fun of their program economics occasionally, but I never defend the 787s accounting. This is getting to be too long, but as a retired BA employee, a lot of the stuff lacking substance you write about embarasses me

    Reply

    • “…my professional opinion of your depth of cluelessness is best not written. ”

      Chimes with what many other commenters think.

      Unfortunately, in recent weeks, reasoned and structured comments here (whether one agrees with them or not) are being systematically carpet-bombed by incoherent, random, jingoistic sludge.
      Since no mediation attempt has been made to curtail this indecipherable (and drunken?) rubbish, one can only assume that it’s being deliberately tolerated…perhaps as a prelude to shutting down the comment section altogether…who knows?

      If I get banned for writing this: it was nice conversing with many of you 😎

      Reply

      • Bryce mode:

        [Edited as violation of Reader Comment rules.]

        Without hard feelings👍

        Reply

        • Bryce.
          OMG were friends now.
          I was certain that would never happen….. Sheesh how the world view changes when the minions take charge…… Welcome to the new normal I guess…..

          Oh Yeah, the 321 is better than the max10 in hgw runway performance BUT the gear closed the gap a lot. The max10 IS better than the 9 in that respect… Ultimately thè vehicle chhoice comes down to how the operators route mix ànd load factors add up combined with the CAPEX…. its a hard game….. Be good my friend…

          Reply

          • @Scott, Bryce, Vincent et al.

            There are individuals out there who try to get comments sections shut down, when things are not to their liking. They inflame other people who have genuine interest in the subject and goad them into responding in a manner that matches their MO.

            Simply, do not respond to him. Don’t give Hamilton a reason to take away our comment section, as he would be cornered to do so, when everything breaks down into a bordello.

            Ignore him. Let Hamilton deal with him, when he get’s too far out of line. In the meantime – what meaningful insight does he really provide to the conversation?

            Nothing wrong with being pro-Boeing. Just make sure you bring facts to back up your assertions.

      • Hang in there, Bryce; maybe things will improve. I enjoy conversing with you.

        Reply

  51. Scott Correa

    You misunderstood my comment. And I can’t receive yours. Your hundreds of lines are irrelevant. And embellishing it with “I’m retired from Boeing and I agree with Bryce” just makes me smile.

    Please on’t talk to me about Boeing’s profitability since I’m talking about Airbus’ profitability. Too “cautious” in your terms and being “who make money and make their program profitable” in mine. Isn’t it an aircraft builder’s job to build aircraft when he sees a weakness in the competition (the 777-X delayed since 2019?) and makes money?

    Actually yes, but they just don’t have the appetite to do it because of so many past failures. The only valid answer, no offense to you…

    If you are satisfied with an A350-900 launched 18 years ago and a reengine A330neo for almost a decade and say

    “everything is fine, Madame La Marquise”

    while that was to clumsily try in vain stop the sales of the 787 Dreamliner, so much the better for you.

    I’m just saying that Airbus doesn’t want/can’t do anything more in widebody because they simply feel stuck.

    Reply

  52. Scott Correa,

    I can still go on with Airbus’ bizarre strategies. What does it look like to take over a failing program which is Bombardier’s CSeries?

    What is the point. Airbus making so much money?
    No CFRP -400 seater, not even an A220 built by Airbus itself, with a true Airbus cockpit ?

    To be honest if it works one day I would be really surprised but I still only see a strange not to say bizarre gesture of recovering a Bombardier program. Certainly true and well for almost nothing in terms of investment, but to recover all the problems while Airbus makes its programs profitable.

    Don’t you think that’s a bit much of a weird thing? Where does all this money go at Airbus since everyone claims who makes money. Bean counters also visibly?…

    Have you an answer, sir ?
    What do you have to prove in your comments?

    Reply

  53. Lol!!! The anti-American resistance must fight.
    In fact hang in there…

    You are so not serious …
    Lol!!!

    When Wizz, the revolutionary TTBW, arrive, Airbus will have to switch to Boeing Standard. My concern is that the Airbus response will not be the same impact as the 20 year younger A320, but only an A350 vs 787 impact launched only 2 years later. I really feel bad for Airbus when Boeing dominated them for a long time in both the widebody and the narrowbody market.

    I’m just going to have fun seeing 30% vs 70% market share in favor of American Boeing!

    God bless USA, USA industries Boeing and JetZero -*-👍

    Reply

    • Vincent

      If you got only “Lol” out of a hundred lines then you must have a big problem. Denial, when the situation is difficult to bear such as the prospect of a replacement for 737MAX and A32Xneo is felt

      And where are your arguments? You Youndon’t.m have..

      -> Lol…!

      Reply

  55. Analysis

    With the arrival of the BW Of JetZero it’s a bit like the return of the phoenix Mc Donnel Douglas but without the C suite! 👍

    Then the arrival of 737MAX,thé Boeing TTBW, two Americans against Airbus.

    My question
    How will Toulouse handle the situation?

    Reply

  56. Hey! Wait a minute.

    It looks like JetZero won against Boieng and Lockheed Martin for the contract for a BWB tanker ?

    Looks like the engineers at Mc Donnel Douglas without the Suite-C haven’t said their last word…

    …”While the BWB concept has been around for decades, more recent technology advancements in structural design, materials technology, manufacturing, and other areas have made large-scale production achievable…’

    …” The commercial industry, including passenger airlines and air freight companies, stand to benefit from development of this technology as well, increasing available cabin or cargo space while decreasing operational fuel costs.”…

    -> End of flight tests in 2027

    A whole program to follow…👍

    https://twitter.com/usairforce/status/1691893362104652134?t=EygWCcG67xtFUAwQ8X385g&s=19

    https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3494520/daf-selects-jetzero-to-develop-blended-wing-body-aircraft-prototype/

    God bless the USA, and the American aviation industry -*-🙏

    Reply

    • Aren’t airlines screaming about shortage of pilots??

      Relocation could be a problem though.

      Reply

      • There is no shortage of pilots, per se. There is a great shortage of pilots
        who will work for peanuts, in $hitty working conditions as well.

        I don’t blame ’em! Pay them and treat them well- you’ll have all the pilots
        [you say] you want.

        Reply

        • In the near future the industry will reduce the pilots to 1 ONLY in the cockpit, or ZERO pilot in the aircraft.

          There will be work around that to determine which is the safest and most effective solution.

          The pilot being located in a piloting center as for a piloted drone, seems by far the most efficient for the airlines and the safest for the passengers.

          No interest for those who want to commit suicide, and enormous economic advantages in the weight of the aircraft and the reduction of pilots for the airline companies.

          The 3rd and last option is fully automatic piloting which is a big step in autonomous piloting.

          (!) 21st century problems will have 21st century solutions…

          Reply

  60. Pedro

    …“For Denver to L.A. on a hot summer day, the A321 is definitely the better airplane,” said Fehrm.’…
    —
    Interesting..,

    This one seems to say that assuming 25-30 very hot days during the year the A321neo is better than the 737MAX-10, but that the other 330-335 days is the MAX-10 who wins? I buy the MAX-10

    Thks 👍

    Reply

    • Thanks Robert L.

      This is good news again for the 787 Dreamliner and Boeing.

      A majority of 787-10s were ordered by Saudia last spring and now Qantas. Looks like the Stretch version of the 787-9 is starting to get interest.

      In any way. We see how the 787 ) Dreamliner is also an A330/A330neo killer and preferred in most cases also against the A350 when it is not specific to a replacement for the 777-300ER or 200-LR…👍

      Reply

  62. Nice quote to share

    …”JetZero’s BWB is 30 years of experience with the agility and dynamism of a startup…”

    —Mark Page—
    Founder, CTO

    God bless the USA and American industry -*-

    https://www.jetzero.aero/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Email Subscription

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

Join 5,881 other subscribers
Twitter Updates
Archives

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

Sitemap · RSS Feed · Log in