Pontifications: For aviation geeks and historians; Boeing’s next airplane

By Scott Hamilton

Oct. 10, 2023, © Leeham News: For aviation geeks—and there are plenty of us—and historians, a resource that is the best single place I’ve seen is Chris Sloan’s TheAirchive.Net – The Hub of Air Transport History. Sloan—who joined LNA yesterday as a writer—started The Airchive 20 years ago. It’s a compilation of just about everything a geek or historian could imagine: timetables, route maps, brochures, information about airport terminals, cabins, cockpits and so much more.

Sloan’s data of course includes photos of airplanes, memorabilia, safety cards, boneyards, and even menus. He also has a section highlighting museums. This section includes many well-known museums and also some I’d never heard of.

Timetables stir memories

The Timetables section is filled with data from airlines that no longer exist. Of course, few if any airlines today publish timetables, so this is truly historical stuff. One timetable example was from the original Braniff Inc. during its last years, citing the slogan, “We better be better. We’re Braniff.” At the time, Braniff was in its final death spiral. The slogan, which I remember, could be read two ways. One way was that the airline was better, and needed to stay this way, than others because it was Braniff. The other, more acceptable reading then, was the airline needed to be better because it was Braniff, with its spotty-to-poor reputation.

Another timetable that stirs memories is that of American International Airways, or AIA. I know this airline well; I worked for it, and it was a terrible airline. On-time performance sucked. Seat pitch was as little as 29 inches in an era long before slim-line seats. Complaints rolled in by the score. Sometimes AIA was confused by the passenger with American Airlines, which dutifully forwarded the complaints to AIA. AIA’s founder and some executives also were indicted and tried for securities fraud. A few pled guilty but the founder was acquitted. He went on to form one of the first “976” Dial-a-Porn pay-per-minute phone number companies, joining with an ex-AIA officer to create the company. They both later were indicted for securities fraud, convicted, and sent to jail. (None of this is in Sloan’s archive.)

There was an airline called Hooters (no kidding), created by the founder of the restaurant chain of the same name.

The Airchives is a great resource.

The Next Boeing Airplane

I’ve previously discussed the Next Boeing Airplane (NBA) as the moonshot of CEO David Calhoun and the moonshot required for the next step-change engine.

Yet some long-time critics continue to harp on the need for Boeing to develop a new airplane. I don’t disagree. But let’s face a couple of realities. Boeing isn’t going to dump billions of dollars prematurely into a new airplane program.

Calhoun says he’s holding off because the engine technology isn’t up to a step-change task yet. He’s right about this. He also claims that the transonic truss brace wing (TTBW) technology needs to be tested first. Boeing has a contract with NASA to modify a Boeing MD-90 into a TTBW configuration for flight testing, which won’t begin until 2028. Okay, fine.

But let’s look at some other realities that prevent Boeing from moving sooner.

Fixing the house first

Boeing’s house is simply not in order yet. There are still some 200 737 MAXes and around 80 787s in inventory. These inventories won’t be cleared until the end of 2024 (Boeing hopes). LNA does not believe Boeing will move to another airplane until these airplanes are nearly all delivered. Doing so is needed to obtain the cash that comes from these deliveries.

Boeing’s financial house isn’t in order, either. The company still isn’t making consistent profits, for reasons not entirely of its own doing (see: Spirit AeroSystems). Brian West, the CFO, said recently the issues at Spirit mean Boeing will post another loss in the current quarter. Financial results will be announced on Oct. 25.

The Defense side of the business is losing money, too. Billions of dollars in write-offs in various space programs, the T-7 jet trainer, MQ-25 unmanned aircraft, and losses in old programs are responsible.

LNA just doesn’t see Boeing’s Board of Directors approving a new airplane program until the inventories are essentially cleared, cash flow recovers, and the corporation returns to consistent profits.

Notice I don’t point to the big debt load that was incurred during the MAX grounding and the two-year impact of the COVID pandemic. Boeing needs to pay this down, but if the other elements of the financial house are put in order, then LNA and others believe Boeing can manage the debt and develop a new airplane.

Supply chain

But even these fixes aren’t enough. The aerospace supply chain feeding Boeing (and Airbus and Embraer) remains stressed big time. The engine makers’ deliveries remain delayed as their own suppliers struggle to meet demand. Today’s engines continue to have technical and durability issues that must be solved before moving to the next generation of engines.

For Boeing, the serial quality issues at Spirit AeroSystems are especially critical. Spirit produces the nose sections for the 767, 777 and 787 and the entire fuselage for the 737. Production disruption and rework at Spirit means Boeing can’t boost rates on the 737 to 57/mo and the 787 to 5/mo on its desired timetable. This is needed for the all-important cash flow, too, which is needed to fund research and development.

The betting is that Boeing will either assume principal work for the NBA or farm it out to someone other than Spirit. Either way, this decision must be made and then the arrangements completed.

LNA doesn’t believe Boeing will remotely be prepared to move until 2025 at the earliest, to get its own house in order, to see the supply chain get its house in order and to get a few more years of new technology R&D completed.

And then there’s Calhoun’s design-and-production moonshot, intended to cut costs dramatically and to dramatically shorten program launch-to-entry into service (EIS) time to four or five years. LNA doubts the latter is achievable, not the least of which because of the new regulatory and oversight environment.

Launching the NBA

Calhoun sees the introduction of a new airplane by about 2035. Backing off seven years of launch to EIS, you get 2028 as the launch year. We think Calhoun would like to do so as his last legacy with Boeing (the first being saving the company). He turns 70 in 2027, likely his last year as CEO. So, we see the NBA program launch in 2027—though it could come a year or, at the outside, two earlier. By 2027, Boeing’s research work with NASA should be far enough along (even without flight testing) that the company’s product development should have a good idea of the feasibility of the TTBW.

In the meantime, those high-profile consultants and analysts who year after year urge Boeing to develop a new airplane are wasting their time complaining that Boeing needs to launch a new airplane. Few if any will disagree. Realities simply indicate that the next two years for sure and perhaps the next two after that means Boeing and the supply chain won’t be ready. As these consultants and analysts prepare for the new conference season that begins in January, they should focus on something we don’t know rather than pissing into the wind about something we do know.

447 Comments on “Pontifications: For aviation geeks and historians; Boeing’s next airplane

  1. For me Calhoun’s key success has been getting NASA to pay to keep Boeing’s key designers busy and derisk their product development. That TTBW demonstrator gives Boeing so much breathing space and saves Boeing’s bacon for me.

    • Calhoun had nothing to do with it, NASA has moved to a more active program approach that emulates what the EU is doing.

      That also includes the realization that NASA needs to benefit the US vs past research that has been available to all.

    • I’d wait to see how good is BA/Calhoun’s ability to execute. Recent history doesn’t seem to be on their side.

      • This was too good, the guy speaking is a Boeing Defense guy.

        “We believe our offering is revolutionary, not just evolutionary, in artillery,” he added. “This is our ‘moon shoot’ for long-range precision fires and we’re proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish in this co-developmental program with the Army so far.”

        • Reminds me of the unbridled hoopla posted here about the joining of the T-7A fuselage. Can’t one learn from past mistakes? I wonder why.

          • That join was a huge accomplishment and a massive step up per past practice. The 787 even meeting the gap specs did not do as well.

            But its like a jet engine. You get everything all good to go but the fuel pumps are missing. Ok, not going anywhere without fuel pumps (or any other widget you care to name).

            T-7 has a whole lot of aspects and the assembly is one part, software another etc.

            Any missing aspect means a delayed completion.

            Long term its a matter of what are the lessons learned and does the organization pass those on and make progress.

            Boeing can go either way and while we can see the mess up in the past, the future progresses a day at a time and if there is indeed a change we will only see that slowly over time.

            You don’t turn a Super Tanker on a dime.

          • Time for “moon shots”!!!
            Lessons learned? 🤣

            Why repeated those unconstrained PR stuff here? “Talk is cheap, show me the code.”

  2. More than 12 years after the accident for Boeing to complete modifications to the 737NG inlet cowl.Almost 5 years to complete recommended maintenance procedures.Yet Boeing somehow believes that it can develop a new airliner in less than 10 years.
    The existing generation of engines isn’t actually ready yet.
    Boring and Airbus must develop and certify something soon or the Chinese will be at little disadvantage.Don’t forget that they have huge government backing for technology development too and they are also building large quantities of military aircraft.
    The history of airliners is littered with duds,Boeing can’t afford to be stuck with a dud (or even a difficult development) and a 70 year old concept at the end of its career.Can the whole 737 700 -757-767 gap be filled by one aircraft family anyway?
    The government must intervene

    • Scary, huh? Boeing has harvested its legacy of expertise and competence in project management, product development, and systems integration – to the point where “the Chinese will be at little disadvantage.” Not to mention brand damage, bleeding out the supply chain, and all the other things Scott wrote about. … But no rush getting back into the game. [Gulp]

      • All well said, SS. Boeing’s going to wait themselves right out of the game.

        • No disagreement Boeing has severely shot itself in the foot and possibly even long term, fatally.

          What I do not think has gotten the attention it deserves is Kellner as the COB of Boeing. He is an airline guy.

          Calhoun has to pay attention to what Kellner and the board says now.

          I think that has been a step change in Boeing.

          While its not a given for a Boeing recovery its a change and Calhoun will be gone by the time launch or not launch decision is made.

          • Kellner, like Calhoun, is a numbers guy. He was CFO of a bank prior to joining Continental and he joined the airline as CFO.

          • His background is financing, not a bad thing, William Boeing was not an engineer or aircraft but he set Boeing up for its success.

            Kellner did take the CEO position with Continental, the goal was a successful airline not to gut it.

            Calhoun has been a bean counter his whole career.

            I won’t say Kellner is superman, just that he is the COB and has airline background and what they need and what works. That is far different than Calhoun.

            Calhoun takes his marching orders from the Board and while that is not a given, its far better than combining both positions and having no one to question what is going on.

      • Boeing used to “bet the farm” on every new airplane program. There’s either no longer any appetite for that level of risk or no longer any leadership capable of overcoming the inertia of playing it safe.

        • The Urban Legend is Boeing bet the farm, but they had some idea they would have a success.

          No corporation survives by betting the farm.

          There is a balance between new product (787) and doing nothing (Calhoun etc or more accurately, not investing in product at all.

          Moonshot is the nonsense you come up with when your management has failed and wants to blame it on anything other than themselves.

          • AFAICS . Boeing never bet the farm intentionally.

            The Dash80 was a (punitive) tax avoidance scheme.

            Well placed PR came to the rescue in the majority of cases.

            Not enough lipstick available to shove the 787 into profits land.

            Looks like there is a hard limit on traveling by projection. … for Boeing and apparently for the host country too.

    • Grubbie:

      The direct government controlled model (China) never works well.

      Airbus was allowed to develop its own products with the stipulation of the share spread through the 4 principles (UK/German/France and Spain)

      China aircraft wise (commercial) is like a super tanker, slow and ponderous. Its product (C-919) is a half generation behind and there is zero innovative about it.

      • ‘The direct government controlled model (China) never works well.’

        The world’s #2 economy by GDP would like to have a word with you. Please head down to the principal’s office.

        • How’s the Western /oligarchic model workin’ out these days?

          • Frank P:

            I will argue that China was handed the whole shebang on a platter by Western Companies.

            Those are not owned let alone run by China.

            The C-919 is a classic iron rice bowl project that staggers along like a jello elephant. The C-929 is gone.

            Western companies can get good product made in China if they run the operation and ensure that they quality control is there.

            That is not the same as a Chinese Communist operated company.

      • I am not suggesting direct control.I am suggesting a strong nudge,some soft contractsand (whisper it)government launch loans similar to those airbus used to get.If I were an American taxpayer, would be extremely annoyed by this proposal,but the nation simply has too much to lose otherwise.
        China would have been insane to go for anything innovative with the C919,it’s a great example of the decades it takes to develop the skills required to certify a new airliner.

      • @TW
        Not everything under government control = it never works well. All countries in G7 have national health care except the U.S., and none is run by communists.
        Finnair is over 50% owned by the government; SIA is 55% owned by the government.

        • Pedro:

          Thank you for making an important point and my point as well.

          I don’t believe health care should be for profit.

          While far from perfect, a representative government does have input into its operations and that would include national health care plans and operations.

          What does China’s health care system look like in contrast?

          • What does Google say?
            Ever heard people bankrupt after they got cancer??

          • You get better order and efficiency if you operate for profit and have independent audit of your books and operation. In western Europe you have a mix of private and gouvernment health care, lots of the private caretakers/hospitals get paid from the government health administration.

        • @TW

          ‘I don’t believe health care should be for profit.’

          Trying not too far off subject, here – health care, education & the penal system.

    • “The government must intervene”

      …isn’t Boeing in enough difficulties as it is?

      “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”
      :the nine scariest words in the english language

      • Worked really well for Airbus and in fact no one has entered the jet airliner market (successfully anyway) without massive government assistance.Boeing would launch a new aircraft if management had not stolen the cash,so unfortunately it’s up to the government to look after the national(and the companies)interests.
        Airbus style royalties deal at least has a potential upside of getting the money back.
        Of course long established Boeing should be able be self sustaining, but it messed up.Also it has a US monopoly so the ideal capitalist option of bankruptcy is off the table

        • Grubbie:

          You will note that Airbus decided what projects to pursue and it was formed from Aviation companies in Euruope.

          The US mfgs got their build up due to WWII.

          Sadly at least previously if you gave Boeing 10 billion they would do share buy backs.

          Airbus truly is a one off that was successful. Right time and companies and ideas with a non responsive US Airline mfg industry.

          A lot like getting into a poker game and you get a Royal Flush. Its not the norm.

  3. I really don’t agree with the premise that Calhoun “saved the company”.

    His (and his cohorts) decisions were the reason the company was ever in jeopardy in the first place.
    1 – installing a culture of cost uber alles engineering – don’t do what’s right, do what’s cheap.
    2 – share buybacks and dividends (to the point of taking on debt to do it) over preserving capital to enable pricing flexibility, survive a rainy day or (god forbid) do actual engineering work.
    3 – “Partnership for Poverty” – screwing your suppliers, which has come home to roost many times, but can be exemplified with what is happening at Spirit now.
    4 – The ongoing war with labor/the ever failing carolina experiment

    if ever there was a case for CEO malfeasance, this is it.

    • Yes, they really perfected what they learned in Business School.

      • I am full on board with Bilbo on this, its the spin Calhoun wants to portray.

        Under his auspices Boeing has made erratic progress.

        MAX may have looked clear and then the Spirit issues came up and in the meantime the 787 went down the drain (again) with the shim/clearance debacle.

        777X is still limping along as is the -7 and -10 MAX.

        Calhoun was like the Dutch Boy drilled a dozen holes in the dike then pretended he was a hero and plugged two.

  4. The preliminary design for a new 250 seat narrowbody can trot along with suppliers input and robotic parts build trails to get speed and quality up and cost down. The cost is bearable and keep the aero, structures, controls and systems engineers busy. The troubles start if Airbus launches a new 3+2 rows A322 with carbon wing and robotic built Al-Li fuselage and get very good prices for it while deciding to assemble it at 4 FAL’s.

    • Airbus won’t launch the A322. It makes no sense as Boeing will launch their next aircraft 2 years later and it will be much more efficient, essentially leaving nothing to Airbus. Think the A330neo and 787 situation. I do wonder what Airbuses next plane will be, how will the wing of the future be able to accommodate either a larger Geared Turbofan or CFMs rise engine?

      • If Boeing can pull it off before getting their house in order and make its shareholder happy, my thinking is that it will take until 2030. It is a window of opportunity for Airbus right now if they can sell it for 23-27% better price than the A321XLR.

    • ‘The troubles start if Airbus launches a new 3+2 rows A322 with carbon wing and robotic built Al-Li fuselage and get very good prices for it while deciding to assemble it at 4 FAL’s.’

      That kinda sounds like an A220-500, no? Why invest in developing a 2×3 fuselage, when you already have one, complete with plastic wing?

      Try this on for size, though – following in your train of thought:

      1) Develop a 3×3 fuselage, based on the A220
      2) Put the new & updated A220 cockpit in the aircraft, for NB commonality
      3) Your plastic wing & Li fuselage

      But stay ready, just in case, the Boeing TBW with folding wing tips & open rotor is the game changer that Calhoun says he wants it to be.

      I have my doubts, as the industry is noted for small incremental changes and not huge leaps…but we’ll see.

      • It is easier, faster and cheaper to design a stretch and change materials/wings under the same TC, Just look at the 777-9. The A322 could have the same engine as it will be a tad lighter than the A321XLR with similar range thanks to a new carbon thin wing and lighter material in fuselage.
        The 2+3 cabin and aircraft mass gets into troubles when stretched too far. You don’t want to build a new MD90…

        • ‘The 2+3 cabin and aircraft mass gets into troubles when stretched too far. You don’t want to build a new MD90…’


          You were the one who suggested a 2×3 fuselage for a A322. The path forward for me is A220-100, A220-300, A220-500, A321Neo, A321LR, A321XLR.

          The A220-500 being a simple plug fore and aft of the wing, same everything else, lose a little range from 3,400NM – meaning it’s done on the cheap.

          The common cockpit thing, with a new ‘wings of tomorrow’ is the next generation step change, giving them commonality across the NB line.


          ‘It is easier, faster and cheaper to design a stretch and change materials/wings under the same TC, Just look at the 777-9.’

          So after talking to someone who knows a thing or two about the whole TC; given the Max mess, 777X certification, trouble getting the Max 7 & 10 into service, even the extra A321XLR hoops….the thinking is that common TC is going to be more and more difficult to achieve. It’s no longer going to be a rubber stamp.

          Look at the 777X; the work and time delay done on it now, costing Boeing $8 billion in write offs, essentially make it a new cert.

          • The 3×2 means 3 rows ahead of the wingbox and 2 after it. All seating 6 pax per row.
            The CS130 / A220-300 design was stretched after Lufthansa input and thus delayed before being launched. There might not be that much margin left for a further stretch, maybe 2 rows ahead of the wingbox and 1 row behind it. That gives you 15 more seats. We will see if Airbus will do it and renegotiate all vendor contracts and decide what alternative engine will be fitted. I put my cents on a RR Pearl variant.

          • @Claes

            ‘There might not be that much margin left for a further stretch, maybe 2 rows ahead of the wingbox and 1 row behind it.’

            That is not what I am hearing from my guy up the road. 2M plugs for and aft giving them 5 rows (25 pax) is the easiest and most doable stretch – and the aircraft has plenty of space to do so.

            It’ll lose some range, but the thing has flown on their computer and is sitting in a desk drawer waiting for production kinks to be worked out.

            The issues aren’t the limitations of the design. It’s suppliers, costs and production.

        • Making an A320 or A220 cabin wider is not going to happen.

          An all new aircraft would cost less (and the cost would be bad as you affect every part of the aircraft).

          Anyone that knows anything about aircraft design would understand that.

        • What’s wrong with the MD90 ? Many here and elsewhere wanted an A350-2000 stretched to 79.7X m.

          • Lots of things went wrong with the MD-90. Poor build quality, poor reliability. Both the 3+3 seating 737-800 and A320 was much better.

        • “Thin wings” are a mass sink. ( no way to work around the physics there )

          The trick is to research a wing with “sane” thickness but desired aero performance.

        • I doubt many would associate the 777-9 with anything close to easy, cheap or fast.

    • –The troubles start if Airbus launches a new 3+2 rows A322 with carbon wing and robotic built Al-Li fuselage and get very good prices for it while deciding to assemble it at 4 FAL’s.–

      IF !

      • They need 600-1000 orders at good prices from +3 launch customers to launch it. Launch cuatomers want heavy discounts. But UAL lacks A321’s compared to AA (213+70) and DAL (125 +42) and might want to join the race with a bigger A322?

  5. This is the best summary I have seen of the current situation. Others who are on the “just do it now” bandwagon have not thought it through. The only missing element from the thesis, although it’s implied, is the size of the backlogs on both sides, that further defers the need for a decision. There is no incentive for Airbus to move, with their backlog substantially greater than Boeing and growing; and the Boeing backlog, even though smaller than Airbus, is still thousands of airplanes that represent significant stable revenue and cashflow for many years. The “residual value” of these unfilled orders will plummet once a new airplane schedule is out there and so without financial stability, and much of this backlog already delivered, Boeing will not cannibalize their deliveries with a new product.

    • While I tend to agree, no new aircraft would have ever been built so there is a middle ground.

      Boeing is the one with a very aged architecture so they need to move first, Airbus can sit back and amp up production and rake in the dough (well it has cost on the A220 to deal with)

  6. What is Airbus’ path forward? The A322 doesn’t really make sense as Boeing would come out with its TBW aircraft a few years later for a huge jump in efficiency, essentially creating a A330neo and 787 situation again. I know that Airbus is working on its Wing of the future, but how will it be able to accommodate a larger Geared Turbofan or a huge CFM rise engine?

    • Airbus’ path forward?

      Calhoun is ‘talking’ about threading the needle with this game changing aircraft that will have 3 new things; TBW, folding wingtips and open rotor.

      In 2035.

      The only good thing is that they got Nasa to fund the wing study money (Thanks, Uncle Sam) but history has shown that the industry just doesn’t work like that.

      It could turn out to be another Sonic Cruiser – remember that?

      Airbus’ path forward is to continue to work on production and wait until BA makes the next more, as they don’t have to do a thing. They’ll bank money for a rainy day, stay current with technological changes and wait & see.

      • I agree with Frank P on that aspect, the TTBW has not been proven.

        I assume there is some design feedback that says it can work, I don’t see Calhoun putting money into it.

        The other aspect is the TTBW does not require RISE (regardless of the assessment of RISE which I am totally non believing in)

        Its going to be a few years before TTBW looks promising or not.

      • > Airbus’ path forward is to continue to work on production and wait until BA makes the next more, as they don’t have to do a thing. They’ll bank money for a rainy day, stay current with technological changes and wait & see. <

        This: Airbus is leagues ahead of Those Other Guys, who can't seem to figure out how to build their planes..


  7. I think one of the problems over time was: the denial Airbus was taking over. That denial justified taking customer loyalty for granted, leaning on NASA, DoD, Commerce Dept, FAA and BOA to do what’s right. And harvesting short term free cash by putting product development on the backburner (apart from window dressing R&D).

    Boeing has recently been hiding behind required engine developments. But airlines would love something lean, 3-3, 200 seats, 10-12% better, quieter, cleaner than the 30 yrs old Airbus NBs. With space for future enhanced engine options, AKH’s and hybrid systems. No moonshots required.



    • As I understood it,Rolls Royce has mothballed the ultra fan until someone builds something to put it on!RR is possibly in a worse situation than Boeing,although you wouldn’t know from the share price

      • RR is thinking of the 787-10 and A350-1000 that both would benefit from it. But is the volume there and can they charge a substantial premium for it? The main benefit would be the A380neo to knock down fuel consumption 10-15% and increase range similarly but even if EK reengined all their A380’s + those on sale it will not be enough volume to make a profit for RR and the nacelle/pylon manufacturer.

  8. And don’t forget the 20-something 777X shells sitting around Paine Field in need of rework and finishing. What customer is going to pay full price or want a 7-year-old “new” airplane?

    • 777X launched in November 2013
      More evidence that developing an airliner takes at least 10 years and concurrent development is extremely risky

  9. BA delivered 15 737 Max jets in September and 70 MAX in Q3.

    22 737s rolled out of factory in September, down from 31 in August.

    • ‘Boeing is inspecting and fixing thousands of holes that were drilled wrong on the 737 MAX aft pressure bulkhead. While new orders improved sharply, the largest U.S. planemaker said deliveries in September fell to 15 737 MAX planes, 10 787s and two 777s, for a total of 27 deliveries.’


      ‘Boeing shares rose 2.6% on Tuesday in mid-day trading.’

      (make that make sense….)

      ‘Overall, Boeing has handed over 371 planes to customers during the first nine months of 2023, including 286 737s and 50 787s along with 35 other planes. By comparison, European rival Airbus (AIR.PA) has delivered 488 aircraft over the first nine months, including 55 in September.’


      Boeing’s commercial backlog increased from 4,971 to 5,172. Boeing said September was the first month since December 2019 that its official backlog surpassed 5,000.

      Separately, Boeing is still awaiting certification of the smaller 737 MAX 7 from the Federal Aviation Administration that has been reviewing the plane for more than a year. The planemaker said in July the first delivery of the 737 MAX 7 had been delayed to 2024.

  10. so Boeing waits for a new engine….say a launch in 2030…that gives Airbus A321XLR seven more years to gain more marketshare….it might be too little too late for Calhoun ‘s NBA with EIS of 2037. (happy 72nd year anniversary for the 737)……make that 14 years advantage to the A321XLR Just a note…7E7 launch in 2004 and NBA in 2030….26 year gap…no tribal knowledge will be left in house to design and build a new aircraft

    But look at the bright side, maybe by 2030 the 777X will be EIS or not!

    • Boeing does not need a new engine, a P&W GTF would slot in just fine.

      P&W has several more pips it can do and or it can come out with a variation of the A321 engine if larger is needed.

      By the time a new aircraft can be launched the P&W issues will be over (LEAP as well).

      • Boeing says Boeing needs a new engine. “Step-change” and all that malarkey.. excuses to keep doing nothing, IMNSHO.

        I wonder when they’ll even get the MAX 7 and 10, and 777-X into service.

        • Vincent:

          If you go back and read what Calhoun said, it was they likely or will need an interim engine while RISE is brought to market.

          That gets an efficient engine that has a couple of ways to go to get step change in efficiency.

          It allows Boeing to get this project going (if they so desire) and does not commit to a nebulous pie in the sky engine but a proven concept and operational service that seems to be starting to come into meeting what is needed on wing time and the bugs worked out (and the same is probably true for LEAP)

          An interesting aspect is P&W is in on the NASA TTBW. I don’t put 100% on that of course, but its an interesting indicator in conjunction with what Calhoun said.

          While LEAP has pushed material and temperature as far as they can go the GTF has not and per past statements, they could change aspects and gain more (that would not be back compatible but it also would not be a new engine but a development of the existing GTF).

          So no, the TTBW does not need an all new engine and in fact it would be a detriment as all the airlines have seen what all new means.

          • LEAP/GE is rumored to be working on a GTF engine with higher core temperature. Would give PW a run for its money or leave it chasing LEAP. We will soon see.

    • That is Boeings problem of selling a pretty well working Chevy Caprice against new Lexus/Mercedes.

      • More like the Chevy Corvair/Ford Pinto that come back to haunt the manufacturers repeatedly.

  11. Not sure how you break this down, but the majority of Boeing issues are Boeing created (management).

    Supply chain issues affect both (or all) mfgs, but Boeing has put itself in the hole so deeply when it should have been saving money for a program (and paying down the 787 losses).

    Airbus has plenty of money if they knew what they needed to do (or needed to make a move). In the meantime they can keep stashing money into the rainy day fund.

    It should be noted Calhoun was on the board that approved all the moves though that has changed as the CEO and COB are split again. I believe that has a lot to do with Calhoun’s change of tune.

  12. A lot is forgotten here.

    1. Airbus is planning an A320Neo successor with a monthly production of 100 units per month. Is this realistic? Yes, if we make compromises and assume a production of 80.
    If any aviation company can do it, it’s Airbus. They also have problems with their supplier companies, but they have a plan on how to get out of it.

    This is a selling factor. Nobody wants and will not want to wait 10 years for their new aircraft. If Airbus were able to deliver 100 A320/321Neo per month today, the share up to Pax 200 would not be 62% but 72% and everything over 200 Pax in the narrow body would not be 84% but 94% market share. The Max 10 would no longer exist and that would be 100%.

    So even if Boeing plans, builds and delivers a new aircraft from 2027 to 2035, the question is, can it build this new aircraft in the number of times per month to A: make money with it and B: do it so often per month in order to secure a certain market share from the start?

    Airbus is the market leader. Airbus has convinced almost every airline to buy the A320/321Neo. There are only very few exceptions. Boeing’s most loyal customers are wavering. They also fall and buy Airbus, see KLM and others.

    The challenge of finding such suppliers and building a reliable supply chain with state-of-the-art manufacturing quality and completely new robot technologies is a very serious and challenging matter. This requires a lot of specialist knowledge, very reliable and available suppliers and, above all, a lot of money. We’re talking about well over $25 billion for the aircraft and a production line that produces 80 to 100 aircraft per month.

    Anything else will not be successful. Not against Airbus and not later against China.

    The market in China is closed to Boeing. There won’t be a chance anymore. Politically, the issue is over. What Airbus sells there will be A321Neo/LR/XLR. From a certain date only C919 will be sold. This is no big deal for Airbus as it will continue to sell A321Neo/A330Neo/A350 etc. there and possibly the A223/A225. But that’s where it ends for Boeing.

    If Boeing flinches, Airbus can easily launch an A320 successor. With the A225 and a possible A227, each with an additional engine partner that also brings 4 to 6% savings, it is certainly competitive with what Boeing could bring in the 150 to 200 pax range. The market has become very, very cautious. Nobody is going to order a whole new way of flying. Boeing can ignore that. The market is conservative, especially after all the current chaos.

    If airbus could produce the A225 at up to 25 a month from 2028 and increase this to 50 to 60, Boeing is under enough pressure and in competition no matter what it brings to market. Simply because the A223 is already there and many people trust and use this aircraft. You don’t break that so easily.

    Airbus can bring the A321Neo with a moderate upgrade of engines and a new wing. Once up to 3500 and as an XLR 4500nm. First of all, I want to see that Boeing can counter two aircraft from Airbus, which it won’t be able to do. It can only play up to 200 or from 200 pax but not both at the same time.

    It will be a very long time before OpenRotor becomes established and the market is ready for it, ready in terms of safety and everyday life with a super light wing and crossbars. The fuel savings may be higher than an upgrade of today’s PW1000G versions, but loudness, reliability, maintenance, spare parts, availability and especially flight altitude and cruising speeds are all things that simply do not mean 100 aircraft from the start per month.

    Anyone who believes in such dreams should sell their Boeing shares quickly. That can only fail.

    Boeing has no competitor against the A221/223 today. It will have no competition against the A225. The MAX7 is not a competitor. She’s not even approved.

    Boeing has no aircraft against the A321Neo. The MAX10 is not a competitor. Market share 16 to 84%. It particularly has no aircraft against the A321LR and absolutely nothing against the A321XLR. This already has 600 orders and the trend is towards 1000.

    So even if Boeing launches a new aircraft program in 2027 that will be delivered to customers in 2037, it can only design, manufacture, certify and deliver one aircraft to the customer. The question is also, is it 25 per month or 45 or more?

    Airbus can bring A225, A322, A330Neo2(A300Neo, A350-2000, etc.) at any time. It has the money, it has the developers, it has the trust of customers and it has the suppliers for a 100-series production line. Boeing can only bring one aircraft and the question is whether this is the case with all the strict requirements and certifications.

    I doubt this very much.

    Boeing should first prove to its customers with a conservative design that it can achieve certification, that the quality is right immediately and that it can also produce it at a reasonable rate per month and that can immediately eliminate the teething problems and manufacturing problems.

    I therefore recommend that the Boeing 787 undergo a Neo version from 2026. This is also the program that includes the most experience at Boeing, where it has the most modern technologies and where it has a production line that could also be used as such. This saves all costs that Boeing cannot afford. Neither today nor until 2030. Boeing has ~$55 billion in debt. Therefore, plan conservatively, use what you already have, derive and collect new experiences from it. In order to build up knowledge again in order to start another program from 2032.

    A 787Neo-3 in the small but nice range up to today’s 787-10 with all the things that could be optimized and with two engine partners. That would limit the market a little for the XLR and make the A330Neo obsolete. Airbus would be forced to launch something new here.

    It is important to find an area that really makes money and has no competition from aircraft for at least 2-4 years.
    From 2032 to 2040, a MAX successor can still be planned, certified and brought onto the market. And this would then go from 180 to 260 but would still be designed conservatively but with another 15% saving on the engines. That is realistic.
    Always keep in mind that China is in the market here. Don’t rely on completely new flying in this area. These will be the first steps. The production lines won’t be able to do this for the first many years and the teething problems will quickly mean that.

    This new flying can start from 2036 in the 100 to 200 pax range. Open rotor combined with hydrogen, hybrid, etc. and by then the A223/225 Neo will also be exhausted if a baby Boeing comes along from 2046. This will also allow us to gain experience again in order to later use it to relaunch other models.

    Don’t want to bring too much, too fast or too new again. This can only fail with Boeing. It has neither the power nor the experience nor the awareness for such a big project where all the last money should go. This cannot be an all-in bet here.

    • 100 A320s a month? They are gliders unless there are engines for them.

      • @williams

        That’s the thing, isn’t it? It all depends on the bottlenecks from the suppliers and how they can increase production.

        • Yes for both OEMs, we cannot fault the engine suppliers who may wonder if investing more money for production is bad ROI if this order boom is a bubble.

        • Absolutely agree way too much wishful thinking here to be realistic.

          Airbus will survive but not Boeing, and the TTWB is like the Sonic Cruiser blah blah blah. The TTWB will come and its role and to destroy any aircraft above itself, even a rewinged A321neo or CFRP, will be of no use if it is not as effective as the TTWB.

          Historically, Boeing has never come with a “me too aircraft”, Airbus, yes…

          Around 2035 the environment will be at the heart of the industry supported by the decarbonized environment policy

          • Well I have to disagree in that Airbus came out with the A380 and the A340 (as well as the A300/330)

            All of which were different slots with the A330 a notch above the 767 and while not a success, the A340 was a different take on long range ops.

            The A380 clearly6 was intended to created a market above the 747.

            The A300 was very innovative, its started the move to twin engine ETOPs aircraft.

            We really do not know what will come out of the TTBW work, that is why they are going to do a test article.

            There is also an aspect of public acceptance of a Truss Aircraft.

    • oh my gosh! isn’t this exaggerated fanboyism the result of Checklist’s departure? Gog and Magog is released hear. A225, A227, A322, It’s excessively unbearable. Wishful thinking he said?

  13. Does anyone have the data on Airbus A320 /A321 series monthly wing production capacity (including China) is now? Is Airbus currently adding more wing riveting capacity in Chester?

    Even if Boeing goes ahead replaces the Gemcor (1960’s and 1970) 737 wing riveter systems in Renton with another manufacturer equipment in the next couple years, that might get them to 70 to 75 a month production capacity by 2027

  14. The Scenario

    You run an airline. Boeing comes to you and says:

    “We’re going to build this plane; TBW with folding wingtips and (eventually) an open rotor engine. We project it’ll get 25% better economics than what the best NB’s you are flying today. EIS in 2035. $50 million a pop. Wanna buy some?”

    Now, 2035 is still a ways away, but long term fleet planning is something every airline deals with. Perhaps when BA approaches you, things have improved over the current situation.

    However, you look at the recent history of roll outs that they have had and the effect it has had on the various airlines that are Boeing customers; 737Max – grounded for almost 2 years. 787 – production stop after protracted development with issues still to be resolved. 777X – promised and delivered over half a decade late.

    Can you rely on Boeing to seriously plan your fleet around? If you replace your NB’s with this design, do you have to take into account that it might not make it into service as promised and even though you may have penalty clauses in the contract, do you also have to make back-up plans to keep older jets around? Do you approach lessors and say “Hey – we’re getting these new ones, but just in case, can we extend our leases by a year or two in case they drop the ball?”

    Even if you do get onerous clauses to hit BA if they’re late, it still doesn’t help you if you need those planes, need to train pilots and transfer ops to a new type.


    Do you say “You know what? This stuff is all kinda new and sounds great, but we’re going to let it get into service first and see how the technology takes hold. We’ll let other guys have first crack at it and if it works well for them, then we’ll place an order.”

    Even a 20 aircraft ‘trial order’ is a commitment of a billion dollars with 10% or $100 million down at signing.

    I think airlines sit on the sidelines and see what happens with the plane first.

    • Nah, SWA would be first in line with an Air India like order since the aircraft would be designed for them.

      • Or as normal, you put penalty clauses in (maybe more of them) and some Airlines will go for it and most won’t.

        In the meantime you get on the end of Airbus orders, put minimal money down and then make decisions as you hit various timelines.

        But you watch it like a hawk, no money down, good deals etc.

        Calhoun will be gone and possibly Boeing will started to get its act back together.

        It will be interesting.

        • Not a bad way to look at it, but what do you do – as far as fleet planning, if it doesn’t pan out? You’re stuck

          • Agreed.

            Not an easy decision and why managers are supposed to be paid the big bucks for (though all too many get the big bucks having failed miserably, aka Boeing management)

            Decision wise you turn it over to your tech experts who have in depth talks with Boeing and you listen to their supporting assessment as to good or bad.

            That was one of my jobs was to look at a tech issue, assess it as objectively as I could and lay it out for the manager.

            In turn the manager had to not only take into account the tech end but the monetary costs and if that could be pushed through and what the benefits were or were not.

            I had one case where all the supporting info was for one solution and the manager had fallen in love with another solution.

            We could not agree and he bucked it up the chain to their tech engineer. It came back down to what I had come to the conclusion for.

            Basically it was a conservative piece of equipment that was guaranteed to solve the problem but the efficiency was not the uber efficient tier up. The equipment had a long history and specifically for dealing with the problem we were plauged by.

            The downside to the efficient part was far more maint and tech assistance in both setting it up and tuning it as well as a lot of unique parts (my solution used off the shelf parts for the stuff that would possibly fail that was identical to all our burners and controls and any decent mechanic could fix it.

            None of is simple. Tough calls all around. I would be inclined to have a foot in both camps. If I was SW I would get A220s into the fleet.

          • ‘If I was SW I would get A220s into the fleet.’

            I’m a pro A220 guy, as much as anyone (being as their just up the road), however, I’m also a realist.

            Damn P&W is dragging the program down with it’s GTF and while Delta seems to be dealing with the problem (maybe it’s because of Tech Ops?), I’m not pleased with the way things are going.

            Alabama still isn’t a smoothly running machine.

            If I’m LUV, I’m really not impressed with either aircraft (Max 7 & A220) because of these production issues. Airbus has been sitting at the 4-5/per month production mark for quite awhile, now.

            Maybe when (if) they hit that promised 14 a month in 2025 an the GTF is working well, would I consider it.

          • Frank P:

            There was a report out that P&W was starting to hit commitments this year no expected until next year.

            I would still start dipping my toe in the water if I was SW, you don’t have to go huge, just a small group to start with and in location you can back fill with your 737s if it comes to it.

            We know Airbus will get the A220 program up to snuff.

            In the meantime we are seeing that LEAP for both A and B has new issues in regards to compressor stalls. It does not look to be a hard fix but its another distraction.

            I don’t think any airline is smart to have all its future in one aircraft, but then that may be me. It pays unless it does not …….

  15. https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/boeing-higher-on-solid-delivers-into-of-q3-earnings-even-with-max-slowdown

    Boeing (BA) – Get Free Report shares powered higher Tuesday after the planemaker published better-than-expected September deliveries and noted its order backlog was the largest since before the global Covid pandemic.

    Boeing delivered 105 aircraft to customers over the three months ending in September, the company said, including 27 jets in the month of September alone. However, deliveries of is 737 Max aircraft, the popular narrowbody jet, slowed to the lowest levels since August of 2021

    Looking to the longer term, Ryanair has said it would buy as many as 300 737 Max jets, which carry a list price of around $40 billion if the deal is filled to completion, with deliveries phased between 2027 and 2033.

    The group’s overall order book now stands at 5,172 planes, the highest since December of 2019, heading into its third quarter earnings report on October 25.

  16. In all this talk of moonshot designs and technology jumps, it’s interesting to see an article in Flight suggesting that Finnair is looking to renew its fleet with older generation (presumably relatively recent) used older generation planes for their reliability. It goes to show that users don’t always value everything that the OEMs provide…..


    • Finnair is not in a position to order new aircraft until the business is turnaround with sustained profits returns. The carrier is still fighting for its survival and has to raise €600m capital to reduce debts. They disposed of two A319 for recycling and sold four A321 for freighter conversion (airframes only). It also bought one A321 and two A320 from lessors. Valuable parts were retained and the carrier underwent lifetime optimization of its NB airframes and engines, so they can run next few years without acquiring some expensive parts. Even if they want to buy used aircraft, A320/A321 are in high demand and that would make them pricey.

      • Air Traffic is up and has returned. Why is Finnair in financial trouble?

        • Finnair put a big bet on being a link to China and there is a hostile airspace in the way now.

          I will leave it to others to add in if the issues with China are also affecting traffic.

          • Lol. Has Google shut down?? How about Bing or Duckduckgo?

  17. Think of it from PW perspective. Are they in a position to increase production with a big rumored payout in the billions?

    Think of it from GE/Safran perspective. We are making money now at present production rates. Why spend considerable sum to increase production by what? 20% 30%, and for how long at those rates?

    Think of it from RR perspective……………………………(crickets)……………………………………………………………

    • ‘Think of it from PW perspective. Are they in a position to increase production with a big rumored payout in the billions?’

      If they can do it in house, with existing infrastructure – I think they have to. How else are you going to cover the losses? You have to deliver more engines to get paid.


      They have to work out the GTF issues first. You can’t keep delivering faulty units. The LEAP is in the same boat, they both need to fix their issues and get them performing to the promised specs.


      ‘Why spend considerable sum to increase production by what? 20% 30%, and for how long at those rates?’

      The BA backlog is ~5,000 jets. The Airbus backlog is ~ 8,000 jets.
      13,000 means 26,000 engines, not including spares.

      If combined, both of them produced 1,500 aircraft a year (which are 2018 numbers) you’re looking at ~ 9 years work. Add in a few sales over that time and you can call it a decade of continuous production.

      Also depends what you call a ‘considerable sum’ and what that amount actually is.

  18. One thing I can tell you about Pat Shanahan at Spirit.

    He won’t be phoning it in from Lake Sunappe like Dave Calhoun or operating out of the Boeing Norwalk CT office like Brian West in his cargo shorts.

    You can bet your bottom dollar he is already on the ground in Wichita and working 18 hour days. A company in crisis deserves leaders that understand they are not a bunch of private equity guys.

    • That may be true but Spirit is stuck with a lot of low ball contracts and only Boeing can change that (though it clearly is in Boeing benefit or worse to do so)

  19. All the talk for the past 8 years about a MoM, 797, NMA, small WB.. it was based on the assumption / hope the 737 MAX was just fine until the next decade. It ain’t.

    I consider a big part of the 737 backlog soft. Look at all the traditional Boeing legacy’s. They move(d) over.


    So now getting a superior efficient 150-200 seater op to 2000NM, with engine options must be the goal.


    • I agree – the market has changed.


      Model series Total
      737-600 …..69
      737-700 ……1,128

      The Max 7 has 286 orders.

      It’s the same thing for Airbus with the A318/319:

      A318 80
      A319 1,486

      The A319Neo has a whole 61 orders.


      OK, the A220 has a role to play in this being purpose built and efficient for that niche, but it’s clear that airlines have eschewed the shrinks and up-gauged.

      To be generous, there is an element of luck in this;

      Airbus has been able to expand the capabilities of the A320 family all the way up to the A321XLR which is a 757-200 replacement, while Boeing has been hamstrung by reaching the ceiling on the design of the 737 before that niche.

      Johnny on the spot…

  20. Interesting Problem

    Much has been made about the different niche’s in the commercial industry, so I’d like to see what the consensus is. There is no right or wrong here, just what the opinions are. If you will:

    The US gov’t is fearful of losing it OEM base in the country and has approached YOU to set up a factory(s) to make commercial aircraft. You have a blank cheque, but they want you to cover the market as best you can, without over-spending. Using planes that are currently out there as a template, what planes do you make, to satisfy the market (and make some money)?


    I’ll give you 3 to start things off:

    1) Scope complaint NB 2×2 seating a la E175

    2) A321Neo

    3) B-787-9

  21. Do you think Spirit Aero is in financial position to support a JV on new aircraft launch

    from Aviation Week
    “Beyond MAX production issues, which stem from select suppliers to Spirit, the aerostructure’s work on Airbus A220, A350, and Boeing 787 programs are in forward loss positions. Corporate debt reaches almost $4 billion, including $1.2 billion due in 2025 in what is a still a rising interest rate environment.”

    • as of October 12
      The Air Current
      “Boeing and Spirit have previously focused their search and replacement efforts on hundreds of mis-drilled fasteners installed by an automation laser guided fastening machine at Spirit Wichita Kansas operations………….now begun examining hand drilled fasteners the critical structure”

        • Misdrilled fasteners installed by ‘automated, laser-guided fastening machine’?? No wonder Calhoun want to talk about metaverse only.

          • They’re just noticing this *now*? Nothing to worry about- just a glitch.


          • No worry, it’s *all* the contractor’s (and/or subcontractor’s) fault.

          • Aren’t we told that B have their own inspectors installed in the Spirit factory to monitor the production process and to help to get it to work smoothly? Yet they don’t seem to have notice all the mis-drilled holes until long after the affected fuselages had been worked up into completed aircraft. “If it’s Boeing I’d be worried about going”!

          • If you have ever been in that position (I was) its a very complicated area to work in.

            Your chain of command it to Boeing in this case and then back down to Spirit, you on the floor do not make the decision and you on the floor can’t catch everything.

            Sometimes if the relationships is good you can have a quiet word with your equivalent rank with Spirit and correct something going wrong.

            Flip was I saw a number of stupid implementation and could not get it to stop as management did not see the issue I was and I could not convince them to intervene.

            No process is perfect and people, quality there off and how amendable to working with vs antagonistic all play into the process.

            I had saw one piece of equipment get installed totaly wrong though it acualy was neuatlr, it did not do what it was supposed to but its affect was not negative either, just a waste of money.

            In that cas contractor installed it per the engineer (the contractor had their own chain of command and their engineer was foisted on them and the guy was an idiot)

            I went to my manager and explained what I was seeing and the contractors project manager who had been an engineer (and a good one) started to raise question. I was told to go over to the building in question with him and sort it through.

            We both had to tip toe through the fact it was another engineer who had drawn it up and in the end it was just the two of use and we had an honest conversation and he asked me to go first.

            So I did and his reaction was the same, that i what I was thinking.

            What is the fix.

            Well if we use the existing line as a bypass and add a couple of Ts and valves we can get the flow through the tank and that allows us to bypass the tank if we ever need to work on it.

            No I was not brilliant, his assessment was the same as mine as was the fix. We agreed on all of it.

            He then wrote it up, it went up the chain of command and came back down with approval to correct.

            My advantage was I could focus on very specific aspects and their engineer had to deal with a complex design with a lot of different pieces of equipment.

            We worked together to get it as right as possible considering we could not make decision on the local level. Anything more that miner changes had to go up one silo and then come down another.

        • What 787 debacle? It delivers more than its main competitor A350. The work that Boeing and Spirit are carrying out is quite reassuring. After an ultimately unsuccessful year in 2023 in terms of delivery, they seem to want to make 2024 more successful at the moment.

          • I guess you missed it when the 787 had a ‘delivery pause’ to fix things, resulting in a bunch of 787’s winding up as poorly designed temporary gazebo’s to protect the concrete from the elements…

            Here’s the relevant statement from the Boeing financials from Q2:

            ‘Commercial aircraft programs inventory includes approximately 220 737 aircraft and 85 787 aircraft at June 30, 2023 as compared with approximately 250 737 aircraft and 100 787 aircraft at December 31, 2022.’

            I’m curious. Is the number of aircraft sold, in your mind – the only consideration when assessing whether an aircraft program is ‘successful’? Especially from a manufacturers point of view.

            If you sell a bunch, but lose your shirt, it’s job well done?

          • It’s quite reassuring that Spirit and Boeing are having to correct all these manufacturing defects? Perhaps I could sell you my 20-yr old used car, you seem to be very tolerant of poor quality in manufacturing! Funnily enough, Airbus, who you seem to hate with a vengeance (or at least you did under your old nom de plume), don’t seem to have similar problems.

          • Hopefully ,a good sign to come;
            Getting out 10 787’s last month.
            New builds, and inventory as well..
            Hopefully, that trend continues.
            Anxious customers; with a slew of new orders; will be expecting nothing less.

          • Frank P:

            What you want is both. What you get?

            A380 a good case in point, it never was going to do anything but loose money and take attention and resources.

            The 787 may someday break even and that is better than loosing money.

          • @TW

            ‘The 787 may someday break even and that is better than loosing money.’

            You really need to call Boeing and inform them of your crystal ball projections. Tell them to stop writing off losses and removing amounts out of the DPB.

            Tell them you know better…

          • Frank P:

            My experience with writing off losses was our local version of the Prime Mortgage debacle.

            My CU got tired of a never ending string of negatives and they wrote off ALL their loans of that type (housing)

            It was a big hit but the next quarter was a plus. Sure it was a lot psychological but it was important to get some clearance and sunshine into the situation.

            Over time if the loans performed it was a bigger plus but not a negative.

            We both know I am not an accountant, so I assume Boeing is doing some calculating on the write off some and put the rest into the accounting block (and is there any reason they can’t extend the accounting block like they have several times?)

            Back to a previous point, where is Boeing with some write offs and spread the aco0unting block on the 787 to 3000?

            Or assume they deliver all the MAX they have sold for that program.

            All that is not only above any pay level I had its well outside any tech expertise.

            I will throw out some thoughts but I don’t claim I am speaking from on high. 787 and MAX have a future and what Boeing gets out of it is a good question but I would rather have that then nothing.

            Neither program has a zero value.

          • @TW

            ‘It was a big hit but the next quarter was a plus.’

            OK – so in which quarter/year is it supposed to be a plus, for Boeing? It’s going to be 5 years, now…that’s 20 quarters.


            ‘Back to a previous point, where is Boeing with some write offs and spread the aco0unting block on the 787 to 3000?’

            Because if they do so, everyone will look at them and laugh? Estimates have to be grounded in reality.

            IIRC the global airline fleet is some 25,000 jets, with 80% being NB. 5,000 WB’s. Estimates are a growth of ~3% a year.

            That’s 5,000 including cargo carriers, who fly P2F, older jets and purpose built cargo aircraft (which the 787 is not). Fedex, UPS & DHL combined have over 500 WB’s flying. Nary a 787 to be seen.

            Aircraft have product life cycles: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. The A330Ceo (which the 787 replaced) went through it. The 787 is, as well.

            3,000 jets in a 6,000 worldwide aircraft fleet is a 50% share. Is that reasonable? For one model?


            ‘Neither program has a zero value.’

            Define ‘zero value’? If we are talking straight dollars and cents, let me ask you this;

            The 747-8, when the last one rolled off the line, cost BA $1 billion in losses.

            Positive value? Zero value? Negative value?


            ‘where is Boeing with some write offs’

            Have you not been reading what has been posted for the past 3 or so years here?

            A couple of years ago – $3.5 billion write off. Supposed to ‘clear the decks’ right? Make the future better? Take the tax write off and profit down the road?

            Another $2.8 billion in ‘abnormal production costs’ which got expensed each quarter, since then.

            5 years of continuous negative margins at BCA.

          • I hope this clears the air for @TW.

            Let’s assume your CU made a bad investment ahead of the subprime crisis, it bought a piece of MBS at say $1m. During the crisis, the market was frozen and CU couldn’t ascertain a fair value for it. Y.E. had come, the CFO (under the pressure of the auditors) recommended a hair cut. In order to provide a clean slate for the following years, the CFO wrote off $1m. A few years later, your CU found a buyer and sold it for $300k and recorded it as a profit.

            So please tell me, did your CU really made any profit from the investment?? 🤔

          • Frank P and Pedro:

            There was a British character called the artful dodger (I don’t remember anything more than the name).

            In this case I see dodging but not much artful about it.

            So instead of using emotional terms (who cares if someone laughs at you?) either address the premise or come up with a reasonable one of your own.

            3000 is not beyond reason. We are not talking about taking over the world fleet tomorrow, we are talking 15 years maybe more (no one has any offering even in the wings (pun not intended but not avoided). At 7 a month Boeing can deliver over 1000 x 787 in 15 years. Will they? Maybe not, but its a starting point.

            Frank you know as well as I do that a quarterly statement by itself has zero value. Its part of a tend, up, down or holding.

            Financial analysis looks at the various factors and takes that into account. And that is long term not a one month issue with the MAX deliveries (possibly two months).

            Without projections quarterly results are worthless.

            So give me what I asked for and run the numbers. Otherwise your postings on financial should be discounted totally as they have no relevance to the future (bad or good)

  22. -> EasyJet plans to order another 157 Airbus narrowbodies (56 A320neos and 101 A321neos) for delivery into the 2030s, plus 100 purchase rights. The deal would allow it to retire its A319s and half its A320ceo fleet.


    -> United Airlines has taken delivery of its first A321neo. It is the first Airbus delivery to the carrier since October 2002. The aircraft will enter service in December initially flying from Chicago to Phoenix and Fort Lauderdale.


    When will United’s MAX 10 ordered at the same time deliver?

  23. What 787 debacle? It delivers more than its main competitor A350. The work that Boeing and Spirit are carrying out is quite reassuring. After an ultimately unsuccessful year in 2023 in terms of delivery, they seem to want to make 2024 more successful at the moment.

    • ‘It delivers more than its main competitor A350.’

      So what aircraft does the A330 compete with?

      • The A330 is the direct 787 competitor (or as close as it gets).

        Airbu7s stated that the A350 was intended to be in between the 787 and the 777ER program.

        Ironically when the A330NEO Ever 4 was getting dumped airlines that had picked that choice then shifted to the A350 So it had less to do with capability and more to do with a loyal Airbus customer (nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that there are bids that are going to be a given to Airbus or Boeing)

        I think we agree that the 787 is on at least its third debacle (initial production disaster, battery and the shim fit)

        Rather than single shooting yourself in the foot Boeing has taken the approach to using a Uzi and milling the whole foot off! (my own reference is the Mini Mac 10 but the world at large is more familiar with the Uzi)

  24. The A350 is an aircraft launched to compete with the 787 and both the 777. The A330neo was launched to be able to lessen the success of the 787.

    Phœnix C

      • From my own experience, I have been suspended before. Twice for sure, maybe 3x. One time I believe I was taken wrong but you have to respect Scott and his decisions on his blog.

        So rather than comment on who or who is not present, I work on keeping to the tech end, be it right or wrong a view being my opinion.

        As I have noted, I sure am not an accountant so hats off to Frank P there (and AP Roberts used to post good info).

        I do have a long time of mechanical experience as well as following aviation (and being around it but not directly working on Aircraft).

        There are a lot of aspects of Aviation from the pure tech end to the management end and decisions of how and what to buy and pursue and I will be the first to say I was a good worker but never wanted to be a manager.

        That said it takes accountants, mangers and the various tech end from design engineers to mechanics to make it all work.

  25. Boing stock down over 3% on Friday over their latest bad news (more issues w/ the MAX aft pressure bulkhead).

    Interesting to see the early reappearance of a commenter- or two..

    • I hope commenter Bryce is extended the same courtesy.

      • Up to Mr. Hamilton and if said commenter checks him or herself.

        The attitude and sarcasm has declined significantly since those two are gone.

          • Checklist and Bryce, I see one of them is back though.

            Again the snark, and sarcasm has been replaced with more mature conversations. Though the fanboyism is still nauseating, but easy to ignore.

        • I am with William on this one.

          I appreciate that Scott gave me an opportunity to continue to post if I cleaned my presentation up.

          I have failed myself on that score a few times but I keep working at it.

          Frank P brings an interesting perspective to the table and I admire his accounting acumen though I don’t alwyas agree with what it means. I like to see his numbers though I also like to simplify things.

          My brothers and I grew up very opinionated and for good reason. We lived in remote and not safe places and you had to make the right call.

          My work for the last 30 years was doing that with contractors. I had a manger who tried to force me into agreeing with him at times (aka our client in his case). Sometimes it came down to, you tell me what you want done and how to do it, but no, I am not going to agree with you, I think you are wrong and I have some serious facts to back that up.

          I have to watch how I say things as well as when to quit arguing with someone.

          I admire Scott for his ability to offer this venue as well as managing it.

    • Not only all this year’s gain is gone, it sank a further 5%.

    • “autonomous e-VTOL”, eh?

      We’ll see how it goes.

      • Isn’t an autonomous e-VTOL more commonly called a “quadrocopter UAV”, or “drone”?

  26. Roger

    ”..“If it’s Boeing I’d be worried about going”!..”

    no immediate danger according to the FAA. Your quote makes no sense.

    • It was meant to be a humorous twist on the “if it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going” catchphrase, but perhaps humour aimed at your beloved company doesn’t work with you!

      • I know this quote but you can’t use humor in bad taste.

        “A320neo no engine option” was taken badly here.
        Learning from your mistakes is a good thing as long as everyone follows..

        This just isn’t going anywhere otherwise …

        • Are you the same commenter named ‘Checklist’ who was said to be “banned” here just a few months ago?

    • That’s not what the article says, as far as I can tell – it says they are expecting 50 Maxes in the coming months, but I think it refers to the order placed earlier this year. If not, it’s a very short lead-in time, so perhaps they will be NTUs

      • Yah – it’s hardly breaking and more about the merger. This is from July:

        Merged Air India Express to add fifty B737 MAX – report


        23.08.2023 – 02:27 UTC
        Air India Express (IX, Mumbai International) is poised for rapid growth after its expected merger with fellow budget carrier AirAsia India (I5, Bangalore International) by late March 2024 and the addition to its fleet of about fifty B737 MAX by December 2024, reports BusinessLine newspaper in Delhi.

        However, B737 MAX deliveries are due to start in September 2023 amid the ongoing merger process with AirAsia India. The merger is expected to be finalised by late March 2024 and will lead to a unified fleet and network under AIX Connect, as the merged entity will be called. According to BusinessLine, the airline expects to add 23 more aircraft by March 2024, primarily for international routes. New domestic flights from Bangalore International, Hyderabad, and cities in Kerala are also planned.


        It’s part of this order:


        Air India Selects Up to 290 Boeing Jets to Serve Its Strategy for Sustainable Growth

        SEATTLE, Feb. 14, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Air India today announced the carrier has selected Boeing’s family of fuel-efficient airplanes to expand its future fleet with plans to invest in 190 737 MAX, 20 787 Dreamliner and 10 777X airplanes. Along with a comprehensive set of aviation services, Air India is advancing its fleet strategy to sustainably address South Asia’s rapidly growing market for domestic and international air travel.


        And thus on the wiki for Air India fleet, you now have 140 Maxs on order:


        With 50 of the 190 going to:


        Of which 2 are already in service, 48 to come.


        And on that note, planespotters is showing the 2 Max’s in service as:


        Delivered in Sept 2023, 4.4 years old – originally for Shanghai Airlines



        Also delivered in Sept. 2.2 years old. – originally for China Eastern Airlines


        Planespottters shows their status as Parked/Maintenance

        The Internet is your friend…

  27. Wow, a Leeham news piece that winds up agreeing substantially with Boeing’s timeline/plan right now not to launch a new airplane because…well because people want it to, regardless of the engines/technologies needed for it not being ready, let alone Boeing’s industrial supply chain and basic finances/operational situation.

    Haven’t seen this, umm, ever. Haha, glad to see some of the vitriol toned down.

    • Or…

      Leeham is just calling ball & strikes. It’s up to BA to make the next move. Waiting until 2035 will only result in a greater loss of market share, if the trend continues.

      You disagree? What should BA do?

      • Frank P:

        I have said it before, Boeing time to launch a new aircraft (heart of the market per Bjorn) was a long time ago.

        Now anything conventional Airbus can counter as its all in the wing not the tube.

        In the meantime, Boeing has sold a ton of MAX and they just have to execute (or get Spirit to help them do so)

        I think Calhoun was right for all the wrong reasons that got Boeing where it is.

        • > Boeing has sold a ton of MAX and they just have to execute <


          • ..while paying their suppliers less than nothing for the privilege.

            #should be fine “going forward”.

          • If one airframer sold a ton of its NB jet, then the other one must have sold two tons of its comparable aircraft. 😄

    • @Texl: There have been plenty of “positive” Boeing posts. You haven’t been paying attention.

      • When you don’t like the message, run down the messenger

        • Is it really the message or someone or group think often repeated opinions.

    • It is abundantly clear that Calhoun killed the NMA development effort in Q3-22, but all this effort was in fact repositioned in the testing of the full-scale X-66A.

      Boeing is also the majority investor in relation to NASA. It is clear that Boeing is looking to the future.

      There is more future on a future platform ~30% more efficient but smaller than an Middle Size aircraft 15-20% more efficient which targets a smaller market while there is a way to kill Airbus’ market share in this market sector

    • On Thursday, BA shares dropped by $7, most of it happened before the news broke by the Air Current. Hmmm …

      • I’ve stayed away from this, but it looks like Boeing has moved away from being a long term investment (something you bought and kept) and moved into the buy and sell territory – get out when it goes up a bit.

        I’m sure there are some investors out there, who bought high and didn’t get out when it fell from $400+, so they’re kinda stuck.

        The smart ones got out on top and bought in again when it hit rock bottom around $90. Now it’s a question of whether the fundamentals are there to get it back into LTI territory.

        I would be worried, given that it’s been 5 straight years of losses and a huge debt load, that management will finally give in and accept what investors will give them for a massive ($30 billion) equity offering.

        Remember, they tried it a couple of years ago….very quietly. They were laughed out the door when they asked for a price of $250-300. Given how much free money there was flying around then, it musta been a real slap in the face to get turned down.

        But here’s the thing;

        All those shares they bought back since 2013 for $43 billion are still worth around that much.

        In 2013 BA was trading for about $100 a share. Sell all those shares, pay off $40+ billion in debt and where does it fall to? What have you done with the company over the past decade, when it falls again to that level – except prop up the share price with buybacks?

        What state is the product line-up in, as compared to the competition? I wonder what the market share was then in the NB segment?

        In 2010, Boeing had some 850 orders for the 787. deliveries didn’t start until 2013 – but talk about a huge backlog and money in the bank.

        From the BA financial report – 2013:

        ‘Boeing Commercial Airplanes extended our global market-share leadership with an industry record 648 deliveries as we reached historic highs in planned production rates on the 737, 777 and 787 programs. Net new orders totaling 1,355 airplanes (the second-highest total in company history) increased our record backlog to 5,080 airplanes valued at $374 billion. Operating margins were a healthy 10.9 percent.

        During the year we solidified our long-term leadership of the high-value
        twin-aisle segment with heavily subscribed launches of the 787-10 and 777X airplane family. ‘


        Additional twin-aisle segment highlights included:

        ‘Delivering 65 Boeing 787 Dreamliners™ to 16 customers and booking orders for another 182 (bringing the total 787 orders to more than 1,000). Beginning flight testing of the 787-9. Delivering 24 747-8s, including the first with improved GEnx-2B engines.

        We also strengthened our position in the single-aisle segment, capturing 1,046 orders across the 737 family. These orders will effectively bridge production between the current Next-Generation 737 and the new 737 MAX, which now has won nearly 1,800 orders.’


        WTF did you do with this company?????

        Oh yah – the answer is a little further down in the financials:

        ‘On October 29, 2007, the Board approved the repurchase of up to $7 billion of common stock (the 2007 Program). On December 16, 2013, the Board approved a new repurchase plan (the 2013 Program) for up to $10 billion of common stock that commences following the completion of the 2007 Program. Unless terminated earlier by a Board resolution, the 2013 Program will expire when we have used all authorized funds for repurchase.’

        I highlight this passage:

        ***On December 16, 2013, the Board approved a new repurchase plan (the 2013 Program) for up to $10 billion of common stock ***

        Who was on the board, you ask? Oh yah….this guy:


        Since 2009, Calhoun has served as a director at Boeing, and was named lead independent director in 2018.[6][4][7] On December 23, 2019, he stepped down as chairman in preparation for becoming Boeing’s CEO and president, effective January 13, 2020.

        • Frank P:

          You are beating the horse to death, we all get what status of Boeing is and how they got there.

          Nothing is going to change the past.

          Its going forward and what if any changes Boeing has made that will make it different. If they get profitable Calhoun will be gone by then and its how the next CEO and or COB do for the future.

          So as a given we know where things are at now (plus or minus some but the MAX will move to 50 a month and the 787 I believe is heading back to 8 a month (could be 7)

          So, how about you address the previous, aka 3000 x 787 and lets all it 5000 MAX.

          We both know projections are not the future but it gives you some balance in what if and the numbers are not our of line. We are closi8ng in on 2000 x 787 and I don’t think another 1000 over 15 years is out of line.

          • No, Frank is not “beating the horse to death”; he’s presenting solid facts to
            have a solid basis to work from. Facts that you repeatedly claim to be unfamiliar with..

            “..So as a given we know where things are at now (plus or minus some but the MAX will move to 50 a month and the 787 I believe is heading back to 8 a month (could be 7)..”

            The word “will” is doing a lot of work in your sentence above, TW. The actual Boing claim is that they’ll be producing *57* MAXes by mid-2025; but Boing has claimed *lots of things* in recent memory that did not come true.
            This latest claim will be among them..

            Don’t blame Frank and other truthtellers for Boing’s problems.

          • Correct me if I’m wrong, BA is still struggling to push out the MAX at about 31 per month even though they have been talking about producing at 38/mth for many months.

          • @TW

            I’m going to try one more time here, you seem to be about halfway there. You do understand that the gang that put Boeing into this mess, is still there, right?

            They are still making deals TODAY, which benefits them in the short term (FCF) that will harm the company long term.

            Why do you always hear them talk about Free Cash Flow? It’s because it is a Wall St buzzword which means cash to disburse to investors. It doesn’t mean profitability. It doesn’t mean healthy company.


            Why, you ask? How can BA generate free cash, while not being profitable?

            Look at the United 787 order. They’re replacing their 767’s with the 787. Put your engineer’s hat on; Doesn’t that seem like too much plane to you? They’ve got 150 of them on order. (Some will also replace the 19 – 777-200’s they have. )

            Why then? Unless you get a great price on the plane. A really, really good price.

            How does BA benefit? Well, at signing for 150 WB jets Boeing is going to pick up a couple billion dollars in Unearned Revenue, which is…

            …free cash flow.

            Like you said – when the order tally comes due, the guys who signed the deal will be riding off into the sunset.


            ‘ how about you address the previous, aka 3000 x 787 ‘

            Heck, sure. If Boeing keeps selling the 787 at a loss so they can boost up short term FCF, no reason it can’t go to 4,000.

            You always mention how Airbus is subsidized by gov’t assistance.

            Airlines are being subsidized into buying Boeing aircraft, by Boeing, by selling the 787 cheaper than they produce it.


            ‘We both know projections are not the future’

            This is not a projection. I am sifting through the financial wreckage of the past (and the current) to tell you what has happened and what is happening.

            But you know better. Somehow, magically, the same crowd is going to change their self serving ways and turn things around.

          • Frank P:

            As stated and noted, you continue to dodge.

            Your past info and current means nothing unless there are projections into the future.

            You can run the numbers and say Charleston sinks into the swamp tomorrow and no more 787 or you can do future assessment based on something realistic.

            I really don’t care where or what Boeing spins, that is corporate norm that they all do.

            Money down is still part of the 787 total cost and money gets laid down more often and in larger quantities when the aircraft is close to delivery.

            So while you are busy looking at grains of dust on your desk the world keeps turning and things happen, bad or good and information not used for a purpose is just a hobby that may entertain the hobbyist but does nothign for a future outlook.


            Anything that agrees with your view is positive no matter how bad the information or assessment is.

      • I believe BA, Singapore and Lufthansa all are keeping their in operation (I am surprised BA has not bought more with all that are on the market)

        If you have the right market(s) it works, its just markets are limited and the A380 is not flexible in that.

        Qantas is operating 7 of its A380s with 3 in some kind of hold or fitting out, but not divested or sold for parts.

        Emirates will operate it for quite some time.

        • Boeing injjecting folklore of Point 2 Point as sole sensible operattions mode was successful but an oxymoron.

          For Emirates P2H<H2P network every connection feeds all other routes. Yul'll never achieve such utilisation with a fully P2P arrangement.

          • “… the positive response to the 380 being brought back was also surprising the most optimistic people in Lufthansa. So we now not only decided to bring all the eight we still own back, we also decided to invest into the onboard product, a new business class onboard as quickly as we can manage …”

            LH will fly its A380s for many more years.

            LH wouldn’t have retired the A380s if they knew how badly BA’s 777X program was running behind, may be BA should have been more forthcoming.

            As compensation for LH, BA had to give away 787s at great discount.

          • Pedro:

            Good point, Qantas is going to activate all 10 of their A380s.

            For a limited market the A380 works, no disagreement, just not enough of it to keep producing it.

            But also a number of ops have discontinue A380 ops and have not been able to sell what are latter production and better quality A380s produced.

            AF, China Southern, Malaysia all hung it up and I have yet to see any of those airframes sell.

            No disagreement with Lufthansa not seeing a 777X yet.

    • ~1700 787 Dreamliners vs 1000 A350 sold in 18 years After launch , is that an oxymoron for you?

      You don’t like it when Boeing is right. And when it’s wrong, you dance around the fire like the Apaches (Indians)…

      • orders are nice but its deliveries that pays the bills
        deliveries from 2021 thru 2023 (to date) Airbus A350 141 and 787 95

        • ‘its deliveries that pays the bills’

          Let me add to that, sir:

          ‘it’s profitable deliveries that pays the bills – reflected in positive margins. Otherwise you’re just having to cover the losses from elsewhere, in this case – debt’

          • yes …….ask Spirit Aero about losing $1m per copy for the 787 program so with 1,833 orders, a possible loss of almost $2 billion on 787

            Just wondering how MHI is doing with the 787 wings, profit or loss situation?

          • With the setup of a large order book and significant numbers of sales continuing to come in
            up front payments even at low % levels make up vast sums ( already received, still coming in ) .
            OK, its not yet your own money, but the dollars just look the same 🙂

          • @David

            Funny that BA now has to advance loans to Spirit to finance the loss. Life is a circle.

          • @Uwe

            Airlines like Qantas continued to sell tickets on flights neither aircraft nor staff was available to fake extraordinary FCF. BA is in a similar situation, they have to sell at unbelievable prices to take the deposits to increase their current CF.

        • But but but…

          Look how many are flying! It has to be a success….

          • Frank P:

            You need to define profit.

            We clearly can look a the current 787 deficit and unless they make enough that is a loss on the program.

            But we are not frozen in time.

            If Boeing is paying for material, labor and the shop, and they make say 10 million per copy on the 787, that is a profit though it does not mean the program as a whole has made a profit (I can think of several ways to look at it)

            As I have said before, Boeing has two programs going that are going to be here for the long haul (sorry A340). That is better than calling it quits, declaring all is lost and stop the MAX and 787.

            Many corporation have looked finished and worked their way out of it.

            Boeing has the heft to do so, will they? Maybe not, but they are on the board for the foreseeable future.

            It has a defense side and one of the hidden gems is the T-7A program. Not because they are not loosing money, they are.

            But I have run the numbers on the tech side and the T-7A has seriously hidden potential. It will sell as a trainer for 30 years, but it also has light attack and adversarial air capability.

            One area you need to look at is the thrust and weight of the aircraft. The RFP called for Mach 1 and it has that. But it also has a lot of extra thrust and its easily a Mach 1.5 aircraft.

            The issue with current adversarial air assets is that they are Gen 2 or 3 at best. The T-7A has a Gen 5/6 cockpit and can stand in for a Gen 5 or 6 fighter. And it has the speed they are not disclosing right now.

            KC-46A will get another order and long term that will probably return money as well.

            MQ-25 is entering production.

          • @TW

            ‘If Boeing is paying for material, labor and the shop, and they make say 10 million per copy on the 787, that is a profit though it does not mean the program as a whole has made a profit (I can think of several ways to look at it)’

            Is that so?

            So what about this:

            “At June 30, 2023 and commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787 program:
            deferred production cost of $12,193. ” (that’s 12.193 billion)

            OK – so after they make a 787 and have $10 million, they can subtract it from that amount and now it’s $12.192 billion to go…

            Job well done!


            ‘Boeing has two programs going that are going to be here for the long haul (sorry A340)’

            I find it funny that you can look at an Airbus program like the A340 (and the A380) and say “Yah – look at whole thing, it was a loss for Airbus”

            Yet when presented with facts, you parse it out saying:

            ‘(I can think of several ways to look at it)’

            Why not look at it the same way that you would for the A340/380? Both ended up being in the red for the company.


            ‘That is better than calling it quits, declaring all is lost and stop the MAX and 787.’

            Jesus Christ – here we go again. When did I ever say this?


            I’m going to quote from the CPA journal something for you to read, as perhaps my words aren’t getting through to you:

            ‘program accounting estimates the number of units of a given model that will be sold over its lifetime and estimates the total costs the company will incur to build that number of units in the program’

            ‘Difficulties encountered with program accounting arise from 1) significant uncertainties associated with making reasonably dependable estimates of the total number of units to be produced; 2) significant uncertainties as to the length of time to produce and sell the units; and 3) significant uncertainties as to production costs and selling prices (ASC 912-20-26). Considering the magnitude of difficulties with the first few 787 aircraft in use, one should consider if significant uncertainties exist in estimating Boeing’s production costs and sales prices.’

            ‘By March 31, 2015, Boeing had deferred a total of $28.7 billion of construction costs, of which $26.9 billion related to the 787 program. Thus, on average, each of the 258 planes built and sold as of March 31, 2015, added $104.4 million to the deferred costs, leaving 1,042 planes to absorb $26.9 billion in additional construction costs (Boeing Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015). The list price for a 787 is $218.3 million; however, customary discounts of up to 50% can reduce the sales price to approximately $109 billion (Jon Ostrower, “Boeing Struggles to Find Buyers for Early Version Dreamliners,” Aug. 29, 2014, Wall Street Journal, http://on.wsj.com/2dte3vf). Assuming an average sales price of $125 million per plane, Boeing would need to recover $25.9 million of deferred costs per 787 plane remaining to be built. It is interesting to note that Boeing’s gross profit margin from product sales was 15.1%, 14.6% and 15.4% for 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively (Boeing 2014 Form 10-K). Therefore, Boeing would need to lower its construction costs on the remaining 1,042 planes to an average of $80.4 million per plane to recover deferred construction costs and maintain a 15% gross profit margin on the sale of each of these planes.’



            Once again, pulling $3.5 billion out of the DPB is like running up the white flag on the program. We cannot recover this money with sales now or in the future, therefore we are writing it off.


            On gross margin:

            Year BCA Revenues % of BA Revenues Earnings Margin

            2022 25867 39 -2370 -9.2
            2021 19493 31 -6475 -33.2
            2020 16162 28 -13847 -85.7
            2019 32255 42 -6657 -20.6


            Loss from operations ($998)
            Margin (6.4) %


            On your “let’s say we’re making $10 million”

            Boeing has, on it’s website, a breakdown of what they take as a loss in program accounting and what the actual unit cost loss is:


            Program Accounting (383)
            Unit-Cost Accounting (919)


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

            (notice how nicely the Q1 & Q2 numbers sum up to the H1/2023 total?)

            If they actually took the whole amount and expensed it all, the loss would have been almost $2.8 billion for the half.

            Program accounting, hard at work – for you!

          • “You need to define profit.”

            When profit or cash has to be defined, it’s game over.

            We have non-GAAP profit for years, are we going to see non-GAAP cash??

      • 1700 dreamliners sold.?
        With latest order boost , probably approaching 1900 before years end.
        Currently at 1833;
        Would expect the same for the 350;
        Currently at 1046.

        • @D Andrews, I agree will be around 1900 by end of the year.

          • The fanboys are furious. The 787 Dreamliner is a colossal commercial success EVER!👍

  28. It is abundantly clear that Calhoun killed the NMA development effort in Q3-22, but all this effort was in fact repositioned in the testing of the full-scale X-66A.

    Boeing is also the majority investor in relation to NASA. It is clear that Boeing is looking to the future.
    There is more future on a future platform ~30% more efficient than an average aircraft 15-20% which targets a smaller market while there is a way to kill Airbus’ market share in this market sector

    • Of course, a lot depends of what 30% “better” represents in reality – to what previous generation is it being compared to, for example? My suspicion is that all the quoted percentages for improvements over previous generations already add up to close on 100%, in which case what’s the point in continuing, we must have already reached the point where any further improvement can only be made by perfecting perpetual motion!

      By all means continue drinking the Kool Aid if you must, but is it necessary to parrot this propaganda to us (hopefully) more rational readers? Do you really believe, though, that Boeing have found the elixir of aviation life that Airbus cannot conceivably respond to in equal measure?

      • Airbus will not respond for a long time or will have a less efficient wing because the X-66A wing is yet another iteration after more than a decade of development.

        You seem to ignore this despite claiming to be an expert, don’t you?

        Then imagine the strategy,

        Airbus does the same thing then Boeing launches a new TTWB 787 Re winged for example,
        they will have a lead.

        Whether Airbus responds quickly or slowly it will not be a problem; there will never again be a problem with ground clearance where Airbus has enjoyed insolent luck for too long by coming 20 years after the 737…

        I understand that the idea of a Boeing crushing Airbus would be a horrible idea but that’s not our problem because the A320 will not be forever

        Kool aid you said ?…

        • I don’t claim to be an expert! (If you think I have, please show me where!) but then I don’t use the excitable language that you do, either (e.g. “the idea of Boeing crushing Airbus” ), I try to make sensible and reasoned posts. I just wish you would try to do the same, but I think that’s probably a vain hope…….

          • It’s a bot, Roger; it always has been. What else would use phrases like “insolent luck” and “pious wishes”? Supposedly it was “banned” awhile back. 😉

        • Checklist:

          While I admire your enthusiasm, you are basing most of it on emotional statements, not facts.

          It is impossible to put a TTBW wing on a 787.

          Well not impossible, but you have a whole new program as you have to modify the fuselage. The TTBW may not suit the long range wide body market. It could well be a BWB type.

          The TTBW has not proven itself yet, I have hopes but that is all they are until we get data.

          Boeing may well NEO the 787, but it would be with a GTF from RR or P&W (or both)

          • TransWorld

            …”While I admire your enthusiasm..”


            Thank you so much TransWorld.
            Yes, I am enthusiastic about aeronautics.

            But it’s not emotional.

            The wing could be as feasible as a BWB large wingspan.

            I projected into the future something like 2040+ where standards will be restored because global policy imposes and will further impose decarbonization to reach ZERO in 2050 !

            I’m not saying that it will happen, I’m saying that they will move forward with something substantial as a result.

            I know that this ecological discourse is hated by many people but I don’t care because the world is going to experience a great transformation regarding decarbonization and we know that politicians and industries are pushing for change.

            A 787 type with TTWB could be relevant if it will also be something more efficient than the current 787 Dreamliner would also have a GTF perhaps also at GE from what I have heard.

            Technically there is nothing that prevents the design of a new wing implant on a future 787-X in 2040-2045 As you know an MD-90 will undergo these changes for a TTwB wing which will become a X-66A.

            This will be the opportunity to have a second generation TTWB wing just after the replacement of the 737MAX and A32Xneo around 2035 since there is always learning and improvement.

          • Checklist:

            The reality is that for test purposes using an MD fuselage works fine, you don’t care what you do to the structure in terms of mods and bracing.

            What you can’t do is the same thing with a production aircraft that is viable. Costs are beyond belief for production number, not to mention you impact so many areas you have to do an all new from the ground up designed fuselage and at this point you have an all new program and you make other changes (engineering moves on and your solution for 10 years ago is not what you can do now)

            In all the materials I have seen on a TTBW, none of them have mentioned wide body.

            At a guess is its so long and so thin it becomes a failure as you can’t get the wing beefy enough.

            If you remember Boeing did a folding wing design for the 777 originally and no takers. The issue was it was hugely complex and involved folding flight surfaces (Navy does it on fighters but on civilian aircraft……………..)

            You wing is so long and so thin you have to fold a lot more (you won’t fit in the slots)

            So no, I do not see a TTBW for widebody. BWB possibly.

            That does not mean a TTBW will not work for a single aisle or a small widebody and that is what Boeing is going to find out.

            But you do have to prove it. There can be show stoppers so while interesting and maybe promising, we need to see the data.

        • “Airbus will not respond for a long time or will have a less “…”efficient wing ”

          what gives you certainty in that domain?

          IMU Airbus has been ahead of Boeing in aero things for most of the time. A350 forex has a larger and thicker ( and thus lighter) wing than the 787 with similar or better performance.

          Amusing that you seem to think that airbus is sitting on its haunches to wait for copying innovation from Boeing.

  29. Pingback: Why will a new single-aisle aircraft enter service after 2035? – EPSILON AVIATION

  30. LNA laid out their view of the much wider 787 debacle – proof that the number of aircraft sold is rather meaningless.

    “Executing the design, industrial partnerships and production of the [787] program was a disaster. And it is this disaster that upended Boeing’s product strategy the reverberates to this day.


    In a few decades, two aircraft programs might be mentioned on the tombstone of an airframer.

    • ‘Airbus took over the leadership role with development of the A320neo, the A350-1000, The A350-900ULR, The A321LR and A321XLR. Boeing responded in defensive moves with the 737 MAX and the 777X.’

      The 787 has been a market success and an engineering & financial disaster.

      • Franck P

        The 787 Dreamliner and 777-X combo is a bottleneck for Airbus and its A350.

        It was a planned traffic jam. Boeing knew that Airbus would arrive with a larger aircraft than the 787, which is why Boeing worked to design the 787 Dreamliner as small as possible to ensure that Airbus would not come with a smaller aircraft without Boeing standards. (Crew rest area, architecture Interior, Big bins znd windows etc)
        This is why they ditched the A350MK1 for the -XWB, and the A330 doesn’t really do the job

        It is technically impossible to dislodge the 787 ) Dreamliner and Airbus knows it.

        So the A350 ultimately couldn’t be what it is today.

        -> ~1000 sales in 18 years vs
        -> ~2066 787 and 777-X combo sold.

        What defensive measure are you talking about?
        It’s an offensive against Airbus which has been a bitter war for Toulouse which is trying any desperate action, like establishing 10-abreast on an A350 to look “pretty on paper”.. Lol..

        Hey by the way, do you know that if you total the total net sales between the entire A350 family versus the entire 777-X family since its launch in 2013, there have sold more 777-Xs than the entire A350 family? … lol…

        • ‘What defensive measure are you talking about?’

          Don’t complain to me – complain to Scott, who wrote the article and where that quote is taken from. More reading…less typing.


          ‘So the A350 ultimately couldn’t be what it is today.’

          -> ~1000 sales in 18 years vs
          -> ~2066 787 and 777-X combo sold.

          Not for nothing, but you conveniently seemed to have forgotten something, haven’t you?

          The 787 entered service in 2011.

          Since then, the A330 line has delivered to customers (and made a profit for Airbus, btw)

          2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

          2 9 4 6 12 46 67 66 103 108 108 101 87 = 719

          of the CEO


          18 23 12 13 41 3 = 110

          of the NEO

          So 829 A330’s went out the door and made money for the airline, since the 787 went into service. Add that to the 557 – A350’s delivered.

          What has the 787 & 777X done for BA – besides been engineering disasters?

          Cost them ~$15 billion in losses….and counting.


          ‘It is technically impossible to dislodge the 787 ) Dreamliner and Airbus knows it.’

          It is technically impossible for the 787 Dreamliner to earn a profit for Boeing and Airbus knows it – and approves of it.

          – fixed it for ya

          • What you have difficulty understanding is that regardless of profits or not Boeing will still build and produce aircraft. The 787 Dreamliner could not be dislodged. Today he finances the TTWB

            Fixed it for you

          • “The 787 Dreamliner could not be dislodged. Today he finances the TTWB”

            Inteesting fiction.

            Merkbefreit. 🙂

          • Gives new meaning to finance. 😄

            New Speak in modern era.

        • I know you’re just back here trolling and my reply was just a welcome back post. I’ll see you when the Q3 financials are released and you can comment on how everything is fantastic at BA and terrible at AB because….reasons.

          I’ll leave you to it, now.

          • Frank P:

            The 787 is NOT a technical disaster. The program was mis managed.

            The few tech issues were easy to iron out, the management failures, no.

          • The 787 originally was launched with EIS in 2008. The disastrous program upended BA’s product strategy. Oops.

            BA is still digging itself out of various production mishaps of 787.

          • @TW

            Please use my quote correctly:

            ‘The 787 has been a market success and an engineering & financial disaster.’

            To your point:

            If it was engineered correctly, than it wouldn’t have run up over $26 billion in the DPB and had a delivery stoppage of over a year now, would it?

            Someone in engineering signed off on these things, no?


            On the 787 program I neglected to mention;

            The DPB is the Deferred Production Balance, as was explained in the post above. What the DPB does not include, however – is the billions spent out of the R&D budget, to design, test & certify the thing in the first place.

            $10 billion, at least?

          • he few tech issues were easy to iron out,”

            787 First Flight was planned for August 2007.

            The Open Wound tech issues were not fixed until the FF of the “MK2” -9 Model.
            After that we had a recurring issues come up crowned by that recent delivery stop due to dysfunctional manufacturing control.

          • The 787 might be the best gift to AB: turned a competitor into an also-run. Better than any launch aid from governments.

          • Frank P:

            You are running into your tech limitations.

            Please look at what I said, there were few engineering issues on the 787. That does not mean none, but none of them were beyond correction and the correction on the wing join was actually there already, management insisted in shaving materials and that was the one spot you could not do it.

            The management decision to scatter build of the 787 all over the planet was the issue. They put NO effort into having Boeing personal at those sites and things went off the rails. One outfit was hoarding fasteners so they could make their part and were ahead (yea team) but you can’t assemble an aircraft without all the assemblies being there.

            The Battery Failure was another management failure. Thales was the contractor and there were 3 entities that were not coordinated and one who never had made a control board for anything (they burned their factory down).

            Yusa assembly was an atrocity of quality control (lack). Doing manual bending and pounding in a filthy environment when those batteries type require clean conditions.

            30% of Li Ion batteries should fail to pass quality. Yuasa was passing 99%. SAFT knows how to make batteries for aircraft and they should have had that contract.

            The shim fit is nothing more than not having quality control in operation. That is not a tech issue its a management issue.

            In the end Boeing had to field entire teams of 20 – 30 people in all disciplines from accounting (yea you) to logistics and engineering disciplines to ensure all the mfgs were doing what they were supposed to when they were supposed to do it.

            95% of the 787 failures were due to mis management, not engineering.

          • You have a problem my dear sir, I do not deny the results that follow.

            But you and your friends here are trolling to say that it’s me who’s doing it in the end..
            (I never forget what you say) I don’t like your behavior

            2024 would probably be a good year for Boeing because everything will be sorted out…

    • Lol, you are bathed in nostalgia for the past and wishful thinking for the future.
      You’re going nowhere with this

      Airbus launched programs with launch aid and had room for errors (A340-200/-300/-500-600, A380 etc)

      If you think the 787 Dreamliner doesn’t make sense, the airlines and the Market wouldn’t agree with you, nor the shareholders, Boeing executives, and Calhoun…

      • I think it’s fascinating that that this “banned” commenter (only) is back- and spewing the same junk it always did..

        • Vincent

          I challenge you to prove otherwise
          If the truth bothers you wait I have another one 🙏

          Probably the reason why the A350 dragged its tires a little compared to the 787) Dreamliner in the symbolic passage of 1000 sales crossed this year after a long wait of 17 years later, compared to the 787) Dreamliner that it did it in 6 years (2010)

          The ENTIRE A350 family was sold LESS than the 777-X!

          In the table which turns out to be credible we perfectly observe the cancellations of A350 in 2014 a few months after the launch of the 777-X

          When you take the difference in sales between today 2023 and 2014 right after the 777-X launch,

          -> 1036 A350 net sales in 2023 and
          -> 780 A350 net sales in 2014

          We get 256 A350s sold between 2014 and 2023 while we get 366 777-Xs sold since launch in late 2013
          This is a differential of 110 aircraft between the 777-X and the A350.

          It leaves your mouth open …!


    • Airbus A350s are rolling off the line, being paid for,
      and delivered for service. And at a net profit; easy-peasy.

      Boing 777-X talk is all hypothetical.. what’s their latest, many-times-delayed *EIS projection*?
      Will Boing make a nickel on that program? (same question for 787 and 737MAX™)

      • Vincent

        Your argument is a Placebo.
        Face the truth.

        Netflix and Disney + have been in debt for a long time and yet they are popular brands.

        Like Boeing, “They Are To Big To Fail”.
        Don’t worry about Boeing and them.The magic of the Stock Exchange and Wall Street will always be there lol !!

        $355.68 −5.52 (1.53%)

        The Walt Disney Company
        84.35 USD 0.00 (0.00%)

        A good advice,
        Don’t get tired…

  31. Very, very soon: the only “news” one will find on the internet will be that of the corporatists; self-servingly by and for them and their beneficiaries.

    Maybe it has already happened.

  32. Oh man….

    So there was this guy in Holland – Peter, who used to do great work on aircraft production lists. His site went dark awhile back. I just found this message:

    This website was launched in 2000 and it has grown for 23 years thanks to all the support and contributions.
    However, in 2016 I was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer and I have been fighting that ever since.
    And now, after surgery, radio-therapy and nearly 40 chemotherapies I am losing that battle.
    Therefore I am no longer able to maintain the site and I have to shut it down.
    Again thanks for all the support.




    I wish him all the best and thanks for all the hard work.

  33. Unfortunately it’s true.

    The world has changed a lot and so has Boeing. If it wasn’t for the ”corporatists” certainly Boeing would have launched something new in 2011 to really replace the 737 and too bad if the A320neo was a success because the goal of the ”corporatists” as you say was to have cash flow sooner with a re-engined 737, a new risky program replacing the 737.
    …And then there was MCAS…

    The other example is to say that the 757 assembly line must close in 2004 and to say that the 737-900/-900ER does 90% of the work was a policy of the corporatists but we were at the beginning of this period

    This is also the cause of the 737MAX today.
    Even though we know they ”failed” through him…

    • I would say that I don’t like or trust you, Checklist;
      but there is no “you” to dislike, or mistrust.

      Expect much more of similar quality, ladies and gents..

      • Sadly, unlike many forums, there’s no “ignore” button on this one, so it becomes necessary to manually plough through the dross. Would it were different!

        • Why? You have one commenter giving supporting statements why he or she like Boeing. He or she is not going along with the group think makes them a problem?…………………..Ok.

          • People are entitled to think what they like, I don’t have a problem with that, even if they are blatantly obvious Fan boys. It’s when they try to convince others to think along similar lines by quoting spurious information or half-truths that I feel they have to be pulled up or (much easier!) ignored or (better still!) blanked out.

          • Thank you so much William🙏

            Fanboys have been furious since they read me

        • Indeed Roger, would that allow you to block your parsonal attacks comment ?

  34. One commenter said: “The 787 was NOT a technical disaster.”

    Mmm, so the early, near-catastrophic battery issue, fuselage shim safety issue (ongoing!), forward bulkhead safety issue (ongoing!), vertical stabilizer safety issue (ongoing!), do not qualify? I won’t mention the lessened lightning protection, for now..

    • The battery problem 🔋 was due to a lack of experience in many areas of the industry during the 2010s.

      Samsung in 2016 had to recall all models of their premium smartphone because they were catching fire. There were computers that caught fire too.

      The 787 Dreamliner had the same Li-Ion batteries.
      One thing is certain: there is no danger as long as the batteries are not at rest. The fact that the batteries had burned on the tarmac was proof of this.

      It wasn’t dangerous in the skies, or in flight, but the problem had to be solved…

      • “It wasn’t dangerous in the skies, or in flight, but the problem had to be solved…”

        Both nonfireevents happened 20..25 minutest after an engine start from batterry.

        One in the air over Japan ( ANA )
        one on the ground ( JAL, Boston )

        • Checklist

          It was not the industry that could not do it.

          Boeing outsourced the whole battery setup to Thales who picked a US firm to make the control board, that firm did security installs on business jets. They had never done anything else (they were associated with Thales in some way). The burned down the factory amongst their other issues.

          Yuasa factory used hand formed parts which have zero quality control or consitantc and the factoyr was not only filthy, they did not have scan reolsution to see the faults in their batters (they should have failed 70% of them and failed a whole 1%)

          Another vendor (Japanese) made the monitor board.

          Saft could have done the whole shebang and makes excellent batteries for Aviation (and I had the privilege to have a set of their fire system power backup batteries that were a delight)

          Boeing outsourced the Battery and had no follow up and neither did Thales follow up.

          Boeing came up with a beyond a joke of a test by driving a nail into the battery to test the meltdown propagate.

          There was zero engineering in doing so, they pulled it out of their hat.

          All were Boeing management decisions. With the same tech and the right approach, they have had no more problems (correction, I think they had one more but that was the end of it).

          Boeing can bring new tech into aircraft design, it needs to be backed up by science not wishful thinking.

          • How faint.

            At the time Boeing was adamant that that these events were not “fire ” ( as in combustibles burning )

            Just the rash release of about 10MJoule of energy ( equivalent to burning equivalent to burning a pint+ of fuel )

          • UWE, Boeing is defending itself as Airbus has done in the past. (A320 crashes, A350 CFRP skin issues)


  35. Despite all those shortcomings..
    One question?
    Why is it an airplane, customers can’t seem to get enough of..
    There are certainly other options available to them !
    Would certainly like to hear your opinion about that .. Vincent !!

    • Without a doubt Robert – it is a market success. That isn’t what the discussion is about here (at least, what I am talking about).

      Do you think it is at all possible that a product could be a success in the marketplace, but be a disaster for a company?

      Contrary to what some might think I say, Boeing is in way too deep here, to stop the train and get off at the next station – it has to go all the way to the end. It will have to make all these aircraft it has contracted with airlines to deliver, even if they lose on every delivery they make.


      But consider this, for a second;

      The 787 & the A330Neo aren’t miles apart in performance.

      From Leeham:

      ‘Despite all the new technology in the 787 and the neo being a combination of old and new, using virtually the same RR engine as on the 787, the operating costs proved to be similar to the 787.’


      So why is it selling so well?

      Well – it is newer. Given the choice, I’d like something newer to.

      What about pricing?

      Given the choice between paying the same for something new and something older, I’d choose the newer thing.

      But is the price indicative of what it’s value is? Put another way; the costs to make the 787 have exceeded the price of what BA is receiving in return from airlines. We’re talking all airlines over what has been produced so far ~1,100 units.

      So the aircraft is underpriced. Airlines are getting great value for their money. At Boeing’s expense.

      So if BA had to add another $10 million to the price tag of each 787, to reach a break even point – would it sell as well as it does?

      • Franck P

        ”..So if BA had to add another $10 million to the price tag of each 787, to reach a break even point – would it sell as well as it does?..”

        This kind of “what if” argument, just to remake the world and recreate situations is just absurd. It gives a rather detestable and surreal air of fanboyism.
        So I would also say this ”And if the 777-X was sold for 1 million less would it have sold more?
        ”What if the A330neo had a composite wing would it fly further or as far as the 787 Dreamliner”? And if” ! And if it were, would it be able to meet Boeing’s standard with the flight crew rest space above the cabin introduced almost 20 years ago on the 777s? No.

        Carrying large luggage in the cabin? No.

        Would it transport as many pallets and LD3 containers as the 787 (Payload Range) ? No.

        The A330 is not like the 787 because only the A350 comes close to the Dreamliner and adopts Boeing’s standards to be almost successful or successful.

        Did you know that Boeing considers the 757 to be a not too successful program even though it has sold ~1000 copies in 20 years? (1979-2000) then they ceased production in 2004.

        It’s a fairly similar situation with the A350 today as I have always indicated. So what is the point of falsely comparing the A330neo and the 787 Dreamliner, the latter of which sold better and is superior.

        Just look at Hawaiian Airlines, Air Tahiti Nui, Lufthansa abandoning the A330/neo to integrate the 787) Dreamliner into their fleets and the story is not over…

      • Frank P:

        You come up with a horribly wrong conclusion.

        Boeing has been paying down the debt on the 787.

        The vast majority of those debt costs were the early management failures in the program.

        So yea, huge loss if you stop production now. Keep selling them and you spread that cost out over more and more aircraft.

        You won’t run the numbers but 3000 is a good number.

        Using shims was not the issue on the latest, failure to have a quality control program in place to check the fuselages as well as cross check of the shim program that was wrong is and those are all management failures.

        Boeing corrected that and the FAA approved production and while its painfully slow, Boeing is fixing the issues to the production spec and those are getting delivered to customers.

        Boeing can do a write off or spread the cost out per program accounting into a larger block if they want to.

        And that does not take into account a NEO.

        Funny how airlines like new over old when it cost them more money (or Airbus can’t sell an old aircraft no matter what they do)

        • “And that does not take into account a NEO.”

          Airframer runs a horrible business, has multi-billion in deferred production cost that may not be recoverable. Worry not, it can kick the can down the road by a “NEO” program: how on earth can the airframer has such certainty to believe it will have a viable business case even though the current program’s business case is highly questionable? 🤔

  36. I agree with most of your comments, but when you throw in the a330 neo lackluster sales, you can’t tell me it’s only because Boeing is giving them away..
    You still have operating economics, fuel efficiency, and dispatch reliability to content with..
    It’s simply no contest..
    The 787 is a proven success for all the carriers who operate it..
    Follow on orders are a good indication of a successful program .
    With numerous airlines doing exactly that.
    So you don’t think Airbus is offering discounts for the one program in their line-up that needs it the most ..
    Sorry , I’m not buying that…
    And neither are the customers..

    • Robert L and others

      (!) I would like to point out that I am a fan of aeronautics and I am not here to denigrate Airbus products unlike those they do for Boieng.
      This is detestable.
      Yes, I really like the Boeing widebody as I recognize that the A320neo is ”better” than the 737MAX, even if it’s not up to me to judge that, but the market.
      I observe the characteristics of Airbus and Boeing aircraft a lot, I like to make comparisons and I am also a AvGeek like many here.
      It was just to clarify

      But I hate that absurd things are allowed to be said with ignorance, wishful thinking, selective memory, in short, everything that hardened fanboys can allow to be said…

      Robert L

      Don’t fall into the trap.
      I didn’t detect any truth in what he said. Just to correct it.

      The 787 Dreamliner is superior to both the A330neo and the A350-XWB because the first is too old and the latter is an adaptation to the 787 Dreamliner situation from 2006, while the 787 is an exclusive and thoughtful aircraft, I explain why well that the market is already doing it!

      The A330-900 carries 11 88”x125” pallets with wasted and unoptimized empty space or 32 LD3 containers. The 787-9 Dreamliner transports 11 pallets tighter in an optimized space or 36 LD3 containers, that’s 4 more than their “magical A330neo”.

      The 787 carries more cargo in volume and a higher Payload Range than the A330neo.

      The 787-10 option carrying 40 LD3 containers or 13 Pallets. This is even more superior than the A350-900 and A330neo both with +/- the same Payload Range as the A339neo. The 787 Dreamliner was designed with fairy dust, in fact, the A350-900 was designed to carry as much cargo as the 787-9 (36 LD3 or 11 pallets with unoptimized space/empty space in the belly like the A330neo.

      Airbus stretched it to 66.7 meters in length in 2006 to be competitive with the 787 Dreamliner but it is ~4 meters longer than the 787-9 with a wet surface and penalizing increased weight. Airbus had not no choice and Boeing knew that its competitor could only arrive from the top as I explain in my comment above.

      The 787 Dreamliner is a truly exclusive concept, there are no two like it. The fact that “Airbus stretching it to 66.7 meters long is only an adaptation to the situation to be competitive with the 787 Dreamliner, it has an interesting capacity for airlines. The A330neo cannot be both superior to the A350 and let alone the 787 Dreamliner.

      The A330neo is too old…

      https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/customer-care/fleet-wide-care/airport-operations-and-aircraft-characteristics/aircraft- characteristics



      • The A330, first viewed as the weak sister of the A340, grew into a success in the nineties, as the right sized 300 seater, much lighter than the 777.

        When a decade later the 330-200 added range & hundreds were sold to open up booming Asia, Boeing engineers soon foresaw inevitable A333 MTOW/range upgrades. Which came, 767/772ER sales quickly dropped & Boeing had to do a “carbon A330” ASAP.

        In 2003 7e7 EIS in 2008 was promised to the market. The 787-9 is more capable and took over the market, but not before Airbus sold another 800 A330 CEO’s.


    • Did you miss this from Leeham? I posted it above. I guess you trust Simple Flying over the engineering talent and experience, over here:

      ‘Despite all the new technology in the 787 and the neo being a combination of old and new, using virtually the same RR engine as on the 787, the operating costs proved to be similar to the 787.’


      Dispatch reliability? Really? From the jet that had a delivery halt for a year and the decision on what to do with all those 787’s that were shimmed and in service still pending?

      Do a google search on dispatch reliability – it seems both are around the 99.5% now…but Reuters had this to say in 2014:

      Boeing says Dreamliner reliability better but ‘not satisfactory’


      The Dreamliner’s reliability rate is now around 98 percent, meaning two out of every 100 flights are delayed for mechanical problems – up from 97 percent in October but still short of the firm’s target, said Mike Fleming, vice president for 787 support and services.


      The 737 MAX and 787 problems have only fed off each other. “Had the MAX crisis not happened, I suspect the delivery suspension would have been short-lived, if occurring at all,” says Hamilton.

      Hamilton believes the 787 program has cost an estimated $50 billion in program development, cost overruns and customer compensation.


      Vendor, supply chain, and manufacturing issues, particularly with the composite fuselage, had bedeviled the 787 in its early days of development, but have surprisingly reared their head again years later. Ignominious for such a mature program that peaked at 14 aircraft rolling per month rolling off dual assembly lines.

      Current 787 deliveries have been mostly suspended over the last year because of quality control programs involving microscopic tolerances of fasteners joining fuselage barrels together, and additional issues with electrical systems and windscreens. This has resulted in around 100 undelivered 787s subject to rework. The company’s cash flow has been impacted by the billions, and turning the once profitable program on a unit basis into a big money loser once again. Once delayed these undelivered airframes are subject to cancellation by their customers, and significant compensation.

      • And yet airlines that know a whole lot more than you, I, Simple Flying or Leeham continue to buy the 787. Why not buy the A3330NEO, and get it quicker and cheaper?

        One of those cases where reality diverges from comment sections.

        • Without a doubt Williams, as I posted above. It’s a market success. You’ve got no argument from me on that point.

          The question I ask is:

          If Boeing had to price the 787 to break even – would it sell as much?

          • And what is breakeven Frank? Its why they are called sales contests. No OEM is selling at full sticker. Airbus quit the game and stop posting prices. You see a spread sheet, and see a negative number and come to the conclusion Boeing did not sell its product high enough. If it was only so simple.

            As been mentioned ad nauseum Boeing screwed up royally on the 787, and is paying the cost, literally. By the time the 2000 787 rolls off the line, no doubt there will be 787 MAX ready to the place of the original 787s and when it does, hopefully the deferred costs will be paid for.

          • @ Williams

            How did you make your investment decisions without knowing if BA does breakeven or not??

            Play the music chair game as long as the music runs??

          • @williams

            ‘And what is breakeven?’

            You really need me to answer this question?

            ‘the point at which cost and income are equal and there is neither profit nor loss. also : a financial result reflecting neither profit nor loss.’


            ‘No OEM is selling at full sticker.’

            Agreed. And?


            ‘You see a spread sheet, and see a negative number and come to the conclusion Boeing did not sell its product high enough. If it was only so simple.’

            Ok – and what conclusion do you come to, given that the 787 entered into service in 2011 and Boeing was selling the jet since 2004?

            Surely, in 20 years of sales and production, you know what it costs to build and you know what you can sell it for, no?

            Do you need more time than 20 years? You need 30? By 2033 they’ll have it down pat?


            ‘By the time the 2000 787 rolls off the line, no doubt there will be 787 MAX ready to the place of the original 787s and when it does, hopefully the deferred costs will be paid for.’

            Yes, that would be nice. Except, as I’ve posted below with source included – the $3.5 billion they’ve written off is gone. The $2.5 billion they wrote off by re-classifying 3 production jets as R&D is gone and the current $2.8 abnormal production costs they are in the process of writing off….are all gone.


            ‘no doubt there will be 787 MAX ready to the place of the original 787s’


            And what will that require, Good Sir? Will a 787 Max just magically appear on the production floor or will Boeing have to pour billions into R&D and the DPB to get it up and running?

            How has that worked out for them, over the 737Max, 747-8 and 777X programs?

      • @Frank P
        I’m so glad you mentioned cancellations by customers Frank.!
        Do tell me, how many 787 cancellations have resulted from all the delays imposed upon the program!?well ..
        Obviously, carriers are willing to wait for their dreamliners, in spite of your dire predictions..!!

        • Jeez Robert – I am so sorry that I didn’t put quotation marks around those two paragraphs from the article.

          They are actually excerpts. Please take up your complaint with them…

          • Obviously ,your trying to pick up where someone else left off. Myself and others can clearly see that..
            You “quoted “them,so I was asking you who cancelled their orders as a result of the dreamliner issues..??
            So your answer is commenting on bad punctuation instead of answering my question.!
            Nice attempt at deflection..

        • Well – let me repost the quote exactly as it is in the statement and not as you have put it:

          ‘This has resulted in around 100 undelivered 787s subject to rework. The company’s cash flow has been impacted by the billions, and turning the once profitable program on a unit basis into a big money loser once again. Once delayed these undelivered airframes are subject to cancellation by their customers, and significant compensation.’


          and as proof of ‘significant compensation’ I offer you this:

          ‘Commercial aircraft programs inventory included amounts credited in cash or other consideration (early issue sales consideration) to airline customers totaling $3,625 and $3,586 at June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022.’


          So compensation to customers went up over the past 6 months and the amount that sits in Inventory, that will one day have to come out as a reduction to Revenue, sits at $3.625 billion.


          Side note to TransWorld;

          Let’s say Boeing does in fact make 410 million margin, after everything for production is paid, on a 787.

          That means that 362 deliveries will be eaten up by the customer compensation monies, to zero the margin.

  37. Frank P.

    “Similar” is a very vague term. Fuel burn is one area. Airline unit revenue is another.
    The 787 flies further than an A330 and the latter is not even a real long haul. I don’t know what you’re trying to make here and this typically seems like Kool aid.

    Question Hawaian Airlines, Air Tahiti Nui, Lufthansa etc.,
    why did they not order the A330neo when they were customers of the A330/A340 knowing that the 787 ) Dreamliner is not reliable enough in your opinion even if this is minimal according to you.

    It is absurd to hear this kind of speech when the market has decided. Do you not take into account the orders of the 787 Dreamliner succes ?



  38. Scott Hamilton, can you tell us your opinion on this? Do you think the TTB is real or a smoke screen? Will be the next gen Boeing NB really be a TTB or a smaller 787 that was supposed to launch back in 2012?

    Or is that answer behind the Subscription wall?………….LOL.

    • Not a 787-3. Boeing appears to be leaning toward the TBW but per practice continues to look at alternatives.

      • My apologies, I should have clarified. Did not mean a 787-3, meant a NB that looked like a shrunken 787. In essence another single aisle tube with wings………………………which is not a bad thing.

        Makes sense Boeing is keeping its options open.

        • I think Boeing will do the smaller thing first with a TBWing.

          2-Class 130 seats and a Streched aircraft ,

          2-class 160 seats

    • To be clear, though, that’s the American LCCs, the European ones don’t seem to be suffering in the same way, and it’s too early to say yet whether the Indian ones will start to struggle – and Europe and India are where most o the recent big LCC orders have come from.

      • These many, massive orders for new aircraft make little sense to me, considering the (curious)
        events of the last four years, plus multiple (apparent) wars..


  39. I think carriers going up side down, requirements changing has been calculated in when you have an eight year back log. There will be continuous rescheduling, slots, types, customers, lessors. Who could have predicted the previous 5 year?

  40. Frank P:

    Regardless of the reasons, the 787 continues to sell in numbers and the A330NEO does not.

    Maybe Airbus should quit making aircraft at a loss and write the program off!

    • Regardless of the reasons, the A350 continues to sell in numbers and the 777X does not.

      Maybe BA should stop and write the program off! 👍

    • ‘Maybe Airbus should quit making aircraft at a loss and write the program off!’

      You have any proof that the program is in a loss position?

      • Airbus is also having difficulties with the A220 program…

        He also had the A340’s and A380, what have you forgotten?

        • One of the reasons the A380 got greenlighted, Leahy complained in the then past how Boeing was able to win campaigns because they would package 747s and less than cost 737s because of the fat margins the 747 had. Airbus wanted the same………..well we know how that turned out.

          • I didn’t know the story, thank you for this beautiful anecdote.

            This is also perhaps the reason that the Airbus marketing department had falsely forecast the sale of 1,400 A380s in the 2000-2019 CMO period.

            The sad truth was that in 2019 Airbus announced the end of production of the A380,
            -> A “20-year program” (Hi Calhoun!) ++200 orders…

    • AB is not in the business of selling aircraft at the loss, OTOH I know the other airframer is, should it quit “making aircraft at a loss”?? 😂

      • Airbus made its first operating profit in 1990. They were making airplanes then………..at a loss.

        • Of course that was then and this is now. Airbus is the Bank of A321NEO now.

        • Which airframer is losing money year after year, now? 🤭

          • Pierre

            Which aircraft manufacturer year after year has destroyed any prospect of leadership for Airbus in the widebody?

          • “Which aircraft manufacturer year after year has destroyed any prospect of leadership for Airbus”

            You know about the idea of a “pyrrhic victory” ? 🙂

          • @Uwe

            BA is self-sacrificing for the airline industry. 👍

          • The altruistic gift that keeps on giving.

            Then “issues with designs” Airbus and Boeing:

            IMU it is limited to Boeing to have to redesign
            towards a new MK2 model with few commonalities
            just after introducing the MK1 item to customers.

            ( compare: My guess is that A330 Twin and A340 Quad
            had about 90+% commonality )

        • William you are just the man of the year!!🎉🎆🎇🏆🎖️🏅

          Juste perfect !!
          Congrats !

        • @williams

          If AB had followed BA’s famous accounting black box “program accounting”, no doubt it could have become profitable on day 1! 😂

          Right now, about a dozen years after 787 EIS, BA is still trying its best to dig itself out of a $18.2 billion financial hole. Posters here are rushing to praise it a massive “success”.

          And a “neo” program would crystallize immediate write down a substantial amount of DPC.

  41. I’m going to let everybody chatter on about how well things are over at BA, since there seem to be some who refuse to accept the rules of program accounting and the implications therein. But I will leave you with this tidbit about another $2.5 billion expense that people seem to forget about and a little word about accounting methods:

    ‘If Boeing booked expenses as they’re incurred, operating profit in commercial aircraft would have been more than $25 billion lower between 2010 and 2015. If it ever concluded it couldn’t recoup the 787 costs over the program’s lifespan, Boeing would be forced to book a charge, possibly a big one. So far it hasn’t, which means its internal estimates still show the program making a profit. Its auditors concur. ‘

    I place emphasis on this phrase, in light of a $3.5 billion charge they took:

    ****If it ever concluded it couldn’t recoup the 787 costs over the program’s lifespan, Boeing would be forced to book a charge, possibly a big one.****


    …and this one, for those talking about a declining Deferred Production Balance:

    ‘Boeing spent about $2.5 billion producing the first three 787s, which it reclassified as an R&D expense. ‘

    So in plain language, Boeing removed $2.5 billion from the DPB (in addition to writing off $3.5 billion) by simply saying we’re not selling these now ‘R&D’ aircraft.

    ‘Easy Peasy, Japanesey’ (to quote Shawshank Redemption) – removing $6 billion from the DPB in two pen strokes.

    Here’s the article:



    On Program accounting:

    ‘Most companies—including rival Airbus—book expenses as they occur. But Boeing estimates what its revenues and costs will be over the lifetime of an aircraft program. These costs are then spread out evenly over the number of planes it expects to sell. Boeing’s “program accounting method” is supposed to reassure impatient investors who are wary of the hefty upfront costs in the aircraft industry, and those too impatient to await profits that usually show up years later. ‘


    I’ll see everybody when the Q3 results are in.

    • In case anyone is wondering, this article was written BEFORE Boeing ran up the white flag and took a $3.5 billion write off on the 787 program.

      That milestone has already been reached on the 777X program.

    • Thank you for providing hard, pertinent numbers, along with quotes from Boing’s own statements, Frank. Some here work hard to remain confused;
      who benefits?

      • Well, when you don’t like the message, attack the messenger.

        You see this a lot on financial websites, but it is understandable. Many people have a vested interest in putting the best possible spin on the results because they have skin in the game; i.e. they own BA stock.

        If some people in here own Boeing and got in high, unable to get out now because the haircut would be a killer, I understand and you have my sympathies.

        Deciphering financials isn’t easy, especially when they make it as difficult as possible to do so. Then you also have the buy and sell vultures, who wait for it to drop, buy up stock, talk it up – then get out when they make a profit.

        Q3 coming soon…

        • > Q3 coming soon… <

          Indeed. Maybe those results will somehow be much, much better than Q2 / Q1 / or 2022/ 2021 / 2020 for Boing..

        • Don’t forget the 787 “terrible teens” which had spent years on BA’s book without a buyer. I heard BA was losing tons of $$$ on everyone because of the costly post-production modifications to strengthen the aircraft and the low price they commended. Is it the technical success our poster referred to?

          Seems history has a sense of humor as BA repeats rework on its most important programs. 👿

          • Pedro

            ”Is it the technical success our poster referred to?”…

            The 787 Dreamliner is a technical success.

            The A380 had cracks and the A350 had a CFRP skin design problem. Selective memory needs to be corrected, and i’m here for that, among other things.

            The market has decided this:
            +1700 787 Dreamliners sold, that must be very painful for the fanboys..

            A380 ~250
            A350 ~ 1030

            -> 2 programs launched only 6 years apart…Airbus made a big mistake and then made less mistakes. Quite awkward

            -> Whatever program Boeing launches, it’s a success!

          • Checklist
            October 17, 2023

            -> Whatever program Boeing launches, it’s a success!

            Like that Starliner… No manned flights on the horizon yet and only a 50% success rate unmanned.

        • Frank P:

          So what if quarter 3 is coming?

          You clearly loose sight of the forest while you look at a tree.

          What anyone interested in where Boeing is going will look for is when the MAX is stable, 787 is stable and backlog cleared (or a trend in that direction).

          Boeing took a long time to get itself into this mess and it will take it a long time to get out of it (if they can).

          Reality is that we are looking at 2024 sometime before the trends tell us something.

          As long as Boeing is following the rules, then I don’t understand your quibbling about them writing things off or not.

          They can extend the accounting block as well (we have seen them do that).

          The relevant aspect is can they pay off their debt (even if on our backs) and invest in an aircraft future (pretty good chunk going into the TTBW project)

          • Sure thing. Thanks for your advice. If financial things don’t matter than you need not concern yourself with them.

          • How the heck are “they” going to pay off their debt? FCF is negative in Q3!
            How is the inventory moving when delivery of the MAX in Sept fell to recent new low??

            AB must be laughing in dreams.

          • “Reality is that we are looking at 2024 sometime before the trends tell us something.”

            Cert copouts could well be a gift that keeps on giving.
            The pool of upheavals could not be dry yet.
            We’ll see

          • So what ?

            Airbus did it at the expense of the taxpayer too.

            The A320, A330 and A340 were launched before 1990 with refundable advances.

            The year it made his first profit. What is the purpose of your comment?

  42. Come on, Airbus took 20 years to make its first profit. They obviously borrow a lot of money launching programs during the 80s, with the A320 and the A330/A340 at a time when Airbus was not even making a profit.

    What don’t we like to hear?

    The false prophets announce Armageddon and promise us their gospels for the year 2023.
    This will not be a surprise, the fanboys have been served as I announced last February after the first problems with the 737MAX were soon resolved…

    I was just right in my predictions
    towards them. This is why 2024 will be better than 2023, 2025 better than 2026 already even that 2023 will be better than 2020, 2021 and 2022, but they don’t like to hear it…

    • As you acknowledge, Airbus well building their share in the marketplace, starting from scratch, just as they are now doing with the A220 which is a new model in a sector of the market they weren’t previously present in. Boeing on the other hand is a long established company who were dominant in the marketplace and have gradually lost that dominance. What’s their excuse for their abysmal financial performance? I’d have said it was largely due to gross incompetence in the design and manufacturing areas, but I don’t suppose you’ll agree with that!

      • Not for nothing Roger, but WHO paid for all the R&D and the making of the first planes?

        Not Airbus. It was Bombardier who did.

        • I didn’t pass any comment on that because I didn’t see it as particularly relevant to the point I was making. Obviously Airbus will not be immediately liable for those costs so it should prove to be an astute buy, but I would assume that there might be some provision for the state investors who backed Bombardier to receive some return from the sales as they grow. Probably not Bombardier, though , they simply wanted to offload the programme and the sale was most likely just that.

          • AFAIK – the funding the gov’t gave to BBD was guaranteed loans and the funds were repaid.

            As 25% owners in Airbus Canada, a couple of years backs, they matched the Airbus capital injection that was needed there (on the ownership ratio – something like $250/$750) .

            BBD did in fact fund the aircraft, to the tune of some $8 billion, to Airbus’ benefit – now.

          • @Pedro

            In other financial liabilities:

            Government refundable advances(1) $ 507

            (1) Of which $341 million has a back-to-back agreement with ACLP ($467 million as at December 31, 2021). Refer to Note 18 – Other financial assets for the receivables from ACLP. The Corporation is required to pay amounts to governments based on the number of deliveries of aircraft.

            This was at the end of 2022.

    • “The A320, A330 and A340 were launched before 1990 with *refundable* advances.”

      You are overlooking a key word in this statement – I have emphasised with asterisks. All those programmes (because the A330/A340 were effectively one) have more than repaid the launch aid and the taxpayers of the countries that provided it are continuing to benefit.

      • Roger,

        Don’t get tired, I know all the Airbus programs like Boeing, you don’t tell me anything about the twin A330/A340 program which is inspired by what Boeing had done previously.

        Besides, another little anecdote and I think our man of the year Mr William 🎉🏆🥇 who revealed that 1990 was the year of Airbus’ first profit after 20 years of existence perhaps knows it?

        The A330 was not even a priority over the A340 for Airbus at the time !

        Which proves with the failed A340-200/-300/-500/-600, A380 programs that Airbus designs aircraft to “try” “if it works”, …

        It shoots before aiming. My point was that Airbus had received a lot of money from the states so as not to be crushed by Boeing.

        They obtained a lot of money without making the slightest profit and the A330/A340 benefited from it…

  43. Boeing pumps cash into Spirit AeroSystems to shore up troubled supplier


    [Spirit] said Boeing has provided funding for tooling and capital through 2025 for some planned and potential 737 and 787 rate increases.

    Near-term price increase, also price cut for the MAX in later years.

    • Just as I forecast.

      Its an indication Boeing is coming to it senses even if they are being forced to.

      • BA will pay half a billion or so to Spirit to compensate cost inflation etc. Must be good for the “big” picture guy.

    • “Boeing has agreed to extend repayments on $180 million of financing. The planemaker will also provide an extra $100 million in the next 10 days for tooling needed for future 787 and 737 production rate increases.”

  44. Roger

    Boeing has lost market share in the narrowbody.
    I think the MCAS problem would have been alleviated if the media and politicians would not have used sarcasm and then relayed it to public opinion.

    Then the FAA being too slow to certify were the reasons for the loss.

    What I’m fighting here is also the wishful thinking of fanboys who might expose management’s mistakes but in reality they hoped and still hope that Boeing would disappear.

    Just the idea that Boeing sees the future with Wisk, the 777-X and the TTWB, for the latter they expressed doubts about the effectiveness.

    No doubt about it Boeing has been working on this for over a decade (2010). C-Suite / bean counters know that BCA is very important and must invest in the future.

    • Checklist:

      History says you are very wrong on what Boeing has been doing.

      Share buy backs to the tune of a whole new aircraft program.

      The almost new aircraft (that was not a TTBW) and the MOM that then went down the drain.

      Boeing management has done the polar opposite of looking to Boeing future, its all been short term gains for their stocks so they can duck out before the house comes down with tens of millions.

      There is a reason the 3 big BCA programs are in distress.

      Do I hope the will get their act together (or Calhoun is forced to by the board) yes I do.

      Do I think Boeing is done for, no I don’t.

      The reality is Boeing management has put the company in serious bind (and the guy in charge, aka Calhoun was on the board when this was all going down and claims he did not know what was going on). Phew.

      I want Boeing to succeed but you never get ahead by pretending things are not what they are, and Boeing management has made a long string of destroying the company for short term personal gain (giving salary in Stock will do that).

      I got a lot of bonuses when I was working, all based on performance and the few dings I got were based on failings. Management should be forced to adhere to that not get 10s of millions when they are sinking the company./

      There is no bright face or hidden magic research that has been going on. TTBW is recent as is Boeing putting money into it.

      • This is important news. Didn’t I say last July on the occasion of the discovery of poorly established holes on the 737MAX that Boeing had an interest in reviewing its “industrial chessboard” or
        Calhoun should leave in 2024?
        Do you remember please?



        As I said, BCA remains important for the C/Bean Counter Suite. This move by Boeing proves that Boeing still has jealousy for its products contrary to what You and some Fanboys have stated here

        You doubt it, but I don’t. So don’t impose your unconvincing idea which is that Boeing is finished because it has not launched an aircraft for only 10 years (777-X) while Airbus has done so for 17 years. (A350)

        I don’t see how the past makes me wrong. I stated this just above before Pierre’s post on the injection of money for Spirit Aerosystem…

        • …So Calhoun will not leave in 2024, he made the right choice by putting money back into Spirit Aerosystem.

    • The TTBW aircraft being constructed is a technology demonstrator and nobody knows yet whether it will prove to be the route to a practical production ‘plane, so it would be a bit risky to bet the farm on it just yet. If that’s not the case, why are NASA involved? Likewise, one of the vaunted keys to greater efficiency, the open rotor engine, brings with it challenges that have yet to be shown to be solvable. IMHO these are both potential “moonshots” and combining them into a single entity is a really risky gamble. And, I’m sure that AB have similarly £long shot” projects of their own.

      • TransWorld and Roger

        Nothing new in the TTWB/X-66A, Boeing has been working on it for over a decade. The wing has also been improved today, it is a”second generation”.

        On the contrary, I think that this will generate 20-30% efficiency depending on the engine type.

        A large composite wing will be in production and attached, it’s like a brand new module that will need to be produced and launched like the 707 ~70 years ago, it had its prototype

        • Perhaps you would like to list the professional qualifications or professional experience that suggest that you are suitably qualified to make such a judgement? If you can’t or won’t do so then I think that other readers are quite justified in assuming that you are writing what are merely your baseless opinions!

          Before you challenge me to do the same I will cheerfully admit that although I do have a PhD, it is in biochemistry and therefore I would never have the front to make such predictions – I am merely an interested amateur and leave the serious calculations to those who really do know what they are talking about.

          • Roger, Roger, Roger, …

            Your message is simply incomprehensible.

            You are lacking arguments, I don’t see what qualification to have there. All we know is that Boeing invested in the X-66A, and your intervention simply means you’re not happy.

            Perhaps a warning sign from not-so-happy Fanboys?…

            …”U.S. airlines to consult for NASA X-66A jet, future Boeing aircraft”…


          • “Roger, Roger, Roger, …

            Your message is simply incomprehensible.

            You are lacking arguments, I don’t see what qualification to have there. All we know is that Boeing invested in the X-66A, and your intervention simply means you’re not happy.”

            I don’t think I am the one having trouble with comprehension here! I have said that I’m no expert, but my sci”Nothing new in the TTWB/X-66A, Boeing has been working on it for over a decade. The wing has also been improved today, it is a”second generation”.

            On the contrary, I think that this will generate 20-30% efficiency depending on the engine type.

            A large composite wing will be in production and attached, it’s like a brand new module that will need to be produced and launched like the 707 ~70 years ago, it had its prototype”

            Nothing I have read suggests to me that the aircraft to be construct is anything but a technology demonstrator , that may or may not prove the viability of the concept. So, I’m interested to hear why, in your informed judgement (i.e. a little more intellectual rigor than reading a press release) it is certain to meet your expectations! So, please tell us the basis for your “analysis”!

          • Don’t engage. He’s just here trolling. He’s gotten others banned and if it get’s worse, Scott will shut down the comments section.

            Just let it prattle on…

          • FrankP


            My dear sir, you and your frustrated fanboy friends will have to re-read what the meaning of “troll” is..

            Now that you have put away your accounting gospel. Take out the Airbus accounts before 1990. I’m sure that will keep you busy for 20 years.

  45. It’s understood there’s a blind spot: BA can never be at fault.

    • Keesje and Pierre,

      How many times have I mentioned here that Airbus had faulty software which led to 3 successive A320 crashes in 1988, 1990
      (when Airbus made its first profit after 2 decades of existence) and 1992?

      But never the fault of Airbus but of the pilots isn’t it…

      You are fanboys with unconfessed wishful thinking because you want the certifications of the 737MAX10 and 777-X to be as slow as possible.

      There are even some who wanted Boeing to disappear. Bad News Boeing Is Too Big To Fail

      Keesje you are only confirming in your comment what I thought…
      I just don’t want to waste my time with this kind of intervention.

      Please don’t deal low blows below the belt
      It’s just odious and unbearable!




      • Faulty software for 1988 crashes :IMO yes and no :
        AF crash clearly a pilot mistake
        IT crash : likely :moving map shift on ND might be one issue.
        1990 Indian Airlines : do not know

        A320 EIS was a nightmare for launching Airlines and nobody should have bet AI will sell so many ….

  46. The factually and semantically challenged Checkbot, and the similarly challenged, carefully obscurative Trans, seem to have this comments section virtually to themselves now.


      • What is extraordinary about it?

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but Boeing isn’t planning to also open another 737MAX assembly line?

        • yes they are putting in some 737 final assembly tooling in a 60 year Everett site…..not really the same thing as Airbus

      • William…
        I didn’t understand what your intervention was about.

        Can you clarify please?


  47. Roger

    ”..in your informed judgement (i.e. a little more intellectual rigor than reading a press release) it is certain to meet your expectations! So, please tell us the basis for your “analysis”!..

    Salad of meaningless words…

    Is there something intellectual in making the connection with what Calhoun said a few months ago about preferring to come with something that gets 25-30% better around 2035?

    It’s just a matter of memory. Nothing difficult with that
    As a Fanboy that you are, I can understand what is selective

    • So I wrote a “salad of meaningless words”? How then should anyone reading your response interpret it? You have, however, perhaps inadvertently, answered my question :

      “Is there something intellectual in making the connection with what Calhoun said a few months ago about preferring to come with something that gets 25-30% better around 2035?”

      In other words, there is none, which is what I expected. In other words you are parroting what Calhoun said – but without appreciating that he was referring to a target aspiration, he wasn’t saying that they had achieved that aspiration yet!

      It also raises a quite fundamental question of exactly what “20-35% better” actually means – how that figures is measured, and against what. If gains of that magnitude can be made with each generation we must be getting close to seeing the modern aircraft becoming a perpetual motion machine!

      • ‘It also raises a quite fundamental question of exactly what “20-35% better” actually means – how that figures is measured, and against what.’

        You raise a very interesting point here. In recent history, I can only think of one aircraft segment competition in which very similar designs were competing, with a step change in technology at work;

        787 vs A330Ceo – Carbon fiber vs metal aircraft.

        So – how much more efficient is a Dreamliner vs the Ceo? Does it best the A330 by 35%? (let’s put aside capital costs and other financial items for now, like MRO & production issues… including sales)

        How much more efficient is it? 15%? 20%?

        I know it’ll vary over routes, seat density, carrier, distance…but what would a ballpark figure be?

        That’s probably the closest example I can think of.

        • To that end, someone posted this on Airlines.net

          (I don’t vouch for the veracity of the figures, just that this is what is being said)

          ‘The 787-9 only weighs around 1 ton less than the A330-300, but takes 13 tons more payload while at the same time burning 500 kg less per hour’


          Airbus has it’s A330Neo giving a 14% better fuel burn per seat, than the A330Ceo. There’s also an Airbus graphic in the thread that says that a 787 will save you $174k and $30k in maintenance costs, but you can make it up in cargo/pax & lower acquisition costs:

          ‘Per the “Aircraft Values, And Lease Pricing – Winter 2020” thread viewtopic.php?t=1440991 the current purchase price for the A330-200 are between $14.0 – 80.0M, with monthly lease rates of $140-610,000. The 788 is significantly more expensive at $70.0 – 124.0M to purchase and $625-980,000 to lease. Some airlines like Royal Jordanian have said the 787-8 could not be operated profitably and cancelled some aircraft. They were one of the carriers the dry leased A330s after they ordered 787s due to the extended delivery delays. Source https://blueswandaily.com/royal-jordani … rowbodies/

          In terms of payload the A330-200 will carry more payload than the 787-8, the 787-8 however will have a lower fuel burn. Airbus years ago in one of their presentations showed this graphically. The advantages and disadvantages here are actually variable, depending on seating configuration, fuel price, and maintenance costs.’


          Have a look:


  48. From CNN:
    “By the time the first of the initial batch of 50 787s was delivered to launch customer ANA in September 2011. The Seattle Times reported that development costs exceeded $32 billion. Boeing would *break even at over 1,000 delivered units*.”

    It’s another proof BA’s hopelessly optimistic estimate was widely off the mark.

    Can the program breakeven at 2,000 units??

    • No, 2,000 won’t do it Pedro and I’ll tell you why.

      There are a few different places where expenses remain and expenses were written off, that would have to be re-couped in order for that to happen.

      1) The first amount is the Deferred Production Balance, which BA says they still don’t have enough orders to cover the numbers there. Over $12 billion.

      2) Once that is done they would have to make enough profit to cover the $3.5 billion they wrote off a couple of years ago.

      3) Then they would have to cover the $2.8 billion in ‘abnormal production costs’ which they are writing off now.

      4) Then the $2.5 billion they shifted out of the DPB when they re-classified the first 3 jets as ‘R&D’ aircraft.

      Those are the monies we know about. We don’t know how much of the actual R&D budget BA spent to design, test & certify the 787 in the first place.


      But let’s leave the R&D thing on the side – add up all the monies we know about and you’re at over $20 billion.

      Use Trans “let’s say they make a margin of $10 million” per delivery.

      They’d have to sell, make and profit on the next 2,000 units starting TODAY to cover just those 4 things.


      What does a clean sheet cost in R&D monies? $10 billion? $15 billion? $20 billion? Go best case, low end and they did it for $10 billion.

      Boeing would need to sell ANOTHER 1,000 jets, on top of the 2,000 above, on top of the 1,100 already produced…

      …over 4,000 units, to break even.

      Without spending another cent in R&D for a new 787Max. Without any other issues impacting margin.

      Colour me skeptical….

    • No orders at risk. AS will take all its airplanes. A different delivery flow…

      • If I read between the lines from AS, the certification of the MAX 10 is a main factor in BA agreeing to push out deliveries in 2024 & 2025. Will there be questions during BA’s Q3 earnings call?

  49. (!) The new airline Global Airlines, based in London wants to revive the ”golden age of travel” with thé A380
    will launch scheduled services in the second half of 2024,

    …”Global Airlines, will launch scheduled services in the second half of 2024,
    with daily New York flights and four-times weekly Los Angeles frequencies. However, operations will not be limited to transatlantic services. Stephenson said Global Airlines is planning to have a “touch point” on every continent Global Airlines will be an all-A380 operator and Stephenson has no concerns about filling the aircraft. “You don’t have to take too much [transatlantic] market share to fill an A380,” he said.

    The A380s will initially operate in two seating configurations. One version will have around 470 seats and the other will have around 450. They will be configured in a three-class layout, with first, business and economy cabins. Later aircraft will have the full Global product, which Stephenson showed an initial image of while on stage at Routes World.

    “Nobody outside the team has ever seen this visual before. This is going to be one of our new business-class seats on our ‘version two’ aircraft. We’re going to have version one and version two aircraft. And we might see these in the sky in the next 18-24 months, potentially,” Stephenson said.

    Each cabin will also have a “grazing” area, where passengers can help themselves to refreshments…”



    Global Airlines livery


    • As expected the government is stepping in, to secure an civil industry for the future and push environmental action.

      IMO a justifiable reasonable course, but lets call a spade a spade. And if they pay, they want a say.

    • Man you’re a real irritant to this forum, please go elsewhere.

      • I think I know who you are referring to, but perhaps you should specify exactly who – otherwise you might be tarring the wrong person with the wrong brush!

  50. FrankP, Roger,
    Re X-66A, aerosynamic, ans fuel burn

    In an aircraft the engine has a significant part

    For the 787 Boeing compared the 787 against the 767 but I think the A330 could also be compared

    8% came from the engine (GENX/Trent1000)
    7% came from advanced materials
    5% came from aerodynamics

    For a drastic change
    Calhoun had insisted that this had to be through aerodynamics. One of the reasons he delayed his next development effort

    The slight leap forward through the current engine does not justify it.

    It’s exactly the same philosophy at JetZero, the Start Up founded by McDonnel Douglas veterans who were already leaning towards a BWB 30 years ago.

    Here’s what they say

    ..”Traditional tube-and-wing aircraft have reached the end of the road in terms of efficiency gains. We are also facing a new era of sharply rising fuel costs. That’s why starting with an airframe that cuts fuel consumption and emissions in half is the best first step towards sustainable aviation…”


    Only the X22-A and the BWB could change the game in terms of aeronautics

    P&W claims that its GTF reduces consumption and CO2/seats by 25% on an A220 and yet you approved this because it is an Airbus!


    So combine this with an X-66A and get even ~35%-40%
    consumption and CO2 / seats



    • “P&W claims that its GTF reduces consumption and CO2/seats by 25% on an A220 and yet you approved this because it is an Airbus!”

      Again, I ask what are you (or P & W) comparing with in making this statement? AFAIK, the A220 (which as has been pointed out was designed by Bombardier) has only ever carried one type of engine, so what is there to compare with?

      Mention of the BWB is irrelevant here, because that is not what Boeing is exploring, and in the case of the X66a the prototype is going to carry P & W geared fan engines of the same basic design as those used on, for example, the A220/A320 so where are the engine efficiency gains going to come from?

      If I understand correctly, the TBW gets its aerodynamic gains from, essentially, being longer – I’m sure there must be other engineering approaches to achieving these gains – or something approaching them – in a less unwieldy and more conventional layout, but time will tell.

  51. Roger

    ”..Again, I ask what are you (or P & W) comparing with in making this statement? AFAIK, the A220 (which as has been pointed out was designed by Bombardier) has only ever carried one type of engine, so what is there to compare with?..”

    The A220 is an Airbus so I stick to it being an Airbus.
    The comparison does not come from Airbus or Bombardier but from Pratt & Witney. The comparison seems to be with the MD-80/-90 and 717 jets and engines…


    ”…Mention of the BWB is irrelevant here, because that is not what Boeing is exploring…”

    It’s relevant. Because it’s something who goes out more from a tube with ”classic” swept wings, and something that has been built for almost 80 years.

    There has been no drastic change in the morphology of civil and commercial aircraft.

    This is what Calhoun wants, and this is why the development effort for the next aircraft has been postponed as I have stated.

    For JetZero’s BWB, it correlates with what Calhoun said but the X-66A is not a BWB but it is what will come closest in terms of efficiency better than any other aircraft configuration


    …”If I understand correctly, the TBW gets its aerodynamic gains from, essentially, being longer – I’m sure there must be other engineering approaches to achieving these gains – or something approaching them – in a less unwieldy and more conventional layout, but time will tell…”

    LOL !

    Oh yes, and with what?…

    • “It’s relevant. Because it’s something who goes out more from a tube with ”classic” swept wings, and something that has been built for almost 80 years.

      There has been no drastic change in the morphology of civil and commercial aircraft.

      This is what Calhoun wants, and this is why the development effort for the next aircraft has been postponed as I have stated.”

      It’s not relevant, because although Colhoun might want it, it isn’t what Boeing are doing with the X66A (which you have previously been promoting as the basis of the next Boeing design – please at least try to be consistent! The X666A has nothing to do with BWB designs!

      If I understand correctly, the TBW gets its aerodynamic gains from, essentially, being longer – I’m sure there must be other engineering approaches to achieving these gains – or something approaching them – in a less unwieldy and more conventional layout, but time will tell…”

      LOL !

      Oh yes, and with what?…”

      Are you seriously trying to say that there is only one possible engineering solution to designing more efficient wings? IIRC, for example, Airbus have a flying BWB scaled down demonstrator that is actually flying now. I’m not saying it is the best way forward, I’m simply pointing out that other possible solutions are undergoing investigation by both OEMs and yet more solutions may appear as time goes by. I simply think it is too soon to say which one may prevail – it’s certainly not as clear cut as you seem to be implying.

  52. Roger

    I include BWB in there.

    Everyone studied it, and Boeing ended up where McDonnel Douglas started in the 90s. But what you don’t realize is that JetZero’s X-66A and BWB/”ex McDonnell Douglas” will be real test benches with engineers inside like the 707 prototype was 80 years ago …

    Airbus did it with a remote-controlled model as Boeing had done before them.
    There Boeing does it with a real aircraft modified to the tune of a completely new aircraft
    You are aware of this I hope…?

    certainly with the brand new CFRP wing designed and produced with its movable surfaces, new electrical controls (Fly By Wire) and cockpit, the systems must be adjusted. The MD90 will no longer be, It’s a brand new aircraft! Only Fanboys consuming cool aid don’t see it because it’s not an Airbus. This is a major event in civil aeronautics. This will be a milestone through Boeing but also JetZero…



    • “Everyone studied it, and Boeing ended up where McDonnel Douglas started in the 90s. But what you don’t realize is that JetZero’s X-66A and BWB/”ex McDonnell Douglas” will be real test benches with engineers inside like the 707 prototype was 80 years ago …

      Airbus did it with a remote-controlled model as Boeing had done before them.
      There Boeing does it with a real aircraft modified to the tune of a completely new aircraft.
      You are aware of this I hope…?”

      Of course I m aware of it – but what does it matter if there are people inside a prototype? There is enormous and still experience out there with UAV s and their capabilities will only continue to grow. Unlike you, too, I can distinguish between programmes – the X66a is the Boeing TBW demonstrator, the JetZero BWB doesn’t have an “X” designation AFAIK!

      We can all see that the TBW demonstrator will just use an MD90 fuselage for convenience and will be an essentially new plane, but it will not be a prototype, it will be a dead-end design that may or may not open the way to a production design; it is an experiment, and as a trained scientist I can tell you that not all experiments work as expected, which is why we do them in the first place – to find out!

      Essentially, it seems to me that there is very little new in any of the alternatives being explored, TBW designs have been around for decades, albeit for slightly different reasons in the past, as have BWB designs, now there are just being re-examined in the light of technology and materials advances, and only a complete idiot or rabid fanatic would assume that only one manufacturer will be able to benefit from them.

  53. Roger

    A UAV is a module but not an aircraft such as the more complex X-66A among others.
    This comparison is unnecessary.

    There we will have an aircraft on board with all the systems of an aircraft and much more.

    You don’t have to be a die-hard fanboy to understand this or a complete Idiot. Until proven otherwise, Boeing is the only one in the world to do so.
    And you have to take that into account.

    When it is launched there will certainly be Airbus which will do it but how long after? 2 years ? 6 years ? 10 years ?
    Anyway Boeing has been looking at it for a decade and I remind it like a Mantra no matter when Airbus comes there will no longer be a ground clearance problem like the 737, I have already said it here but Boeing will be ahead.

    We saw the 787 Dreamliner launched in 2004 then the A350 in 2005, then in 2007 and look at the result today? Imagine Boeing leading the world in Widebody and Narrowbody at the same time. I’m not saying Airbus will disappear because Boeing doesn’t care about Airbus, but that’s the position the $$$ bean counters will definitely want, 70% of the market for them…

    For economic reasons through sustainable policy, American airlines will be behind Boeing and this is already the case. All the ingredients for a commercial and industrial launch which I suspect will be sooner rather than later


    The coalition includes @AlaskaAir @AmericanAir @Delta @SouthwestAir and @United.

    • Some of what you write is absolute claptrap! A UAV is normally simplified in control terms but that doesn’t have to be so. Most are flown by humans, just remotely, so to some degree it doesn’t seem to matter too much if the pilot is sat in the cockpit or in a bunker in a desert somewhere. I suspect that it would not require a huge leap in technology to make most modern airliners capable of autonomous flight. However, I think it’s pointless continuing this “discussion” further.

      You have your view as an admitted (and patently demonstrated!) Boeing fanboy, and I have my view as, I like to think, a more dispassionate observer, (although I do believe that Airbus has made technological advances just as significant as those of Boeing, if that makes me a fan boy), and I don’t accept that either manufacturer will dominate the other moving forward – indeed it is undesirable if progress is to continue – if there is no competitor the drive to improve will probably stagnate. And on that point I think we have to agree to differ, and sit back and wait to see what really happens

      • ‘I don’t accept that either manufacturer will dominate the other moving forward – indeed it is undesirable if progress is to continue – if there is no competitor the drive to improve will probably stagnate.’

        I disagree with you here, Roger.

        Airbus is in a commanding position in the NB segment. Not only are they dominating the orders race, but they are also making positive margins on those sales. Boeing is not and the future of the NB market for them is bleak, especially financially. I quote from their Q2 financials:

        At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 737 program:
        deferred production costs of $4,739 and $2,955 and unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs of $591 and $626. At June 30, 2023,
        $5,297 of 737 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 $33 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting
        quantity that represent expected future orders.


        This final line is very telling:

        ‘At June 30, 2023, $5,297 of 737 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 $33 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders.’

        They have a backlog of over 4,000 Max’s. 4,000.

        If they magically could make and deliver all of those overnight and get paid, cash on the barrelhead, instantly – they would still be short money to cover the expenses stored in the DPB.

        Think about that for a minute.

        The DPB has gone up over the past six months, to the tune of ~$1.8 billion. Money spent to fix production woes. Money which will take away from profits. So much so, that 4,000 jets just about covers it.


        On the flip side, what is Airbus facing?

        Supply chain and supplier (most notably engine) issues. The supply chain is the race to get to 75 a month.

        Profits are not the problem. Cash is not a problem. Debt is not a problem. They are working on banking a $10 billion rainy day fund.

        God help Boeing when they work it out.


        I think you have to go back to the original 777 to come across a BA program that was a marketing, engineering and financial success. (or the 737NG, whichever came later). That’s awhile ago and those ‘airplane guys’ are now gone.

        Airbus have the profits and cash to weather other underperforming products – like the A220, until they get them back into the black.


        IMO the threat going forward is COMAC. Not the C919 – but the next one, when they learn to make aircraft properly. It’ll be even greater if they can make a domestic engine, as well.

        The gov’t there can just pretty much order airlines to take the aircraft. Thousands and thousands of them.

        Even if it isn’t cutting edge, super efficient – let’s say they can reliably produce in large numbers, something between an A320Ceo/Neo or a 737NG/Max. With a Chinese engine.

        That is trouble for both AB & BA.

        • My little prediction:

          Expect DPC to increase in Q4 as more $$$ from BA doles out to contractors like Spirit in order to raise production rate to the magic # of 57.

          • It depends…

            If it is an advance, than it still a true asset (Supplier Advances or Deposits to Suppliers), the flip side of advances from customers (Unearned Revenue).

            If they’re paying more to Spirit for the cost, than yes – the DPB could go up. BA might just also file it under Abnormal Production Costs and take the expense right away.

            It depends how it gets treated…

        • “I think you have to go back to the original 777 to come across a BA program that was a marketing, engineering and financial success. (or the 737NG, whichever came later).”

          777 came in in about is projected timeframe but took twice the budget to get the
          re. Marketing effort was more than a bit aggressive.

          737NG seems to have been ok ( but already contained the seeds for later upheaval
          . Prodution processes came to a screeching halt early on.

          Errors are never documented and just fixed on the fast path.
          Professionals doing the fixing were never retained.

  54. Roger,

    I also allow myself to think that what you are saying is pure claptrap. You are obviously not able to tell the difference between a drone and a commercial aircraft equipped with more systems, but also fuel for engines etc. You compare something that is electric.


    Do you believe that by coming to complain like you do about the fact that you can’t stand domination (if there will be domination) will change anything? Where were you to say the same thing when people hoped Boeing would disappear?

    Where were you when there was a certain person here who made fun of Boeing by saying that there were no more engineers? Today we Boeing fanboys revel it was just a matter of time. Roger you are no less fanboy than me or anyone else so please stop your play and expect Boeing to launch this gem

    “30 to 35% fuel and CO2 / seat savings” and too bad for those who don’t follow suit, too bad for the A32Xneo since I had already stated here that it would not be eternal.

    I had warned about that. I also said that Airbus should take advantage of the 6-7 years remaining because the standards will change and Boeing will move forward with that. You want competition so accept and you accept the facts sir..

    Even if it’s Boeing and even if it’s American, sir, and respect each other’s opinions okay …

    • OK, so what is an RQ4 Global Hawk or an MQ1 Predator? I have seen both described as either remotely powered vehicles or – wait for it! – drones! And neither is, as far as I can tell, electric!

      As for your other points, I don’t think its a particularly radical point of view for people to hold the point of view that Boeing has been in a deep hole for the last few years and is only just beginning to climb out of it; they even seem to revert to digging it deeper periodically, but I’m sure that they’ll get there in the end. I’ll repeat, I’m not particularly an Airbus fanboy but I do believe that if Boeing come up with a design that is significantly better than the A32XNeo than Airbus will certainly match it with an equivalent product. I say that because, as we all know, the laws of physics are immutable and ultimately govern what can be achieved; as the OEMs and engine makers get closer to theoretical limits the possible gains will become smaller. Indeed, the problems with the GTF and Leap engines are beginning to suggest that further gains ay not be economically worthwhile if they reduce product reliability. The airlines have had their fingers burned with the GTF, in particular, and they might be a bit more circumspect about jumping on the new product bandwagon next time.

      • Roger,

        The military drones that you are presenting to me have absolutely nothing to do with the X66-A. It’s even worse and it doesn’t provide any more arguments,
        No offense…

        This is similar to the design of a brand new aircraft where there will be a design freeze, single unit production and assembly. New systems and instrumentations.

        It is a new aircraft which Boeing will prepare to market.

        I agree your the second part with the very efficient GTFs but with reduced reliability. But precisely (very sorry) in your reasoning you agree with Calhoun who was that the engines were not sufficient to launch the next development effort

        Here it is a combination of aerodynamics and the combined engine which is sought. Remember what I said yesterday, that doesn’t change. You can call me a fanboy and that won’t stop me from sleeping. It’s not my fault Boeing has a plan. It’s part of the industry to take things to the next level.


  55. Your posts really do remind me of the knight guarding a bridge in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” who has all of his arms and legs chopped off, shouts “Tis but a scratch!” and wants to carry on fighting! My point about the military aircraft is that they are remotely piloted, gas turbine-engined machines that are probably about the same sizes as Airbus’s experimental BWB experiment. If a pilotless 1/4 scale model can be used to provide the basic data as a full scale version it will be a lot cheaper, and should be cheaper to carry out experimental variations, so I don’t accept that the TBW experiment is any better because it is bigger and crewed. Nor do I accept that it will be the prototype of a production run. 1. It’s an experiment, what if it doesn’t prove to be successful as they hope? 2. How can it be a prototype when the new engines needed don’t exist yet and it is using current engines? They can’t be 15% better because they will be the current versions! 3. Is the MD90.sv 1990s fuselage really going to be the basis of a new airliner in the 2030s? If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then it stands to reason that this plane is going to be an experimental one, not the basis of a production design.

    That’s my last word now!

    • “It’s just a flesh wound!”


      “Alright – we’ll call it a draw…”


      Side note: Diversion here, if the powers that be will allow it

      This has got to be one of the Top 3 Python skits.

      I also enjoy The Blue (Dead) Parrot – a Norwegian Blue…



      Lumberjack Song



      Honourable Mention:

      Killer Bunny


      With Thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

      “One! Two! FIVE!!”

      Consult the book of Armaments….lol


      Laughter is the best medicine

      • Lol!

        If this is recreation for you I am very happy for you.

        After abandoning your accounting gospel of Boeing predicting ”Armagedon”, by the accounts of Airbus with their first profit after 20 years this can indeed save you from a Burn Out,
        Have fun …

    • I don’t care if you don’t admit you’re still a convinced fanboy hiding. So your statements are worth ZERO.

      Furthermore, you seem to have no knowledge of aeronautics.
      Your comparison and your assertions remain ridiculous

      The 367-80 was the prototype of the 707!
      This case is not similar but exactly the same situation that you refuse to see through a soothing Kool Aid

      1. You talk about the reduced scale of BWB Airbus as you ignore that Boeing did the same thing.
      Are you ignoring Boeing’s BWB studies with a scale model?
      Well this indeed, was a xhose which was not certain. The reason for Boeing and Airbus that this was not going to succeed

      2. You claim, among other things (falsely), that Boeing is stupid since it uses a test bench and not a reduced scale which you believe is less expensive.
      But to give you an answer precisely as to the importance of the demonstrator beyond a demonstrator. An aircraft that could more than potentially be produced from 2030-2032.

      You’re not credible man, how can I trust you?
      The man who shouts ”it’s just a scratch” is obviously you since the fanboys seem very upset about the situation.

      Refusing to see the obvious with a good Kool Aid

      Boeing 367-80


      • Checklist (back from the banned?)
        The -80 was decidedly not the 707 prototype. It shares so little of the structure with the 707 which was a clean sheet design. The -80 fuselage was 132 inches in diameter, the -707 was designed at 148 inches. So the noses are different, every skin panel assembly is different, the center wing boxes are different, the aft pressure bulkheads are different, the 707 lacks air to air refueling boom provisions. The wing planforms are different and fuel tankage went from 12,500 gallons on the -80 to 17,406 gallons on the 707. There is a case to be made that the -80 was actually a sub scale test bed for the 707, but calling it a prototype is laughable if you look at facts and data instead of trying to make it fit your narrative,

        • PNWgeek

          I did design. You can modify a prototype for x or y reason at the last moment.

          There for the case of the X-66A we can see that the nose of the cockpit or even the fuselage would not be that of the MD90 in the final version because this one is no longer produced. They can define another fuselage which would be the same size, smaller or larger

          The case is very similar as I said. Don’t spend your time contradicting me, you’ll burn your fingers…

          In this documentary he is a prototype of the 707


    • Roger:

      You are off on a number of areas.

      Engines: P&W has been working on derivative of the GTF Powering the A220/320/E2 E-1XX series.

      For current use, you do not want to have a change so large it can’t be inserted into the existing engine frame, you loose commonality (you wind up like RR does on the Trent 10 which only exists to be the base for the RR Trent 7000).

      P&W was conservative on the GTF and not pushing it in areas that could be an issue. A derivative has been talked about by P&W and what they would change and how much more they could get out of it.

      So yea its a big deal to be in on this for all sorts of reasons and a big deal GE is not.

      Scaled Models only get you so far, otherwise you would not need to build anything but a full sized and off you go (and as we have seen, that does not happen, you have your first 20 (roughly) be it 787 or A350, then you have what is settled in as the more common production.

      You also completely miss the value of a new tech you can demonstrate in person vs something in a Slide Show (well Power Point these days but you get the idea).

      As the TTBW is going to be a real different look, you also have to deal with public acceptance and its going to be accepted (if it is) with the real deal.

      You don’t need to test a tube and that is what the MD provides, you need to test the wing, folding tech if you have it, controls, forces ad nausea.

      Why do you think RR, GE, P&W and every other mfg in the world puts real full sized engines on aircraft to test them? And how often issues pop up, yea there is a reason.

      And last but not least I will leave you with, we sure wish they had a prototype of the F-35 and sorted out the details before they built 100 that were and are only good as trainers (some can’t even be flown).

      Checklist clearly gets ramped up (and insulting which I suspect is going to get him suspended if not banned) but he is right that the TTBW test article is needed.

      • I’ll happily admit that I may have been off in some areas, but in principle I think I’m right. The GTF derivatives are being worked on, for example, but such derivatives are not going to provide the 15-20% step changes that have been quoted as being needed.

        If testing an experimental concept that might be required undergo a lot of changes in testing then a large scale model makes a lot of sense. If testing a close to production prototype then a full size example makes more sense. With development times now approaching 10 years or more for conventional designs there must be a good case for a combination of approaches for more radical designs if the development path is to be kept within acceptable time limits. I’d suggest that the TBW test machine lies somewhere in the middle of the range. It will not be radically new, it may or may not offer the advantages sought and it may not receive overwhelming public approval but it makes sense to bodge it together from cheaply available parts. Clearly that approach was not really open for their BWB test article and so it made sense to start with a model. As I’ve said all along, I’m not an engineer, but I actually think the BWB stands more chance of gaining the approval of the general passenger because it looks more futuristic than the TBW, which looks a bit like something from the 1930s, an impression that unducted fans will only strengthen imho – but does that matter if the economics are right? That’s a question to put to the manufacturers of turboprop airlines, perhaps – the empirical evidence in the USA is that it does!

        • Roger:

          A combination of a GTF derivative and the TTBW can in theory bring the combined step changes desired.

          I share the issue with the TTBW and acceptance and a TTBW and a prop job I think its an auto failure.

          Also agreed on the BWB but you also have some issues with motion the further you are from a center-line.

          I think the windows thing is just urban legend now, most of them are closed off so people can play with their smart phones without a reflection or wash out.

  56. I wasn’t going to reply to this, but as usual your answer is full of half truths. The Boeing 367-80 was a prototype that looked like the 707 that was developed from it, but for starters it had a different fuselage that only accomodated 5-abreast seating so it was substantially different.

    If you seriously think that the TBW test plane will be the prototype for a production design then I think you have been drinking something a lot stronger than Kool Aid!

    • Roger:

      I flew in a Boeing 720 one time, the stewardess (in those days) was all excited about it being a 720.

      She was quite miffed I called it a 707.

      But the 367-80 had all sorts of stuff in common with the 707 and 720 and clearly used all the elements of that design of methods and layout.

      The 367-80 would have been built as is and they used all the same tech from it when they made the wider to be 707.

      It really does not make any difference if you call it a prototype which it was or an engineering article which is what it became, it was a fully viable aircraft.

      The TTBW is a test article, the layout is what they are testing as well as how the wing acts and that is what counts in this case.

      But if and when they go, it will be a 787/A350 type where its a concurrent production while they learn the industrialization lessons and then change things at XX point (The A350 made major changes after Item 17).

      As long as the Test Article TTBW has the wing that is all it needs, it does not need to have a fuselage (that is not a problem to build) nor does it have to have all the systems in it, they just need to test the wing in the full size configuration that it is estimated to be built in.

      And yes, it may not work out, it may need more development, it simply may not work, the public might think its a Cessna etc.

      • In case you missed:

        The structure of -80 shares little with the 707 which was a clean sheet design, the -80 and the 707 have different centre wing boxes. That rules out much of your thesis.

        • Pedro:

          No such thing as a clean sheet design, they always borrow something and in that case changing a size is not a clean sheet.

  57. TransWorld

    Checklist clearly gets ramped up (and insulting which I suspect is going to get him suspended if not banned) but he is right that the TTBW test article is needed.


    do you have to be rude to me? When you say ”Checklist is right” I am simply right. There’s no point making a bad, unfair trade. This is immoral and vile… You are no better than me or anyone else. What are you playing please?

  58. >>Roger

    …”If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then it stands to reason that this plane is going to be an experimental one, not the basis of a production design…”


    Wishful thinking is not proof

    Not just experimental aircraft, but looking for a technological breakthrough to support Boeing’s next development more than likely
    and sooner rather than later


    ”..As long as the Test Article TTBW has the wing that is all it needs, it does not need to have a fuselage (that is not a problem to build) nor does it have to have all the systems in it, they just need to test the wing in the full size configuration that it is estimated to be built in.

    And yes, it may not work out, it may need more development, it simply may not work, the public might think its a Cessna etc…”

    Straw man argument…

    This will work superbly. The public was ready to get back into the 737MAX after the grounding. The arguments are too weak or incomplete and therefore not sufficient to support evidence…

    • Checklist:

      I will wholly disagree and so will anyone.

      There are no guarantees and in fact, complete uncertainty.

      If it was a slam dunk Boeing would just build it. Granted that is simplistic but the statements are going well past an enthusiast level and into wild speculation with no tech basis in fact.

      That is truly a shame. Usually a wide range of views is a good thing but not when they are totally devoid of fact or indeed logic of the reality of all this. Its truly an interesting concept and if it can be made to work, a leap forward.

      You might keep in mind the 787 and its dimples (tail as I recall) that creates a smooth airflow aka a gulf ball.

      It does indeed work, but dirt and bugs plug the whole all to quickly and you spend more keeping it clean than it returns in efficiency.

      Boeing dropped it. Good for them to try it, but that is the difference in it does work but does not work in the real world. History is loaded with things like that.

    • The American public, at least, do not seem to like prop-driven aircraft and most of the commuter airlines moved to jets as they became available, with CRJs and EMB140/145s replacing Jetstreams, Saabs, Metroliners and others, in part at least because of the reduced noise and vibration. Why would they then be expected to welcome the reintroduction of those drawbacks in the form of open-rotor engines – which seem to be one of the keystones of the TBW improvements? After all, the gains offered by next generation turbofans can almost certainly be applied to the current generation frame that doesn’t seem to be handicapped by ground clearance issues. That would radically reduce the perceived advantage of the TBW concept.

      • There is also the uncontained rotor issue and the lower cruising speed (count on it, despite claims).

      • @Roger
        Comparing Saabs and Metroliners (and others) of the 1970s and 1980s technology to today and tomorrow’s technologies is unfair. I agree, the Metroliner was a miserable airplane. So were the Dash 8s through the -300 series. But the Dash 8-400 and ATR-42/72-600 have noise and vibration dampening that makes a world of difference to the previous generation airplanes. How the Open Fan (which is different than the Open Rotor, despite visual similarities) will stack up remains to be seen.

        And citing the CRJs and ERJs–well, I call these MFAs (Miserable F**king Airplanes). They are cramped, the seats are awful and there’s no overhead space to speak of. These older generation airplanes pale compared with the original E-Jet, which itself has been improved upon by the E-Jet Enhanced and the E2, which itself is left behind by the A220.

        CFM/GE claims to have solved the noise and speed problems for the Open Fan. Flight testing will prove or disprove the claims.


        • I’m not disagreeing with you, I just think that, as yet, the jury is out and the outcome is not necessarily going to be the slam-dunk that another commentator here would have us believe! Probably the one thing we might agree on is that the travelling public will not be keen to take a backward step (although admittedly they do all the time when it comes to seating comfort!)

          • @Roger: Your point about the traveling public is valid. An educational campaign about the environmental benefits will be needed.

          • Its interesting take. I flew in a ERJ and a CRJ this past year.

            The ERJ was fine, the CRJ was certainly fine for the distance it was flown. Maybe having grown up with DC-3 shades the outlook a bit (or one long flight in a Super Cub!)

            I agree the sound cancelling was nice when they implemented it (Dash 8-400, never been in an ATR)

            My take is a prop job will not be something the public is going to change its mind about. Sort of like Diesel engines, public perception for most will never change no matter how clean they are.

            GTF in a TTBW maybe, not sure how the public is going to accept the strut and a strut and a prop job, ungh.

            One reason I think Boeing is smart to do the test article, it gets the concept of a strut in front of the public and a higher chance of acceptance.

            While tech geeks can see the difference the public is not that educated nor interested and even shifts of other areas take 20 years.

          • I think as long as people pay as little as possible (we’re talking the economy pax) for their ticket – a little extra noise and cramped seating doesn’t bother them.

            Business class travelers – yes, which is why using a TBW with an open rotor for long flights probably isn’t a good thing.

            Just my $.02

          • Trans wrote…..

            One reason I think Boeing is smart to do the test article, it gets the concept of a strut in front of the public and a higher chance of acceptance…….

            Good thinking, but try tbis on. Boeings CFD programming is known to be conservative and has been proven go miss tbings. This is demonstrated by the fact that Boeings airplanes consistently outfly tbeir CFD estimates AND perhaps more importantly, the pitch excursions on tbe 737 and 777x were not prexicted. MCAS was the answer to tbe 737 CFD model missing the high alpha issues and curiously, the 777x model didnt see the pitch excursions there and Boeing is very quiet about it. It makes sense tben that Boeings CFD models would see great benefits in the TTBW but due to tbe uncertainty on how tbeir CFD model sees a truly unique novel configuration, you have to fly it…… The tech demonstrator is mandatory in my mind

          • Scott C:

            I fully agree.

            Just along with what you said is the testing of the waters for acceptance, both Airline and the public that would fly it.

            Boeing did make a big leap on the 787 with processes that had not been proven on scale. They had to have had enough test arti8cle and work they had a high degree of certainty that a spun fuselage would work (fitting the wings and laying down CFRP had enough background I did not see that as a risk)

            In the case of the TTBW wing, you have both the concept and actually building it. You get a boost up if you incorporate the industrializing end in your test article build.

            I don’t know if Boeing has the concept advanced enough to do that or its a one off hand build.

            I am not making any predictions, I think it is very interesting and Boeing must have some very positive data to make a move into the TTBW.

          • Mr. Hamilton, the traveling public’s argument was his last card to play. Desperately obtaining only one argument out of 3 lost does not make him right. Far from it.
            People will readily agree to ride if the product/aircraft is launched.
            The public likes to travel and when they travel for even less money they will spend twice as much, because it will be a Slam Dunk contrary to what someone wants you to believe.

            This one does not know aeronautics, nor the functioning of a wing visibly, nor the capabilities of CFRP which is that you can obtain a shape that you cannot with aluminum not only for lightness or non-corrosion (in other words, never before) he compares an aircraft from the 1930s with that of the X-66A large wing in CFRP, while taking Boeing for idiots, because what is the point of throwing XX million USD to reproduce an aircraft supposedly 30s?

            Please what is the goal please? Worse still, this person took Boeing for idiots in his ignorance thinking that Boeing was quite stupid because in his ingorance the person interpreted the model as being cheaper than a full-size flying test bench, whereas in his ignorance, this one was incapable of understanding that the status of a full-scale test bench was simply more important than the status of a scale model and that the stakes here were simply more important.

            Mr. Hamilton, please, What can we do with people like that who claim to know, and who most of them become very nasty when they feel like they’re stuck in a bottleneck?

            So how did they kindly explain things to them in great detail?!… They are not lovers of aeronautics, because they ignore many important things

            And become very violent when they feel defeated in arguments with Boeing. Fanboys can be incredibly violent

  59. >>Roger

    ”..I’ll happily admit that I may have been off in some areas, but in principle I think I’m right..”


    You were wrong all along.

    I’m sorry to tell you this but you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

    I prove to you that you are a fanboy / Boeing hater by your selective memory, Boeing bashing, wishful thinking and all that entails the characteristics of a frustrated and fearful fanboy.

    -> The BWB has existed since the 1940s. How would it be more modern than a TTBW and how would it obtain public acceptance and not the TTBW?

    The BWB has enormous constraints for passengers seated at the ends of a wide cabin.
    In addition, the BWB would have too large a wet surface if it is too small, conséquence -> Empty weight

    All I learn from you is your lack of proven aeronautics knowledge. If you are also a Boeing fanboy and discriminator you are surely unconvincing.

    >>As i said at TransWorld

    It’s a strawman argument
    Finally, public acceptance will be very good.
    People agreed to get back on the 737MAX after 2 years of public and media sarcasm.
    There is absolutely nothing in your comment that is true.

    • This first flew in 1936 – notice anything familiar about the design?


      So I think it can be said that the TBW concept is actually older than the BWB one! What’s more, there are big differences in the successful execution of the design. With a TBW the challenge is to be able to make a longer wing that is strong enough, and that should be relatively straightforward. There are more aerodynamic issues with a BWB and its successful realisation is likely to require a lot more by way of software engineering. But of course I’m sure that in your eyes I’m talking rubbish. There, I’ve done it for you, so all you need to do now is explain why!

      • Roger:

        While an interesting aircraft, its a heavy duty Feisler Storch. These were all low speed machines, not an attempt to make a commercial aircraft carrying passengers.

        You could say Sailplanes were early originators as well.

        I think BWB and the TTBW both have their own challenges.

        It may well be that the BWB is a better wide body solution and the TTBW for the single aisle market (or HOM per Bjorn).

        I have not seen anything that says you could do a TTBW and a dual aisle fuselage.

        • TransWorld

          ”…I have not seen anything that says you could do a TTBW and a dual aisle fuselage…”

          You justify your ignorance. Boeing/Calhoun had declared the possibility of a widebody TTWB. I understand why we disagree. You simply ignore things…

      • Roger

        ”…But of course I’m sure that in your eyes I’m talking rubbish….”


        You can’t even imagine, even more so…

        There is no basis for serious argument. I just died laughing reading you. The X-66 A is just incomparable because of its large wing made possible thanks to CFRP. Boeing has been working on it for almost 14 years with an improvement to the wing which has gained a few Mach points. No matter how much you show me photos through the links on the internet, no concept resembles the Boeing X-66A.

        I’m sorry you are a desperate case
        because if you are not able to tell the difference, you have a huge problem…

        • Checklist appears to have free rein on this comments section; including being allowed to insult
          other (coherent, unlike it) commenters on a regular basis.


          • Okay The Airbus Fanboy .
            You are not an example..
            You insulted me several times and I said nothing :

            ”Checkbot” and other intimidations and tout want to be exonerated.
            Did you forget that? Where are your excuses?

            Please stop your little manipulative game

            [Edited as violation of Reader Comment rules.]

  60. >>UWE
    …”777 came in in about is projected timeframe but took twice the budget to get the
    re. Marketing effort was more than a bit aggressive…”

    Twice the budget??

    Are you thinking ~20 billion USD? Please explain, it’s not clear.

    Never heard that.
    It’s seems false or provide evidence…

    The 777, 747 and A330 programs are the most successful of all time

  61. From AS Q3 2022 SEC filing:(incorporating an order of 52 737 MAX in Oct)

    Delivery expected 737-8 / -9 / -10
    Q4 2022 0 / 5 / 0
    2023 5 / 35 / 0
    2024 5 / 10 / 6

    From AS Q2 2023 SEC filing:
    Delivery 737-8 / -9 / -10
    Q4 2022 (actual) 0 / 4 / 0
    2023 Q1 & Q2 (actual) 0 / 14 / 0
    2023 (expected delivery) 1 / 17 / 0
    2024 4 / 16 / 6

  62. ****** 400 REPLIES ******

    Maybe Leeham / WordPress can include a small dashboard that in each topic ranks how many replies per contributor. So there can be some self regulation.

    • While not a bad idea, Keesje – you are asking Scott Hamilton to change something (which probably means going to his web developer person and paying them to do this) for something that many here do not pay for.

      We can self-regulate by just ignoring a contributor who does not add value to the conversation. Eventually, when a child sees that they are getting no reaction to their tantrums, they give up.

      Just ignore.

      • If there are so many messages it is simply because there has not been a comment space open that is not behind a paywall for almost 15 days

  63. TransWorld, why are you talking to me?

    Your insults just showed the deceitful person you are after saying vile things against me to gain the approval of some idiot fanboys here, wich are visibly at your level (I too can accept an insult. Which would be fair)

    Your argument with insects is stupid and out of context.

    We’re talking aerodynamics here with the X-66A wing no specific system because the X-66A is relatively simple.
    It’s an aircraft with a big wing, that’s all! Do you have anything else?

    • Is it a big wing, though? AIUI it will have a long wing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a big one. Perhaps you would care to elucidate?

      • Checklist:

        I had thought I was dealing with an enthusiast but posts have clarified that, so, other than to correct a fallacy, not to worry about it.

        No further comments trying to have a rational discussion will darken your posts.

        • TransWorld

          ”so, other than to correct a fallacy, not to worry about it”

          This also applies to you
          for your insults in public

          Ask me for forgiveness first to start.
          You might look less cynical

          Then you will give (maybe) me lessons in civics…

          I don’t owe you anything man
          especially to a person who is not very mentally strong and who feels the constant need to want to be accepted besides being rude…

  64. From Marketwatch:
    EPS estimate trends

    2023 Q3 / Q4
    Current (3.18) / 0.24
    1m ago (2.78) / 0.28
    3m ago (0.13) / 0.65

    FY 2023 / 2024
    Current (4.45) / 4.87
    1m ago (3.17) / 5.14
    3m ago (1.35) / 5.55

    • Remember the controversy about pilots’ mental health and how pilots were hiding their mental health issues??

      • No defense against that, how they managed to deal with the situation successfully will be interesting.

        If I was a pilot no one other than the FO and cabin crew would be in the cockpit.

        Not a guarantee of course but a better spot of someone who is acting squirmy.

        • The airline assigned the seat. Doubt the pilots are in any position to oppose without legitimate reasons.

          • Another reason why single pilot aircraft are a no-go.

            You need 2 up front.

          • Frank P:

            That gets into a really wild area of speculation. There have been a lot of aircraft losses with two pilots and mixed in often is the failure or the 2nd pilot to do their job and or a PF that has more or less gone off their gourd in doing bad things regardless of ATC or the 2nd pilot.

            I don’t know if you have followed it but in the smaller aircraft categories there is now a panic button, aka Auto Land. Take you to the nearest airport and lands the aircraft.

            While Automation has made aviation safer the various holes in what is programed also have allowed crashes to occur (AF447).

            You could program an aircraft such that if the pilot (or anyone else) attempts to operate the aircraft outside of set parameters, it takes complete control, does an auto land and let the ground folks sort out things.

            After 60 odd some years watching aviation and thinking about the operations and issues, I would make no prediction as to better, worse or the same overall statistics.

            Like TTBW or prop job, what the public would go for let alone the AHJs, hmmm.

    • Certainly Lockheed to focus on a more lucrative market

      Northrop Grumman had done the same thing to focus on its new BWB by withdrawing from replacing the Super Hornet for the ‘next generation

      • All part of the forecast, this was never going to fly.

        Airbus can carry on alone if it wants, it does not need LM who brought nothing to the table other than building facilities for Airbus to make aircraft in.

        The Stealthy tanker will be delayed and Boeing will keep making KC-46A (I guess they should change it to KC-46B) for the foreseeable future.

          • Nope, its not going to be ordered.

            Reality says there are trade offs that are biased to the KC-46A and methods to get the benefits of longer range fuel offload.

  65. After 27 years leading the airline, H.E Akbar Al Baker, CEO of the Qatar Airways Group, is stepping down, effective Nov 5.

    Al Baker told staff “it has been an incredible privilege to lead such an exceptional global team, & the honour of a lifetime to serve my country”


    Badr Mohammed Al Meerit’s him


    Pedro seems to have got ahead of me, I pressed the “button” but it doesn’t matter, it will make no more tweets

    • (!)Pedro seems to have got ahead of me, I pressed the “button” but it doesn’t matter, it will make MORE tweets

  66. I’m closing comments. Some of you, despite warnings and suspensions, still are unable to treat each other with respect. So you few have wrecked it for everyone else.