Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 5. Turbofan design problems April 26, 2024
- Airbus 1Q2024 results: Airbus CEO: “A350 in-service experience drives positive reputation and orders” April 25, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 3 April 25, 2024
- Boeing CEO promises company is turning around…again April 24, 2024
- Solid start for stand-alone GE Aerospace despite cuts to LEAP output April 23, 2024
Pontifications: Embraer sees easing in pilot shortage, wave of sales coming
By Scott Hamilton
By Scott Hamilton
Dec. 5, 2023, © Leeham News: Embraer officials see the pilot shortage easing in 2025 or 2026.
Francisco Gomes Netos, CEO of the Embraer group, said during a media briefing last month that the “situation” is getting better. Boeing, in its latest 20-year forecast, reported that 649,000 pilots will be needed globally over the next 20 years.
With a wave of pilot retirements, especially in the US, coming in the next few years, the shortage and demand seem daunting.
“In our internal market intelligence, I would say that the situation should be much better in 2025 and 2026. We see the situation improving,” Gomes said.
The biggest impact of the pilot shortage was on the 50-seat regional jet, CFO Antonios Carlos Garcia said. The majors want 76-seat aircraft.
Orders for Embraer’s E-Jet E2 have been slow. Because the E175-E2 exceeds the weight limit in the labor contracts, known as Scope Clauses, this model isn’t sold in the US, the biggest market for the 76-seat aircraft, and for Embraer.
The E190-E2 is an “in-between” aircraft that isn’t selected by many customers. The largest of the family, the E195-E2, has a backlog of a few hundred aircraft. But Embraer hasn’t been winning orders of the magnitude Airbus and Boeing are winning.
Gomes believes the E2’s day is coming. “It’s coming, the wave to focus on our segment.”
Need to sell 700 aircraft
“We are in a good situation,” Gomes said. Embraer has a goal of $10bn in commercial sales. “We need to sell 700 aircraft. Compared to the opportunities we see in the market, if we win, between 20 and 25 percent of the opportunities, we will get that.”
Gomes believes Embraer could sell more, but the widely publicized issues with the engine—the P&W GTF—is an inhibitor.
“We are working very closely with Pratt & Whitney to make sure that we plan our production according to their capacity. Some customers, because of the issues, they are postponing the new orders,” he said.
The E-2s are suffering less with engine issues. “The E-2s arrived later in the market with a more mature configuration of the engines, already with a lot of improvements.”
Defense
On the Defense side, Embraer is beginning to gain traction with the C/KC-390 after hot-and-cold support from the Brazilian government. Orders have been placed by NATO countries. India issued an RFP for 80 aircraft.
Officials also are exploring offering the C-390 as a civilian cargo airplane. But right now, focus is on increasing sales before diverging into a new market.
Thanks, Scott, for this very informative article. What was Embraer thinking on the E175-E2? How did they possibly (?) ever think they’d overcome the Scope Clause? Lastly, while the E175-E1 is a very nice current a/c (in my opinion ), what will eventually replace it?
Roughly 15 years ago the rumblings in the industry were that the US airline scope clauses would be reworked when the contracts next came up for renegotiation. Embraer and Mitsubishi both bet that the scope clause weight limits would be increased, and both lost badly on those bets
I have to stand corrected on the AK and Hawaiian merger.
I have been listening to Juan Brown (BlancoLirio) and it seems like you can not have dual operating certificates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEhaIUWS3o
Not sure there is a way around this as the various regional s sub contract to the majors and whose operating certificate do they operate under?
But if true, then the two have to fully merge and I don’t see this occurring due to the disparate contracts and more so due to Hawaiian Widebody operations but that brings in the 717s as well.
I go with its a No Go and I have no idea what they are thinking this works.
EMB and Mitsubishi mistakenly thought the weight difference was small enough that an adjustment in Scope would be OK. Both were wrong.
As for replacing the E175-E1, this is a very good question.
Potentially seeing an opportunity here, could either of the big 2 make a business case for jumping into the RJ market and making a scope compliant aircraft?
Frank P:
Sadly, no. If you look at even historic sales of not just Emraer but BBD and its regional jets, the numbers have never come close to what Boeing and Airbus sell as single aisles (and that market has shifted up, the 7MAX is only wanted by South West).
Same with Turbo Props. There is a market but it not huge and its very cost driven. Airbus invests as little in ATR as they can get away with.
Boieng owned DeHavliand of Candada in the 80s, realized there was no money to be made and got out of it.
The bigger airlines want the longest range most efficient aircraft they can get even if they are oversized.
Delta is a bit of an exception and they are going with the not regional A220s.
Hawaiian is the only larger airline that operates in the A220 segments (717)
Money to be with MAX and A320NEO and money to be lost in regional and even the A220 has is struggles and much lower producible rate for the foreseeable future.
‘The bigger airlines want the longest range most efficient aircraft they can get even if they are oversized.’
Disagree here. Otherwise airlines wouldn’t be ordering the A321Neo, they would be asking for the A321XLR. They would also not fly the A320Neo, but the A321Neo/XLR. Same thing for BA – airlines would be getting the Max 10, not the Max 8 (or Max 7).
There are routes out there, like Delta who you mentioned, which they can make money on by flying an A220, but will lose money flying an A320/737Max.
———————————————–
‘Delta is a bit of an exception and they are going with the not regional A220s.’
Delta, Air Canada, Air France, Egyptair, Korean, Lufthansa (for Swiss), Qantas.
The other point about these carriers?
They all have ordered or already operate A320 family aircraft in their fleets.
Then there is also the SWA Lite’s of the world; Breeze, & airBaltic, who are trying to duplicate the SouthWest/Ryanair/EasyJet model on a smaller scale, with the A220. We’ll see how it works out.
————————————
In addition to the list of mainline carriers above, you can add ITA of Italy, who flies the A220/A320 families.
Jetblue as well, but I would hesitate to call them mainline, until they get some widebodies (but they do plan to fly their XLR’s on TATL routes). Seems to be a buck to be made there, offering Business class seating (Mint config) on an exclusive NB aircraft fleet. Kind of a hybrid.
————————-
All that to say that there is profitability to be had in flying long and narrow routes with an A220 that don’t exist with workhorse aircraft.
Frank P:
As usual you jump on one aspect without taking in the real discussion and focus.
Clearly if the airlines wanted the longest range they could get a 787 or a 777-200ER would be the choice.
The smallest aircraft airlines generally want to operate have what would be called Trans Continental range in the US.
That does not mean some airlines operate under that with regional s but the ones that do, are in the scope contract group and those are sub contracted (Horizon is a bit of an oddity that I have yet to figure out as it seems to be Alaska Airlines but runs on a sub contract basis).
So, its not like there are NO airlines and ops that something like the E190/195 suit their ops, its just that the A220 is the minimum and the big production is in the A320/737 sector.
So, for ref I am going to use the BBD CRJ Series. This is ballpark average but it gets the point across. 5-6 a month over the course of the program.
Boeing has built 50-55 x 737 a month and aspires to return to that. Airbus aspires to 75 A320 series a month. Note that these are much larger aircraft than a CRJ by far and the production numbers dwarf the CRJ.
As for the A321XLR. Its a specialty aircraft that trades lower passengers for range (and reduced belly capacity). So there clearly is a cross over when you start giving up passengers and the cabin is 65% or so full to do it. Yes you can forgo the fuel but you have lost space in the lower hull and you are carrying around excess weight in empty fuel tanks and systems. Nothing wrong with it but its not going to be a mainstay.
While I think the A220 has a significant future, right now Airbus is doing all it can to get it to 15 a month and is a ways from getting there.
It does have that required range that allows it to slot in with Delta (who is rare in operating aircraft with smaller pax carry vs 737/A320) and some airlines are using it as their core aircraft.
But the market keeps pushing up the pax number and A320/MAX8 look to be fading. Over half of Airbus is A321 production now.
“As for the A321XLR. Its a specialty aircraft that trades lower passengers for range”
Can’t believe what I read … practically speechless …. 🤣
AI hallucination has spread to human …
‘As usual you jump on one aspect without taking in the real discussion and focus.’
Projection at it’s finest. Why don’t you tell us about some stories about diesel engine you worked on and how it relates to aviation. Or what a great tech you were, doing something, something, something…
The question was posed to the expert – Scott. Thanks for jumping in with your opinion and running down the answer you don’t like.
Frank P:
You did not address the question and regardless its open to answer by anyone.
As there is nothing specific in regards to my past tech experience I of course did not and do not gratuitously include it.
On the turboprop side, it seems to me that recent AIRBUS announcements of a hydrogen aircraft with a module smaller than that of the A320 by 2035 raise the central question of the relevance of an ATR EVO launched in 2024/2025.
ATR EVO: eight-blade propeller, light hybridization on a new-generation turboprop, electric wing de-icing
Given the development time required for this “derivative” of the current ATR72-600, it would be unreasonable to expect it to come on line before 2030. That’s 5 years before this hydrogen aircraft.
IMO, it would be one or the other, but not both, too close in terms of commercial targets, even if we consider that ATR’s regional transport and Airbus’ short-medium-haul segment are two distinct markets. The cost of developing two such closely related products in a short space of time seems unrealistic to me.
“In the 1980s, the government of Canada privatized DHC and in 1986 sold the aircraft company to then Seattle-based Boeing. The government claimed to have guarantees from Boeing not to discontinue any product lines, but shortly thereafter, Boeing discontinued both the successful Twin Otter and the Dash 7. The jigs and specialised equipment for their manufacture were destroyed.
Boeing was in heavy competition with Airbus Industrie for a series of new airliners for Air Canada, at that time a Canadian crown corporation. *Boeing used the DHC purchase to further strengthen its commitment to shared production contracts. The contract was particularly contentious. When Air Canada announced that Airbus had won the contract in 1988, amid claims of bribery, Boeing immediately put DHC up for sale*, placing the company in jeopardy.”
I am finding that the jigs were destroyed a hard one to buy.
DH came out with the Dash 8 based off the Dash 7 (the 7 was a failure)
The Twin Otter is back in production under (Longview?) DH again, forget which.
Neither program was making money and there is a reason BBD sold it all off.
@trans
Those are not his words. He is quoting a source.
A little history of DHC:
“In 1966, the United States Army asked for a price offer for 100 Twin Otters. Deeply annoyed by this action, some / many American aircraft manufacturers obtained a relaxation of the military requirements in terms of short takeoff and landing (STOL) capabilities. The Twin Otter having proven more expensive than the smaller aircraft offered by Beech Aircraft Corporation, the latter won the competition in October 1966. This failure was the first that DHC has experienced since 1951 with regard to orders from the United States Army. The worst was yet to come, however.
Increasingly irritated by the United States Army’s desire to order de Havilland Canada CV-7 Buffalo STOL transport planes, thus enhancing its potential in air transport, the United States Ait Force (USAF) protested. Having considered the matter, the United States Department of Defense made a decision in January 1967. The United States Army was ordered to use helicopters to carry out all of its transport missions. It therefore had to transfer its few Buffalo as well as all its de Havilland Canada CV-2 Caribou STOL transport planes to the USAF. Overnight, DHC lost its main customer. Worse still, the USAF did not care about an aircraft the size of the Buffalo. […]”
“The fact was that DHC was no match for rivals which offered their potential customers lower interest rates and / or a slightly longer repayment period. The governments of Australia, Brazil and Spain, for example, subsidised local aircraft manufacturers to secure orders. Indeed, Government Aircraft Factories (GAF), Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica Sociedade Anónima (Embraer) and Construcciones Aeronáuticas Sociedad Anónima (CASA) were, to varying degrees, state-owned firms.”
I understand that EMB made a defensive move, with the E175 as the market leader. Launching the 175E2 spending perhaps 500 million dollars while Mitsubishi would have to spend 10x that sum. This put a lot of pressure on the Japanese. Being a leader is neither cheap nor comfortable.
Maybe they should do a light 76 seat E170-E2 after all. With a slightly smaller, lighter GTF or GE engine and less range. Quieter, low risk.
As if the unique wing design wasn’t enough, the PW1700G was specifically designed for the E175-E2, while the E195-E2 and E190-E2 both share the PW1900G.
The smaller engine is already the smallest in the Pratt & Whitney GTF family, with short 56” fan diameter and 9:1 bypass ratio vs. 73” and 12:1 for the bigger brothers.
Could Rolls-Royce offer ‘goosed-up’ Pearl? The RR Pearl is a further development of the BR700 series in joint venture partnership with BMW.
Could GE do something similar with the Passport?
And we have the looming 2027 deadline.
I believe the Pearl aka BR700 would be the only option as you need an engine that can handle the abuse of commercial service.
But how much new does it have to be for 2027?
Embraer clearly is looking hard at this as they can’t sell the E1 175 forever
As they have not answers I don’t think we are going to have one either.
RR has its issues without building a new lower thrust engine to suit that requirement that can handle commercial abuse of service with a limited market.
The Pearl is optimized for long range, few cycles operation and will need a workover to suit a regional jet operation. Maybe it can done easy or if it needs a much higher core flow to reduce EGT it is major surgery. We know from the RR Avon that RR introduced compressor stages stg 0 and stg 00 on some Avons to increase compressor airflow.
I’m not a guy that would know these things, but a quick look at the Pearl and the GTF shows almost a double bypass ratio for the GTF over the BR700.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_BR700
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G
How easy is that to change?
Not really.
That is the issue, how much you have to change to get it to current standards.
I think its virtually a new engine.
And for a very small market segment, ungh.
The core issue is that to be able to handled cycles and airline abuse, it has to be a very heavy duty engine vs a biz jet engine that is not abused nor sees the kind of cycles a commercial aircraft engine does.
Its one reason I wondered about the B-52 engine choice, but the profile may suit the F130.
The bypass ratio is indeed a lot lower and that engine looks to be only peripherally a BR700 as its had massive changes and those were intended for Biz Jet use.
I am going on a limb and assume the GTF returns a lot more fuel efficiency and service durability (when it gets there) over the BR-725.
Embraer would have been looking at that as well as the original GE engine derivatives before going with the GTF.
Embraer is in a corner on this one and I have not seen any plan going forward that changes that.
the B-52 use case is low total hours, long cycles (24 hrs+ is not uncommon) and extremely diligent maintenance, the perfect use case for a high end bizjet engine.
additionally, the B-52 cruise velocity is a nice match for the high end bizjet profile the engine was initially designed for.
finally the thrust rating is perfect, a small bump over the outgoing engines and a huge SFC boost.
I think something in the opposite direction, perhaps two more rows, making the 175E2 capable of carrying 100 passengers in a high-density configuration at the expense of a shorter range. Leaving the 70-76 passenger segment to the E1 or a future advanced turboprop.
If PW GTF issues are inhibiting sales of E2 , then surely they have similar impact on A220?
Different aircraft, different mission. Mainline fleets are buying/flying the A220. E2 is a regional jet
A220 is more affected.
But its a longer term and move viable market, Airbus has the program and its not going to drop it.
The engine issues will work their way out, scope is here to stay.
“A220 is more affected.”
Any proof?
Yep, Embraer statement and the A220 was out sooner and had more in service as Embraer double clutched and went with the E2 190/195 as the scope delusion failed.
That’s just a claim. Where’s the evidence? I remember BA CEO defended MCAS and went as far to confirm “that the MCAS system as originally designed did meet [their] design and safety analysis criteria” in April 2019.
To the contrary, KLM suffered greatly from engine problems of their E-195 E2:
https://airinsight.com/gtf-woes-are-hurting-klm-cityhoppers-summer-schedule/
https://www.airdatanews.com/most-of-klm-cityhoppers-embraer-e2s-are-not-flying/
The merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines could possibly lead to more sales of the Embraer E2 planes. Alaska’s recent merger with Virgin, led to clearing out Airbus planes, and on their own they chose Embraer for regional flying.
No.
Alaska and it’s pilots recently ratified an agreement with scope clauses, limiting the regional fleet operated for Alaska by Horizon and Skywest.
They have a few of the older E-175’s on order for Horizon, but nothing in the E2 line.
Frank P:
As Hawaiian is going to be operated as a stand alone entity, the scope clause does not apply (I do believe Hawaiian has one)
As yes an E2 in the 190 or 195 would work (even the E2 175.)
The Scope Clause with Alaska is long standing, its just not been public (Scott finally confirmed for me it was in place)
As they will be operating two different contract structures, Alaska Airlines Pilots do not have a say in Hawaiian ops which is one reason to keep it stand alone (it also avoids the pilot seniority and list merge debacle)
An E2 is the perfect aircraft to replace the 717s in that short range service (so would a Turbo Prop but they are used to jets and like Horizon, not going back)
You could even replace the 717s with an E1 175, ranges are not such that SFC is that big a factor.
By the time Alaska Airlines is ready to upgrade that 717 fleet the engine issues will be resolved with indicators its starting to be so now.
To be operated as one entity, with two brands.
” … the scope clause does not apply”
Explain how the scope clause won’t apply if you believe Hawaiian has one. How does it make sense?
Pedro:
Yep a Typo.
So I do not believe Hawaiian has a scope clause but I will defer to someone that knows for sure one way or the other.
I asked that question for years in regard to Alaska Airlines and Horizon and Scott answered that a year or two ago as I recall.
Certainly the 717 is far above scope.
I do confirm HA pilot contact contains scope clause.
I don’t have the links, but two or three articles I have read have speculated that the combined airline operation will be Boeing and Embraer – that’s narrow body. I have not seen wide body in the new airline mentioned. Note: Alaska has none, Hawaiian has 330-200s, but 787s on order….
Sam W:
The A330-200 is an older aircraft and its being replaced, so going forward the wide body will be the 787, A330s retired as the 787 is taken up. I believe Hawaiian has options on the 787 as well.
So wide body is going the direction of Boeing.
As note above close to the opening, with a full merge on the Horizon (pun) I don’t see this as a viable operation.
If Hawaiian and Alaska were separate I could.d see it being managed, but Juan Brown looks to have the details that says they have to merge the operations and I see nothing but negatives trying to merge wide body ops and single aisle ops as well as a relatively new A321 fleet with the MAX. The A321 has already been a problem for Hawaiian with the GTF engine issues.
Long term Alaska could get the A321 out of the fleet but you have the 717 and replace it with what? (and that is some urgency as the 717 is getting long in the tooth).
In the meantime you have all the other issues including the Hawaiian airline debt.
Interesting in the fact, that the main part of the Alaskan Airlines fleet could start using the wide body 787 for the first time going forward. It is the right brand for them…
@TW
Are you trying to say only 50% of the A330s are going to be replaced? Or, after including options, only 80% or so to be replaced? Does it make sense? 🤔
Ok, some catch up. There is a phrasing deep in the AK/Hawain document that indicates its a MAX that replaces the 717.
https://beatofhawaii.com/boeing-737-max-hawaiian-air-interisland-fleet-replacement/
No I don’t get how that makes sense but there it is. From what I could see of the pay scales the Hawaiian 717 pilots are highly paid.
So the E2 would make sense but then its a non Boeing and a small fleet as apparently the E1 175 is not in consideration.
Pedro:
You can read for yourself what the clear A330 replacement situation is.
Why don’t you read what they said?
“The 787s are both growth and replacement airplanes.”
AS also want to fly those 787s.
Has AS or HA order a single MAX 7? Lol.
I wonder if you read the article you linked. 🙂
WN had looked into the A220 vs. the Max 7, IIRC most would conclude the MAX 7 is suboptimal, too heavy, worse CASM etc. If you want to insist AS has already made its mind, be my guest. 😉
@TW
Have you read the AK document yourself? I did.
I wonder what Hawaiian (or AS if the acquisition goes through) would choose for the replacement of the 717? Embraer E2, Airbus A220 or A319neo?
I believe the question has been answered by the poster above – AS integrated Virgin, phasing out A320 fleet. Of course, A320 is not the A220 (itself BBD) – however:
1. B717 HA mission profile closer aligned to E2
2. E175-E1 AS/Horizon pilot, talent, systems pool
The first point is relevant as HA would likely assess the A220-100 vs. E195-E2, rather than its larger A220-300 offering lower CASM and taking the lion’s share of the programs orders.
The E195-E2 is not identical to the E175-E2, but crews can ‘upgrade’ with their careers, Horizon to mainline. MRO, parts, crews, and systems can be aligned.
‘The E195-E2 is not identical to the E175-E2, but crews can ‘upgrade’ with their careers, Horizon to mainline. ‘
In 2022, Alaska and it’s pilots signed a new contract, complete with Scope Clauses for it’s regional fleet, operated by Horizon.
The E2 line is a no go, there. For any Embraer E2 order, it’s got to be ordered by Alaska for use it’s it’s mainline fleet, with mainline pilot pay.
I believe you misinterpreted my comment, which should have been clear with my reference, ‘Horizon to mainline’.
Of course, any E195-E2 would be mainline Alaska-operated. Of course, the biggest E2 lies outside the contractual scope threshold.
Regional pilots do not spend their careers flying scope-compliant regional jets – they upgrade to mainline fleet. Alaska’s regional, Horizon, is 100% owned, its pilots can follow their careers to mainline, starting with the E195-E2.
Relevant to recognize HA B717 fleet is also mainline. Horizon could also take on some of the inter island routes
As long as Hawaiian remains a separate entity, other than larger Corporate purchase power, there will be no mixing of crews.
In the mix is Alaska has a relationship with Embraer but they sure are not going to be buying Airbus products.
Most of that is settled in Hawaiian current, the A321 ops is going to be interesting if AK sells them and replaced with Hawaiian brand MAX. That is up in the air, but Alaska is committed to Boeing and Hawaiian for its big spending(787s) is also Boeing centrict now.
You won’t see A220 replace the 717s, its far more aircraft than is needed.
From the way its been worded, Alaska going forward is going to be a lot like IAG.
I would not be surprised eventually to see the Corporation take on a moniker like IAG and Alaska and Hawaiian with their own management structure.
And I stand corrected as deep in the details the take is its a MAX-7 for the routes.
Since QX bases are on the mainland, not straight forward to share the same crew flying inter-island. HA pilot union would definitely has a say and they won’t like it.
As noted prior, different companies and different contracts.
Alaska is saying they willy operate Hawaiian as stand alone unlike the Virgin buyout that they were clear Virgin was going away.
I do see it getting fuzzy as Hawaiian flies to the mainland via the A321 and Alaska Flies to Hawaii from Seattle (SFO and LA?) with the MAX (as well as Anchorage.
If Alaska tries to replace Hawaiian planes and routes with Alaska Airlines, that would mean trouble.
You can bet Alaska Corporate will be treading softly.
Good luck to Alaska operating in Hawaii, been there and its a very different world.
One entity to negotiate one contract with different unions.
“Behind the curtain will be one operating certificate with a single collective bargaining agreement for each of our unions.”
One of the benefits of an acquisition of a competitor, is the expense elimination of dual functions. You can get rid of one accounting department; doing payroll, AP, AR, purchasing and all those back of the house functions.
You also increase your purchasing power, now buying bigger quantities for one entity, as opposed to two smaller ones.
The C-suite also get’s cut, with people being shown the door. One HQ and combined financials.
At least – that’s how it supposed to work…
Frank P:
We keep hearing that and it never works out that way.
I can only view it as a mess that gets the uppers money but leaves a train wreck.
In related news:
First QantasLink A220 Prepares For Handover
https://aviationweek.com/special-topics/crossover-narrowbody-jets/first-qantaslink-a220-prepares-handover
Their A220 will be getting latter GTF engines so hopefully better success.
A funny part of that is even if you have an engine option like the A320 series, trying to shift to a different engine is years away. You are better off working out the issues (or getting engines that have the issue worked out)
It tells you how egregious the RR Trent 1000 debacle was that NZ and ANA quit on it.
Remember that Indigo also switched.
I think they talked about switching but have not.
Sigh. Wrong again.
Pedro:
When you think I am wrong could you please post a link to clarify that?
I looked into it a while back and scratched my head as what I read did not go with the narative that they were switching.
Certainly I could be wrong. The LEAP choice articles date back to 2019 and this one is a lot more current.
https://www.outlookindia.com/business/indigo-go-first-face-p-w-engine-headwinds-over-50-planes-on-ground-news-265445
And then there is this one
https://www.outlookindia.com/business/indigo-go-first-face-p-w-engine-headwinds-over-50-planes-on-ground-news-265445
Hopefully you can find the definitive article and contract commitment that clarify it.
You looked/focused at the wrong place.
Breeze Airways Asks FAA for Permission to Fly Transatlantic Routes
https://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines-airports/breeze-airways-asks-faa-for-permission-to-fly-transatlantic-routes
‘Breeze Airways has requested permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly the relatively new A220 on transatlantic routes.’
Phew, be a while before they will get ok with the engine issues and the need to prove they are reliable enough to do that route.
Not even sure they have ETOPs for the A320 series on with the GTF but that also applies to GE on the LEAP
Interesting area. Definitely not one I would fly either a MAX or an A320NEO over a lot of water.
“Not even sure they have ETOPs for the A320 series on with the GTF …”
This is so funny!
Apparently our poster has no idea where HA flies its A321neo to. Hehe.
https://www.flightglobal.com/hawaiian-confident-with-a321neo-plan-after-etops-approval/125388.article
Pedro:
You nailed it!
Solid statement.
Now, the big question is how do you get ETOPs with iffy engines?
The Airlines running the 787 with the Trent 1000 engines had to Island hop when they could not resolved that.
As I understand it, the engine issues related to in-flight problems have been resolved with software updates. The current problems relating to the GTF on the A220’s are on-wing time, with engines having to come off the aircraft for maintenance long before they were promised to airlines.
The A220 received ETOPS 180 rating in 2019.
‘From 2021, David Neeleman’s Breeze Airways project should receive A220-300s with extra fuel tanks for 4,000 nmi (7,400 km; 4,600 mi) of range, allowing transatlantic flights or long routes like Orlando–Curitiba, Brazil, more range than the A321LR with 70% lower trip costs than A330s.’
https://aviationweek.com/crossover-narrowbody-jets/neeleman-set-another-us-airline-operating-used-e195s
Frank P:
Agreed its mostly the on wing time but they have also had a lot of sudden engine failures and its stunning to me they would allow the ETOPs with that history.
Airbus A321neo
In January 2013, Hawaiian signed a memorandum of understanding with Airbus for an order of 16 A321neo aircraft plus up to 9 options. The aircraft is operated in a 2-class, 189 seat configuration.[92] Following the completion of labor agreements relating to the operation of the aircraft with the airline’s pilot and flight attendant unions, the airline finalized the order in March 2013.[93] In December 2016, Hawaiian announced their intention of leasing two additional A321neo aircraft, bringing their total fleet of the type to 18. The first flight took place on January 17, 2018, from Kahului to Oakland, California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Airlines#Fleet
About a 5 hour flight, with nothing but water underneath.
——————————–
‘Two-engine airliners need at least ETOPS-180 approval to fly from the U.S. to Hawaii or Asia.’
https://aerosavvy.com/etops/
—————————–
Why is this even a subject, with evidence so easily found online?
So after a conversation with a well experienced plane guy, the question was asked;
Given the recent increase in pay for pilots, especially in regionals, will mainline carriers eventually bite the bullet and just incorporate smaller aircraft into their fleets (a la A220)?
Is the future of regionals flying turboprops on 1-2 hour flights, to get to mainline fleets?
That is clearly what ALPA wants; the problem with Alaska is their wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon, has a contract with the Teamsters, while Alaska’s mainline fleet has a contract with ALPA .
Frank P:
One of the top the questions of the current aviation era. Keeping in mind that the Turbo Props are going away as well.
What we have seen is ebb and flow and downturns if not outright crashes of the economy and the current situation could change tomorrow with a glut of pilots.
And with no aircraft to replace the E1 175, do you just give up those routes or can you make them pay with an A220?
Delta is keeping that market with the transition out of the 717 and the old MD types and going with the A220.
Or does ATR come back as the only option no mater how much people don’t like the prop jobs.
“Keep in mind Turbo Props are going away as well.”
Srsly? When has ATR announced it’s closing the door? Or, in your opinion, when will ATR close the door?
Looking back at the whole island fleet (717’s) I found this:
‘At a distance of 263 miles, the service will become Hawaiian’s longest intra-Hawaii flight,’
from USA today in 2017 and right off the HA website:
‘Depending on the island, interisland travel can take anywhere between 20 to 50 minutes. Hawaiian Airlines is the largest commuter airlines in Hawaii ‘
———————————–
Why bother with jets? Wouldn’t puddle jumpers just make more sense? It’s not like you’re getting off the aircraft on the tarmac in the middle of winter….
Frank P:
Hawaiian early on decided they wanted jets and jets they got.
Its a strange market for sure
And I know you are waiting for it though it was not me that did it.
Hawaiian at one time operated L-1011 service out of Anchorage and it was my brother who saved their day when he tracked down a relay issue that was faulting and keeping them from flying.
I come from a family of accomplished techs!
Pedro:
There is a single viable TP builder in the larger size left.
Embraer is not getting back into that business. They said they were but they have shuffled the program to the bottom of the deck and its fallen off the table now.
Despite the Dash 8 out of production, ATR sales have been flat to off some.
Alaska Airlines was the last of the TP users in the US (passenger) and its gone to the E1-175.
It is not a large business and going away in the US or more accurately gone.
Trans.
The Saab 2000 is still operated by Aleutian Airlines and Pen Air in Alaska.
Tons of Beechcraft 1900s fly around in many liveries.
Silver Air flys ATR42s and 72s
Turboprops arent dead, just flown by specialists in niche markets.
Jet service to Nunavut community to end as Canadian North retires last jet that can land on gravel
On April 1, 2023, the company is planning to phase out the jet and replace it with smaller turbo-prop airplanes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canadian-north-ends-jet-service-cambridge-bay-1.6676565
Pedro:
My point exactly. They only got to TP if they have no choice, they had a choice before and it was a jet.
Lol. Jet was replaced by turboprops!! Not the other way round, mind you.
AC, WS and PD can fly their turboprops for many years, the airlines are not desperate for replacements.
@TW
Norwegian airline Wideroe love their Dash 8 so much that they extended their useful lives from 80,000 cycle to 160,000 cycle, added another 30 to 40+ years of operating life.
As for the C-390 chances in India?
South Korea is going with it but have not seen numbers.
I do love this statement from Embraer.
“The main reason to shop around before deciding would be the clue in the name, Millennium, given to the C-390. “I think the C-130 and the A400 are very good airplanes. But the C-390 is the only 21st century airplane. We bring in these airplanes, all the state-of-the-art technology and all the new features, a new concept, a new index of operation and availability, and an easy configuration to change from one mission to another mission,” said da Costa.
“We are not saying that our platform is a proven platform like the C-130 because they are from ’50s. In the world of development from the ’50s, they have been in operation for a long, long time. So they are in another position from an age perspective. We are the newer airplane. We believe that an airplane could deliver more,” he added. ”
The C-130J is fully modernized and only has a resemblance to the original C-130. Obviously Airbus felt a Turbo Prop in a higher class aircraft was worth it. So that is a crock.
If they do need or want a higher carry performance then the A400 makes more sense, the C-390 is about the same capacity as the C-130J and the C-130 has better performance as the engines are spooled up to something like 85% all the time.
I don’t buy that the C-390 can land in the same distances or takeoff distance that the C-130 can with the same load.
Agreed the speed is definitively faster but try to convince me a swept wing under slung jet engine can even match a straight wing 4 engine Turbo Prop for landing or takeoff.
The fueling aspect may have some relevance but they manage to work with it for all this time with KC-130s.
As India is looking for dedicated fueling aircraft, I don’t see the C-390 supplies that need (and it sure can’t fuel a C-17 which is the IAF large transport mainstay.
It will be interesting as offsets can make it one way or the other but reports are that the IAF is very impressed with the US Aircraft it has procured.
Granted nothing could be as bad as the Russian Aircraft (more correctly poor support and longevity)
The C130J still is the 60s version. ( it was modernised from the short range 1950s version) The only aspect in the J that is modernised is the engines and the flight systems computers and cockpit displays incl a HUD. It still a wires and pulleys manual flight controls and same structure as before incl the 15 ft stretch. The ‘resemblance’ is because it is still the same, so lets call it the C130Max
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/C-130J/C130JPocketGuide.pdf
The J MTOW is increased (69.7 tonnes to 73.5 t) but not the payload 19t. The ceiling is also higher
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/
Duke:
No the C-130J is not the 60s version. Its been constantly upgraded structure and materials in every variant since then.
It also has updated Allison (RR now) engines as well as the way cool 6 bladed props.
Cockpit is not a lash up of the old stuff in the cockpit, its to the heart of the systems upgrade.
Reuters:
Rolls-Royce’s Turnaround Delivers Fivefold Increase in Profit
One after another, from Embraer to Rolls Royse have turnaround. But a company with “wildly successful” aircraft like BA is not one of them, i guess why??
In time.
That’s what we keep hearing…
BA is lagging behind. Why?
https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/8ANGOW/s3/honda-ces-ev-teaser-brightened.webp
Airbus May Need European State Funds to Help Develop and Manufacture a New Jet, Says CEO
So if the Hydrogen jet sits where the A220 is now, is the A220-500 off the table? So Airbus is leaning towards a new gen aircraft and not a rewing. Interesting.
From the Financial Times:
‘Chief executive Guillaume Faury indicated that Airbus could ask for taxpayer backing — an increasingly politicised issue as governments try to help industry decarbonise — to launch a single-aisle aircraft and a shorter-range, hydrogen-powered plane.’
***Single aisle aircraft AND a shorter range hydrogen***
https://www.ft.com/content/3778eba5-0c11-419d-a10f-1f94cca185c7
‘Airbus is receiving some research funding from European governments to explore technologies for a plane that could replace the A320 narrow-body aircraft in the second part of the next decade. It is also working on a shorter-range hydrogen-powered aircraft expected to enter service in 2035.’
The NB A220-500 that airlines like Air France & Jebblue want is a TATL aircraft – not something you can do with hydrogen.
UPDATE 1-Boeing closing in on Thai deal for 80 Dreamliners – sources
https://hk.finance.yahoo.com/news/1-boeing-closing-thai-deal-133645717.html
Dec 7 (Reuters) – Boeing is in advanced talks to sell around 80 wide-body 787 Dreamliner jets to Thai Airways after pulling ahead of Airbus in widely watched fleet renewal talks, industry sources said.
Reuters first reported in September that the carrier was boosting its requirements to as many as 80 wide-body jets and 15 smaller ones, sparking a contest between the 787 and A350 for one of the largest recent wide-body orders from Southeast Asia.
Boeing and Airbus declined to comment. Thai Airways did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The Thai national carrier is looking to make the most of a post-pandemic travel boom by bolstering regional routes, but there have been some concerns over the ability of planemakers Airbus and Boeing to ramp up output to meet surging demand.
Very impressive indeed…
Interesting to see where they go with engine selection, if deal goes thru…
Know they were having a spat with Rolls over compensation for Trent issues .
Robert L:
I don’t see anyone going with RR anymore unless they have a fleet of existing RR equipped and then its a matter of how big you are and the costs of that switch.
Kind of the flip with the latter A330s that RR became the choice as it was the better engine (well without the issues that RR had on the Trent 1000/TEN, I believe GE was not an issue like RR had on the 787 but not as good SFC and time on wing. )
So for the same reason, no one would pick P&W anymore??
The age of malaise??
SCOOP: Over the past week, Boeing briefed its supply chain on a new 737 production master schedule that pushed rate increases off by about two months across the board
https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1732801769271398598
And they delivered 46 x 737 last month.
Go Boeing
In fairness that is because they are getting caught up on the issues when production dropped but as a good Boeing fan I should not be mentioning that.
Maybe I am not a big fan type?
BA delivered only 19 737s in October and 15 in September.
Hey, how many 737 were delivered in last three months? Are deliveries being pushed out to next years??
Pedro:
Of course they are. You know that you can’t catch up from that sort of thing in a month. It does show they are humming along nicely though.
Over time you can make it up unless you are trying to increase rate too and then you will always be behind a bit but not so much as to have a major affect
Oh wait.
As recently as Oct 10, 2023,
Boeing “remains confident it will meet its full-year target of at least 400 737 program deliveries.”
So let me get this right.
You go on a trip in your car and plan on X hours and no one does somethinhg stupid.
Someone pulls out in front of you and there is (fortunately no injuries ) a low speed collisions.
Are you still on your timeline?
Yea, stuff happens, you adjust. Boeing does not control Spirit. Sheese and crackers
Let me remind you that the 737 MAX pressure bulkhead mishap was discovered months earlier, while BA and its top executives chose to underplay its financial impact even as late as
Oct 10th.
Let me get this straight, hours (or days) after a traffic incident, you or BA insisted it wouldn’t cause any delay, until the last moment. You better get the timeline right.
Deep Intel on Why ALL Ospreys are Grounded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jub8dVQVGSk
Mooch gives his take, a program he worked on
When he gets into the weeds he does a great job.
Areas he worked in or when he brings in others who have taken up the mantle, some good stuff.
After delivering almost 1,100 787, I wonder why BA still hasn’t recovered its deferred production costs? I guess AB performed better in this regard, right?
Clearly Airbus has performed better on some programs.
We won’t bring up the A380 or A400. But as Frank P noted, they write their losses off and go on, Boeing keeps kicking the financially airplane down the road so they don’t pay taxes.
At some point Boeing will write off or kick the plane down the runway again and extend the accounting block.
‘Boeing keeps kicking the financially airplane down the road so they don’t pay taxes.’
That is incorrect. In 2018 Boeing made:
Earnings before income taxes 11,604
Income tax expense (1,144)
Net earnings $10,460
and they had this:
At December 31, 2018 and 2017, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787 program: $27,852 and $30,695 of work in process (including deferred production costs of $22,967and $25,358)
————————————————
If Boeing wanted to reduce their tax liability, they had $23 billion in the 787 deferred production balance ALONE. All they had to do was shift some of those costs to expenses and voila – they would reduce their $1.144 billion tax bill.
I’m not sure that being the loquacious techie that you are, you understand how accounting works. I will try again, one last time.
Simplified, your profits are determined on the Income Statement;
Revenues – Expenses = Retained Earnings
On the Balance sheet, you have
Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity
—————————————————-
The Deferred Production Balance sits in Assets, in the Inventory Account. Think of it this way:
Assets
——–
Cash
Investments
A/R
Inventory
All Boeing did was shift values from Cash, to Inventory, with the monies they spent on the 787. It only becomes an Expense when they shift it out of Inventory, onto the Income Statement.
——————————————————
We’ve already established (and I think you are on the same side vis a vis Calhoun) that BA is very concerned with Share Price, right?
Share price is a function of a few things – Free Cash Flow & Profitability being top of the list. Boeing expressly holds expenses in Inventory (the DPB) so that profitability looks good.
————————————-
Why is Profitability so important, especially with the whole FCF thing?
Think of the Income Statement like an aircraft production line.
You get some money from a customer.
You bring together items from suppliers, you make some parts in house, you have employees working the line and at the end out pops an aircraft.
You give it to the customer and he gives you the balance owed.
The monies you get from the client, less the monies you paid out leaves you the monies you get to keep. Your profit.
——————————————-
The FCF that BA keeps talking about each quarter is made up almost entirely of customer deposits, which is why it is held as a Liability and commonly called Unearned Revenue.
It becomes Earned when a plane is turned over. If you have negative earnings, you spent more than you took in to make that plane (or over a time period like a quarter/year, those groups of planes).
—————————————-
Boeing can reduce it’s tax liability any year it wants to, simply by shifting amounts out of Inventory, to the Income Statement side. All they would have to do is reclassify some costs in the DPB as expenses and done.
‘At some point Boeing will write off or kick the plane down the runway again and extend the accounting block.’
The amounts held in the DPB are not estimated for the accounting block, but the ENTIRE estimated production run. It says so right in their financials:
‘At September 30, 2023, $13,024 of 787 deferred production costs, unamortized tooling and other non recurring costs are expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that have firm orders and $695 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders.’
Program accounting uses estimates for the entire production run.
I think we could shorten that up to, they change and adjust it to suit themselves and as far as I can determine, there is nothing to stop them from extending it to 1800 if they want to.
But if not true keep it short and simple, I am a tech not a financial guy.
Hahaha why doesn’t BA just put a random like 9,787 for its accounting block? Why BA was forced to charge off half of its 777X deferred production cost?
We have been going thru’ these again, again and again. When you don’t get it, why continue to post what you don’t know repeatedly??
‘I am a tech not a financial guy.’
Problem is, that you keep making these financial proclamations as if you know what you are talking about.
https://www.finance.yahoo.com/news/ospreys-had-safety-issues-long-203055125.html
‘In its report on the fatal 2022 crash, the Marine Corps forewarned that more accidents were possible because neither the military nor manufacturers have been able to isolate a root cause. It said future incidents were “impossible to prevent without improvements to flight control system software, drivetrain component material strength, and robust inspection requirements.”
Pedro:
The sun is going to rise in the East tomorrow (granted if its clouded over you won’t see it)
Future incidents are impossible to prevent because stuff happens and those guys operate in a way no sane person would.
Ok, the thing just crashed, its being recovered, how in the blue blazes are they supposed to have a root cause yet? I mean really.
If you watch Mooch, you see they get some stuff sorted then latter other things crop up. They fix those and then they just crash.
Rotor ring vortex issues were understood and they knew how to avoid those, but the pilot in the Arizona case violated the protocols. 19 men paid the price.
What you can’t fix is human error, all you can do is minimize it, but crashes are going to happen to all Military operated aircraft.
The C-17 is probably the safest aircraft in inventory but a ham fisted (arrogant stupid) guy went well past the safety limits and crashed one in Elmendorf. You can’t stop stupid.
“Ok, the thing just crashed, its being recovered, how in the blue blazes are they supposed to have a root cause yet? I mean really.”
So how come there’re investigation reports that solved the crash mystery?? Facepalm.
Well said TransWorld
‘Ok, the thing just crashed, its being recovered, how in the blue blazes are they supposed to have a root cause yet? I mean really.’
Did you not read the excerpt from the article? This was a straight quote from the article, nothing to do with Pedro and it clearly states:
****In its report on the fatal 2022 crash, the Marine Corps forewarned that more accidents were possible…****
Pedro has quoted a report from the USMC on a 2022 crash, which has already been investigated. They are fore warning of FUTURE VF-22 crashes…
That’s all that has been posted.
More from the article:
WHISTLEBLOWER QUESTIONS
Materiel strength was the subject of a whistleblower lawsuit that Boeing settled with the Justice Department in September for $8.1 million. Two former Boeing V-22 composites fabricators had come forward with allegations that Boeing was falsifying records certifying that it had performed the testing necessary to ensure it maintained uniform temperatures required to ensure the Osprey’s composite parts were strengthened according to DOD specifications.
A certain temperature was needed for uniform molecular bonding of the composite surface. Without that bond, “the components will contain resin voids, linear porosity, and other defects that are not visible to the eye; which compromise the strength and other characteristics of the material, and which can cause catastrophic structural failures,” the lawsuit alleged.
In its settlement, the Justice Department contended Boeing did not meet the Pentagon’s manufacturing standards from 2007 to 2018; the whistleblowers contended in their lawsuit that this affected more than 80 Ospreys that were delivered in that time frame.
In a statement to The Associated Press, Boeing said it entered into the settlement agreement with the Justice Department and Navy “to resolve certain False Claims Act allegations, without admission of liability.”
Boeing said while composites are used throughout the V-22, the parts that were questioned in the lawsuit were “all non-critical parts that do not implicate flight safety.”
“Boeing is in compliance with its curing processes for composite parts,” the company said. “Additionally, we would stress that the cause of the accident in Japan is currently unknown. We are standing by to provide any requested support.”
Gotta say, a lot of so what?
There will be more crashes sadly.
You might want to look at US Military Helicopter losses (non combat) – I get tired of the ranting on the V-22 when others have been worse.
Or the rate of Navy fighter losses in carrier ops over the years, sobering to downright scary.
@TW
So the U.S. military is wrong to ground the V-22 after the preliminary investigation came out?
It seems our poster has as much hubris as BA and its CEO Muilenburg.
“In Japan, where U.S. military Ospreys had a non-fatal crash once and a number of incidents, the latest accident has rekindled safety concerns”.
“As of November 2023, 16 V-22 Ospreys have been damaged beyond repair in accidents that have killed a total of 62 people.”
In two years, “the divisive tilt-rotor has now been involved in four fatal crashes … killing 20 people.”
Fortune August 2017:
“But developing that concept to its fullest has proven extremely costly, and according to critics, the promise was never truly fulfilled. The project’s cost ballooned from a $68.7 million design contract in 1983 (the aircraft’s maiden flight took place in 1989) to $29.1 billion for research and procurement by 2009, when the estimated average cost per vehicle was $83.7 million. By 2012, some estimates put the total cost at $56 billion and the cost per unit at $100 million.
Variants of the venerable Black Hawk combat helicopter, by comparison, cost from $20 million to $40 million each.
Despite its costs, the Osprey has earned a reputation for being dangerous and unreliable, in part thanks to the inherent challenges of its tilt-rotor design. In a testing period between 1991 and 2000, Ospreys crashed four times in non-combat operations, causing 30 fatalities. When it first went into service in 2007, Time magazine (which like Fortune is published by Time Inc.) famously branded it “a flying shame.” Since then, the Osprey has been involved in five more crashes, resulting in nine fatalities.
The V-22 made it through its troubled development and into service thanks to a complex welter of political agendas, largely driven by the Marine Corps. During the George H.W. Bush administration, for instance, Congress overruled attempts by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to kill the program. And with time and money, many of the vehicle’s biggest problems have been solved or mitigated.
But even when it’s working as intended, the Osprey may not provide the mobility the military once hoped for. Jack McCain, Navy pilot and son of Sen. John McCain, in 2014 called the V-22 “awful” and a “piece of junk” fundamentally inferior to the older helicopter it was intended to replace, the Boeing CH-46. The younger McCain argued, among other points, that the craft is difficult to land under harsh conditions, undermining its reason for existing. The Osprey’s powerful downdraft also makes it less useful for raids and rescue operations, and difficult to land on aircraft carriers”
“Hard clutch engagements are 1 of 13 Category I deficiencies on the Osprey, and has been known since 2010.
https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1732553863113162802
A second Russian civil aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing after a fire in both of its engines.
The Boeing 737 passenger plane was carrying 175 passengers to the capital of Moscow from the city of Novosibirsk at around 6.30am today.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/micro-explosions-on-passenger-plane-s-engines-during-take-off/ar-AA1lbFL5?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ACTS&cvid=8761fff448794f7683cb59286228f195&ei=8
The captain told passengers both engines were ‘out of order’ and the brakes had overheated, leaving the plane needing to be towed from the runway.
————————————-
They’re going to rue the day they ever walked into Ukraine
At the risk of going off topic and into political, the people that rue the day are not the ones in charge.
Cathay Pacific chooses Airbus over Boeing for freighter order
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/cathay-pacific-buy-six-airbus-freighters-271-bln-2023-12-08/
The Hong Kong carrier will buy six A350 freighters and secured the rights to a further 20 of the cargo jets, it said in a statement Friday. Deliveries will start from 2027 and should be completed by the end of 2029.
I wonder what caused the defection of a customer which flies only BA freighters.
Cathay Pacific is desperate. they are loosing their market and are not on the ins with the big 3 in China.
China is mostly not buying aircraft and the ones allowed are not Boeing.
“China is mostly not buying aircraft …”
From hubris to forgetfulness.
😂😂 Let me remind you, in case you forgot:
China ordered over 330 Airbus NB last year. FWIW that’s a bigger order than any NB order from United or Air India to a single airframer in a year.
An offer too good to refuse…ladened with mouthwatering Discounts..!!
Simply put .AB low-balled Boeing at any cost to re-establish themselves in the freighter market..
Amusing,how our resident accountant and financial wizard becomes strangely silent when it comes to how much AB discounted the order to seal the deal !
At least Reuters got it right saying AB gave loads of price concessions to Cathay .
Does make you wonder, considering Reuters was one of the sites who claimed Boeing was the frontrunner to win the Cathay order, earlier this year..
Only 6 freighter order.
Still some large operators yet to make their final selection for future freighter requirements.
Also,
It’s not like the 747-8F’s are going anywhere, anytime soon.
Robert L:
Now ain’t that the conundrum?
D Andrews:
Nothing out there to replace a 747-8F. You got to wonder where Sierra Nevada gets its 747s to upgrade the Airborne Command Post (kind of running out of 4 engine options which is the supposed default)
Haha. Which airframer is well-known to bid below cost “that its engineers believe is achievable”?
It happens that CX has six B747-400ERFs.
It’s almost crazy when FedEx/UPS still fly MD-11s over 30 years old.
Robert L
December 8, 2023
An offer too good to refuse…ladened with mouthwatering Discounts..!!
———————————–
Hmmmmm – is that what the quarterly financial reports show? That Airbus is giving mouth watering discounts, which would effect their profitability?
Projection much?
Robert,
‘Amusing,how our resident accountant and financial wizard becomes strangely silent when it comes to how much AB discounted the order to seal the deal !’
Please tell us – how much of a discount did they receive, then?
TransWorld
December 8, 2023
Nothing out there to replace a 747-8F. You got to wonder where Sierra Nevada gets its 747s to upgrade the Airborne Command Post (kind of running out of 4 engine options which is the supposed default)
The Airborne Command post does not have 4 engine requirement, as of now, the presidential aircraft does. The reason is that the Airborne command post has a small fleet of aircraft that allows a spare to launch whenever needed. The presidential aircraft does not have this depth of support. The key reason for the 4 engine need is to allow for a 3 engine departure from a non supported location for flights home or to the next destination. A twin engine aircraft would never be cleared for single engine dispatch, at least today……
Delivery starts from 2027, what can BA offer?? 🤔
“At least Reuters got it right saying AB gave loads of price concessions to Cathay.”
Reuters:
“Cathay said it had negotiated price concessions with Airbus to below the list price. Major airlines typically get large discounts from planemakers.”
I wonder how our poster dtaw such conclusion from reading the above. 🤔
SIA also ordered AB freighters.
On the contrary, Cathay is willing to pay more for AB. Proof:
• Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd is close to placing an order worth around $2 billion for Boeing 777-8F freighters
• Cathay Pacific favours Airbus over Boeing in $2.71 bln freighter deal
@Robert
Here I am…again, after being called out by you.
As Pedro has kindly pointed out, could you please explain how you derived ‘low-balling’ and ‘mouth watering discounts’ and ‘loads of price concessions’ from the statement:
“Cathay said it had negotiated price concessions with Airbus to below the list price. Major airlines typically get large discounts from planemakers.”
Thanks so much for your attention in this matter.
Scott C:
The report I read stated 4 engine requirement for the Various E-4 types
More or less Boeing pulled out due to the contract setup and SN was the only one left.
I would think they would change the requirement but the reports seem to think not yet at least.
SN seemed to think they could get the required frames but while you can get -400 frames, the -8 would be a lot harder and probably the only ones coming free would be the Passengers but ………..
Easy, price……………..
NO, you did not just post this………………..NO WAY!!!!!
Frank P
December 8, 2023
Robert,
‘Amusing,how our resident accountant and financial wizard becomes strangely silent when it comes to how much AB discounted the order to seal the deal !’
Please tell us – how much of a discount did they receive, then?
What’s your problem with it?
It’s the same question I ask you regarding Airbus discounts for example the Delta A350s order, or the EK A350 order Yet you state for certainty the discount Boeing gives.
@williams
Yes – as I mentioned before and once again; it is fairly simple to calculate the percentage discount off list for a PERIOD OF TIME, in this case, each quarter or year. You cannot determine from the financials, however, what an individual airline received as a discount (the exception being the SWA sale leaseback deal, which I detailed awhile back).
What is not clear about that? Is the wording too complicated?
As I recall, I told you that I could do the same for Airbus, if you provided me with their list prices. For all deliveries during a time period, not an individual order…
I also made that clear. Did you miss my response? Please try to keep up.
———————————–
Back to Robert and his claim of ‘mouth watering’ discounts.
Aren’t you curious to know how he came to that conclusion? Perhaps he has insider info to which neither you and I are privy to? Or maybe it’s wishful thinking?
He called me out almost immediately after posting his pricing fantasy, so here I am, asking him for proof.
You got a problem with that?
Price is the only tool BA knows in order to compete? 😅
Price is the main thing airlines care about.
Many airlines order A321XLR, not 737 MAX. Remember that?
Even though BA sold UA a bunch of 737-700 dirt cheap, UA never took delivery. BA also tried to lure DL for a bunch of *used* E190 and B717. What a joke.
Airbus “looking at” rate 83 for A320 family aircraft.
Pedro:
Well its better than the 75 they never achieved!
You should know how great BA is ramping up its MAX/787 production. 🤣
I thought we were talking about Airbus.
BA struggles to attain 38 a month.
Again we are talking about the A320 monthly production goal. And Airbus’s ability to meet or NOT meet it.
Boeing lives rent-free in some minds.
‘Boeing lives rent-free in some minds.’
In their financial condition, Boeing needs the free rent. A government bailout wouldn’t hurt, either.
When posters here celebrated 787 order, they forgot how good BA can turn that into profit. Shrugged.
Suddenly all sorts of reports popping up that China wants Boeing back in the mix.
Think it has anything to do with price with no competition ? Nah. The A350F is just a coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!
Man, look at what you can get if you can negotiate………………………………
Personally I am looking forward to seeing both of those big twin freighters in the air. Guess that means I am not an Ultra Fan………….
Of course China wants Boeing back. I wrote two years ago (?) that China needs Boeing as much as Boeing needs China.
Scott:
No question you nailed it showing the data of who can provide what and its a deficit for China they can’t fill with Boeing gone.
What I see is that there is a difference in China actually wanting Boeing.
Need Boeing yes, both for the gap of being able to supply the numbers needed and the competition.
But want? China does not want anyone or anything in the situation other than themselves.
Of course, what China wants is a FAL from Boeing. Unless China is willing to commit to a stupid amount of orders, I would say no.
TBH I doubt China is interested in an aircraft from the 60s. The boat has sailed.
So play out FAL in China from Boeing. How many more years for 737 production 10 years plus.
need to import engines, avionics and other sub systems into China
Oh wait a minute, are those the same subsystems that US want to impose export restrictions for the C919
@David
‘So play out FAL in China from Boeing. How many more years for 737 production 10 years plus.’
Both AB & BA estimate some 40k new jets over the next 20 years. Call it 30k new narrowbodies (probably higher, but let’s go with that) or 75%.
BA has ~4,500 in the backlog.
AB has ~6,700 in the backlog. Add another 500 for the A220.
Call it 12k total, nice round numbers.
18,000 narrow body aircraft is a strong incentive to get into the game, no?
@Frank P
Problem is the MAX is not as successful as the A320neo family, BA is desperate for a replacement. China would rather look forward to the future, not a deadend aircraft.
P.S. Excluding iffy asc 606 orders, BA has barely 4k unfilled backlog outstanding (also have to consider about 200 or more in inventory).
Pedro
December 9, 2023
@Frank P
Problem is the MAX is not as successful as the A320neo family, BA is desperate for a replacement. China would rather look forward to the future, not a deadend aircraft.
Pedro. BOTH the A320 series and the 737 series are dead end airplanes. They have both hit the wall of diminishing returns and neither is economically rewingable, because neither can squeeze enough added revenue out of it to get a customer to pay for it. They have reached a point of Détente where neither will make a move. Until a new family of reliable engines shows up, neither will upgrade their offerings because they are selling all they can build. You should be a bit more honest in your asessment of the airplanes because they win or lose sales not on theoretical SFC numbers, but on how they fit in each operators route structures. In that world, because of their size differences, Airbus is not as dominant as one thinks and BA picks up a lot of sales. Looking at the backlog to evaluate success is also mirage like, because so many of the orders on both ledgers are vaporware.
@ Scott
I believe AB can’t sit on their hands for too long before new competitor shows up.
@Scott
‘BOTH the A320 series and the 737 series are dead end airplanes.’
Like Orwell said – some pigs are more equal than other pigs. Granted, you are the engineering expert, but as I understand it from my guy up the road, the Airbus lineup of the near future is going to be:
A220-100, A220-300, A220-500, A321Neo, A321LR, A321XLR
Taking advantage of the newer design of the A220 and the up-guage shift from the A320 to the A321 (Airbus has 4,400 A321Neo orders and BA has about 1,000).
—————————————————-
But here’s the thing;
The ball is solidly in Boeing’s court and to change things, it’s incumbent upon them to make the next move. Let’s just say, for whatever reason, BA & AB do absolutely nothing. BA has a lack of capital and has to fix it’s balance sheet and AB likes the way things are, so they’ll just work on getting production to 75 a month and bolstering their financial position.
What are airlines (outside of China) going to do?
C919 isn’t going to be certified for service outside of China. Russian has nothing. Embraer doesn’t have the $20 billion required to launch a competing product – even so, what engine would they put on it? Your choices are either the Max or the Neo for your NB needs. Airbus isn’t even going to make a A220-500; you can have a -300, but then you gotta order an A320Neo.
There are tons of A320CEO family aircraft and tons of 737NG aircraft flying that will need replacing. Here are your choices; Max or Neo.
—————————————
Let’s play conspiracy theory for a minute here.
AB & BA have a combined monopoly on the market. It’s those two or nothing. What if, during the many trade shows they attend, Calhoun and Faury quietly met, alone in a hotel room and decided that there would be no new launches for the next decade or so. They wouldn’t cut each others throat on pricing, bending over backwards to help airlines bank billions, while their companies suffered the consequences. No upsetting the apple cart.
It wouldn’t be the first time back room deals like this have been cut, would it?
Boeing is happy because they really need to get rid of their debt load and get back to making shareholders happy. Airbus is happy because they have a commanding position in the market. All they pledge to do is to get production up, work out the supply side of things and bank money.
Once in awhile they make noises about new technologies and funding needed from governments, but turn around and say the business case isn’t there, sorry.
—————————————-
The world still needs over 30,000+ NB jets over the next 20 years or more than 1,500 a year. Is there a scenario possible where Airbus delivers 1,000 NB’s and Boeing delivers 750 Max’s a year in half a decade or so?
Boeing is happy.
Airbus is happy.
Engine makers are happy.
Lessors are happy.
Oil companies are happy.
Airlines might go on about rising fuel prices and the need for more efficient aircraft – sorry; the business case isn’t there. Here’s what we have…
——————————————
So now you’re no longer in a slash and burn sales war. Sure there’s some back and forth, but Ryanair & SWA were always going to buy Boeing and Easyjet & Indigo were always going to buy Airbus.
All you gotta do is focus on production and make it look like you’re competing with the other guy. That and telling your BoD that you can’t make the business case for a new aircraft launch that’ll cost billions and that they should remember;
(BA HQ)
‘We need to fix our financial position and cannot afford it’
(AB HQ)
‘We don’t need another A380, things are good as they are’
A decade from now neither of them will not be around, they’ll be on some yacht in June in Monaco, watching the F1 race there, wondering when Max Verstappen will retire after winning his 15th title…
Why rock the boat? After all, you’re paying $25,000 to park it there. Let the next guy handle it.
@Pedro
‘I believe AB can’t sit on their hands for too long before new competitor shows up.’
——————————
As Scott will jump in here, I am sure – the only longshot potential would be Embraer with some sort of backing from China.
Here are the impediments;
1) It’ll require Emb selling out. Not sure they want to do that.
2) BOTH AB & BA will challenge it and both US & Euro governments may say no.
3) What aircraft are they going to make? A C919 to compete with the Max and Neo?
4) Where are they going to get engines? The current guys have about 25,000 engines in the backlog to make, as of today. We can get you some in a decade or so….IF legislators agree.
5) How about parts & service? How we going to get that up and running to keep those aircraft flying?
6) Production supply chain. Boeing is going to 50 (probably more if they can). Airbus to 75 on the Neo & 14 on the A220. Who’s going to make all of these new parts they need?
7) Incentive to purchase. Why would airlines risk buying from EMB/Comac? Is it a better aircraft that is more fuel efficient? More reliable? Easier to maintain? What happens if we plan our fleet around an unproven aircraft produced by an unproven JV to potentially save a few dollars, while we could have gone with the safe choice and guaranteed our profits (perhaps a little less than what we are promised by Emb/Comac)…and it falls apart?
8) What offers to China do AB & BA make, to keep them OUT of a JV with Emb? The real impediment to a new jet is the engines, isn’t it? Unless China or someone else can catch up with the technology on the Leap or the GTF, it’ll always be in their hands.
So many moving parts. You see it differently?
Frank P
December 10, 2023
@Scott
‘BOTH the A320 series and the 737 series are dead end airplanes.’
Like Orwell said – some pigs are more equal than other pigs. Granted, you are the engineering expert, but as I understand it from my guy up the road, the Airbus lineup of the near future is going to be: A220-100, A220-300, A220-500, A321Neo, A321LR, A321XLR.
Frank. I dont see a 220-500 happening. IMHO it lacks easy belly cargo and needs too much of a wing change to compete with a tooling depreciated A320 series airplane. I suspect that in the face of rising worldwide growth, 320 series and non max 737s will get SLEPed at D check and they will keep fresh interiors in them. When you look at the world fleet size, you realize that at a certain point of installed base, you cannot build enough aircraft to meet growth demand and replacent together, especially with engine being the pacing item in many cases. Older series aircraft lease ratesare starting to reflect this today.
Let’s play conspiracy theory for a minute here.
AB & BA have a combined monopoly on the market. It’s those two or nothing. What if, during the many trade shows they attend, Calhoun and Faury quietly met, alone in a hotel room and decided that there would be no new launches for the next decade or so. They wouldn’t cut each others throat on pricing, bending over backwards to help airlines bank billions, while their companies suffered the consequences. No upsetting the apple cart.
Didn’t I just lay the case out that the technology isn’t there for a new aircraft because the engines aren’t there. There is no need for the illegal backroom dealings. Just point at the product line and tell the customers, there isn’t anything else we can do to these that you would pay for because the last little bit of gain is hugely unaffordable…….
@scott
‘I dont see a 220-500 happening. IMHO it lacks easy belly cargo ‘
You know me well enough to know what I am going to do.
In 2018, before everything, AA had total revenues of $44.5 billion. Cargo was $1 billion of that. United had $41.3 billion in revenue. Cargo was $1.2 billion. Delta had $44.4 billion in revenue and cargo was $865 million.
Combined, they had $130 billion in revenues with about $3 billion of that in cargo.
A quick google search show that cargo makes up about 5% of an airlines revenue. And now the rates and demand are coming down after the pandemic:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/20/airline-shrinking-cargo-revenue-good-news.html
‘For the first half of 2023, Delta’s cargo business generated $381 million, down from $561 million in the first half of 2022, while American’s cargo unit brought in $420 million compared with $692 million in the first six months of last year. United brought in $760 million from cargo so far this year, down from $1.2 billion a year earlier.’
I’m sure it’s nice to have but pax is the overwhelming revenue generator.
—————————————–
‘needs too much of a wing change to compete with a tooling depreciated A320 series airplane. ‘
My guy up the road tells me that a quick and dirty 2 metre plug fore and aft of the wing, everything else stays the same, is one of the serious options on the table. Read: Inexpensive.
Airbus has gotten the range of the A220-300 up to 4,000nm, which is why Breeze has applied for TATL routes. They’ll probably lose some 500NM (you would know better than me) but it’ll be exactly what the airlines want; inexpensive, added capacity and efficient.
——————————-
Tooling.
As I recall, Airbus got it all, Lock, Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels, when they took over the C-Series. Depreciated and done.
—————————
‘There is no need for the illegal backroom dealings. Just point at the product line and tell the customers, there isn’t anything else we can do to these that you would pay for because the last little bit of gain is hugely unaffordable…….’
Not for BA, but AB could do a ‘wings of tomorrow’ re-wing, or A-322, or an A220-500. It’s what they did with the A321 didn’t they? Made the LR & XLR to eat into the lower end of the MoM, where the 757-200 used to sit.
It’s always nice to have an understanding with the other guy. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies even closer…
“‘I dont see a 220-500 happening. IMHO it lacks easy belly cargo”
Just returned from Hamburg. I wouldn’t been on this conclusion above.
@Scott
In addition to all that:
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing that Calhoun and Faury aren’t dummies and have studied the history of how things got here, vis a vis – Boeing and Airbus.
Both can read the tea leaves and understand the threat that China poses to both of their companies. Just because China may make nice with Airbus today, doesn’t mean they won’t be out the door tomorrow if China decides to do so.
Frank P:
You are trying to assess a whole program on a single aspect and the relevancy is not correct.
Single Aisle aircraft are not oriented to cargo. Longer route can carry none at all (all fuel, pax and luggage).
Some carry a bit of really high propitiatory, Alaska Airlines does via their Gold Streak Service (at least to Alaska from Seattle). But its not cargo heavy at all, they make their money on passengers (or loose it as it were)
Aux Cargo is a factor in the longer range wide body flights. The A380 has little or none (taken by passenger luggage) and that hurt its overall profitability unless always full on its routes.
Its how an A220-500 slots into the A320 series including replacing the A320 that is the factor.
Airbus is making more and more A321 (over 50% production now) and the A220-500 would be an efficient replacement for the A320 and a threat to the MAX -8.
@Trans
I really think you need to go back and read carefully the whole discussion. Then get back to me.
Curious Mr Hamilton, why does China need Boieng? I have my thoughts.
@Williams: see https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/07/heres-why-china-needs-boeing-as-much-as-boeing-needs-china/
and https://leehamnews.com/2022/10/31/china-still-needs-boeing-as-much-as-boeing-needs-china-despite-interminable-limbo/
and https://leehamnews.com/2022/07/11/pontifications-china-still-needs-boeing-as-much-as-boeing-needs-china/
Thank you for the links.
Remember who said this:
“China is mostly not buying aircraft …”
I remember what happened last month:
“Boeing shares take off on report that China may lift 737 …”
Reuters:
China says Boeing welcome to deepen development in its market
China’s aviation regulator’s deputy head on Friday told a Boeing executive in Beijing the airplane maker was welcome to deepen its development in the Chinese market. Boeing was welcome to continue to strengthen exchanges and co-operation with the regulator and the aviation industry in China, Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) quoted Hu Zhenjiang as saying in meeting with Mike Fleming, Boeing’s senior vice president for development programs and customer support.
I wonder what BA can offer? A FAL??
AS orders only 20 MAX 8 so far?
Reminder that most AS orders and MAX 9 and MAX 10
So many believe AS has decided to replace the 717 with the MAX.
It was stated explicit in the merger documentation, so its no ones belief involved.
It is their intent.
Now there is a lot of time between the intent and even if this is going to be allowed or take place.
Have to see if Alaska can juggle orders around to include the MAX -7 though I bet Boeing is willing to accommodate them though production schedule is ??????
It would depend on South West and if they want to get the -7s or upgage to the other models.
I doubt you have read it yourself. Quote what is in the document.
It’s simple: switch to MAX 7 for HA means fewer aircraft for AS.
Yes, the Max 7s will be the replacement. If Hawaiian acellerates its retirement, it will be a matter of time before DL does the same. Parts for the 717 will have then gone up.
Just like when AA retired its MD80s, it caused MD88 and MD90s parts prices to increase, and thus DL moved to retire their MD fleet.
Mr. Brown did an excellent job of those details so I leave it to you to watch the video. You are just going to have to work for some of the information.
The reality is the 717s are getting old and they are beat hard in the Hawaiian Island service, both on usage/cycles as well as the constant salt environment. Report is they are beat ragged.
As for Alaska Airlines and its orders? Shrug. Clearly they can order more, keep the older -800/900 in service longer.
With all those people buying Airbus, well Boeing of course has lots of slots to fill!
Of course if China puts in orders, well all bets are off (you have to wonder if Boeing selling off the China sitting MAX to India also had a kick in the rear affect.
A lot in play and this may never come to fruition
DL has found replacement for its 717. Don’t you know? 🤔
@TW
“It was stated explicit in the merger documentation.”
Lol. How do you know if you have never read the document??
I went for primary source and read the document myself. I found the claim doesn’t have solid ground. I didn’t take any shortcut and rely on secondary or tertiary sources, unlike you. Seems like you have a habit to ignore reality wilfully, from program accounting to China doesn’t buy aircraft etc.
The MAX is also a poor match for HA’s op.
But we’ll see, by the end of the decade, how good AS/HA’s choice is.
Pedro:
Scott has proven that solid reporting (China) needs to have the resources his company has at its fingers to assess the situation. I looked at their data and it was solid reasoning.
I am not going to bird dog down every detail. Mr. Brown is a credible source in his area and he cited where that info came from.
Equally Mr. Brown knows a lot more about US Airline ops, management and what can be done (point of fact that I was wrong and you cannot have two separate Airlines operating under an IAG type setup – though maybe they can do it because their various airlines are in different countries).
So yes, in the case of Scott or Mr. Brown I will fully accept their data. I might disagree with the conclusion you make from that data but the data itself is valid (and the support they did for the China study was solid).
How you go about information is obviously up to you.
@TW
I posted my feedback on another thread about how urgent major Chinese airlines have to renew their BA NB fleet, all based on public data (say planespotters), so I’m not going to repeat myself.
I find it funny that on one hand you claimed “It was stated explicit in the merger documentation”, on the other hand you never bothered to read it yourself. 😂
I can tell you anyone who claimed it’s all in the document is either ignorant or lying (or repeating lies).
Problems at LUV?
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/flight-attendants-southwest-airlines-reject-contract-union-negotiated-105512121
Flight attendants at Southwest Airlines reject a contract their union negotiated with the airline
Flight attendants at Southwest Airlines are saying no to a contract offer hammered out by their union and the airline
“Cirium fleet first flight data tells us a lot about production rate and it’s pretty clear from the rolling 6-month average shown here that Boeing isn’t even at Rate 38 on a sustained basis for the 737 yet, so no wonder the planned ramp to Rate 42 is delayed.
https://twitter.com/HertsRoyal/status/1733043390948794714
Mentour has a new video on Emirates, the A350, the 777X order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9aKVLI7kto
What I found interesting was that as I was listening to him talk, I was doing some research on the A350 order book and the 777X. I came across this article from ch-aviation:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/112963-emirates-threatens-b777x-cancellation-in-case-of-more-delays
Emirates (EK, Dubai International) is prepared to cancel its order for 115 B777X if Boeing delays their first deliveries beyond 2023, Chairman Tim Clark told Airlineratings in an interview.
——————————-
This was in 2022.
Now deliveries of the 777X have slipped into the 2025/26 time frame, certainly well beyond 2023. But instead, Emirates added another 90 to the order book.
Strange. Has no one asked him why the flip flop?
———————————
About the video;
Petter details Clark and how he is not happy with the RR on wing performance that are in service. Fair point.
However, he has orders now for over 200 aircraft with engines that have ZERO in service hours and have had a troubled development themselves. IIRC – he has made comments to the effect that he wanted a mature, ready to go engine, with his new aircraft.
EMIRATE’S CHIEF DEMANDS PERFECT BOEING 777X ENGINE
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emirates-chief-demands-perfect-boeing-777x-engine/
The chief of the world’s largest international airline, Sir Tim Clark has demanded that Boeing deliver Emirates a perfect 777X with engines thoroughly tested to the highest stress levels and meeting guarantees.
“Brand new engines always have problems but this time we will not accept anything less than guarantees.”
“First, it was December 2019, then June 2020, then June 2021 now June 2022,” said Mr. Clark.
————————————-
Things sure change fast, huh?
I believe:
Deal existed as of 2022 =/= deal exists after.
Any hint from customers credits carried on BA’s book.
Frank P:
That dichotomy on engines ak the GE9X vs the XWB-97 has been pointed out in Mentour comments.
GE could be behind the EXB-97 as well, no one knows until it sees some service hours in that climate.
Tim Clark thinks he is the smartest guy around. He may well be as far as airline ops goes, Emirates is a massive machine he has built and it works (granted disagreement on who is behind it etc)
What his particular bent is on this subject I have yet to see. Maybe GE gave him all he wanted.
Previously his maneuvering around and with the A380 and a new model -or the -900 lenght with new engines etc is the stuff of legend. And a spectacular flop. He wound up with a Trent 900 engine that had issues so he winds up with two different engines which even if they were equal is still a deficit.
Its interesting as is the Turkish order not executed. Like P&W and CFM, I expect RR will get the XWB-97 sorted but that is a lot of sorting.
From Frank-
As Scott will jump in here, I am sure – the only longshot potential would be Embraer with some sort of backing from China.
Here are the impediments;
1) It’ll require Emb selling out. Not sure they want to do that.
2) BOTH AB & BA will challenge it and both US & Euro governments may say no.
3) What aircraft are they going to make? A C919 to compete with the Max and Neo?
4) Where are they going to get engines? The current guys have about 25,000 engines in the backlog to make, as of today. We can get you some in a decade or so….IF legislators agree.
5) How about parts & service? How we going to get that up and running to keep those aircraft flying?
6) Production supply chain. Boeing is going to 50 (probably more if they can). Airbus to 75 on the Neo & 14 on the A220. Who’s going to make all of these new parts they need?
7) Incentive to purchase. Why would airlines risk buying from EMB/Comac? Is it a better aircraft that is more fuel efficient? More reliable? Easier to maintain? What happens if we plan our fleet around an unproven aircraft produced by an unproven JV to potentially save a few dollars, while we could have gone with the safe choice and guaranteed our profits (perhaps a little less than what we are promised by Emb/Comac)…and it falls apart?
8) What offers to China do AB & BA make, to keep them OUT of a JV with Emb? The real impediment to a new jet is the engines, isn’t it? Unless China or someone else can catch up with the technology on the Leap or the GTF, it’ll always be in their hands.
So many moving parts. You see it differently?
Not only Embraer, but maybe Saudi money getting behind COMAC. The Embraer/COMAC is interesting seeing how BRICS nations are flexing their muscle. Then again, Northrop or LM might loose their minds and try to get back into the commercial business.
As regards #7, never under estimate an airliner’s ability to get the best deal. AA’s CEO Mr. Crandall and shocked everyone in the 80s buying the slow selling MD80, and got a then Awesome Deal (rumored he got a third off the price) in the days when mega deals were rare, very rare. Why do you think Delta ordered the Bombardier CS? It was cheap and new. Would have loved to see that contract.
Lockheed – Out
MD – Out
BBD – Out
Mitsubishi – Out
It’s a tough business. When was Northrop in the commercial jet aircraft industry?
Not Northrop but Gen Dynamics, they bought Convair. But neither is touching that third rail.
But if they did.
williams:
I don’t know I see COMAC letting anyone into the structure and the question is of course what do you get for it?
China has to listen to a partner even if below 50% and China has clearly set the system up for a government controlled effort. If China had a choice they would have no other content on their aircraft let alone any influence.
Boeing names company veteran Stephanie Pope to newly created COO role
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/11/boeing-names-company-veteran-stephanie-pope-to-newly-created-coo-role.html
More bean counters to save the Co. In Finance we trust.
😂
“White smoke at Boeing
https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status/1734269117337854447
From his comment:
‘Her career at Boeing has been focused on financials.’
Pope started as a financial analyst in McDonnell Douglas in St Louis in 1994?
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/12/10/bad-news-boeing-just-won-a-multibillion-dollar-con/
I have not seen the P&L for that bird.
At one point Boeing had almost 30 billion in losses on the 787. I think that is down to 20 billion?
The real issue is Boeing billing more for the KC-46A than it costs to build it? And if so, what is the margin, how long does it take to recover the 7 billion or so loss? (if they can)
Are support contracts included in this?
@Trans
‘At one point Boeing had almost 30 billion in losses on the 787. I think that is down to 20 billion?’
Financial comprehension.
It is not a loss. It is what I have been telling you all along – amounts included in Inventory, in the DPB, are not a LOSS until they are pulled out and expensed. They will sit there until BA decides to either:
1) Write them off like the $3.5 billion 787 and $6.5 billion 777X charge
or
2) They expense them as they deliver aircraft.
Those amounts are in there for years to come, diminishing profit margin on future deliveries.
BA has inflated its profits from the 787 program ranging from twenty to around thirty-six billion USD over the years.
“Japan Airlines will officially debut its new Airbus A350-1000 on 1 of 2 daily Tokyo Haneda (HND) to New York (JFK) flights starting January 24.
JAL also announces it’ll fly the A350-1000 from HND to Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) pending deliveries.
These replace the Boeing 777-300ER.
https://twitter.com/IshrionA/status/1734028165746458826
Grippen E and F is being built in Brazil at a Embraer plant.
Ironic that Brazil has more of the Grippen E than Sweden does
That is almost certainly the biggest project going though why Brazil need (wants) a fighter of that capability is unfathomable.
An F-50 would fill their needs just fine.
Trans.
The Gripen E is very inexpensive for a 5th gen airframe.
The co-production arrangement means that the much vaunted
SAAB production system was planted into Brazil. There are a number of tactical reasons for favoring the Gripen over its contemporary’s. It is simple to maintain, uses a number of commercially available spares and is much more robust than say an F-16 which requires more maintenance per block hour and needs smooth concrete to fly off. This is why the Gripen is the 1st choice for Ukraine and if available in numbers could really shine there. As it is, the F16 will show the Ukrainians that there is a quality in quantity all its own.
Scott C:
I am seeing price in the 85 million range though there is no question that the Grippen E is designed for easy maint and its cost per hour would be hugely less than say an F-35 (The A model is getting down into that price range)
I fully agree that the Grippen (any model) is what Ukraine needs. Its the perfect aircraft for them (getting them of course is the issue)
Where my mind gets bent is the Brazilian Air Force needing that Grippen let alone E capability.
I don’t see any of its neighbors threatening it.
Trans.
I agree there is a limited local threat to air superiority, but being in the lead is better than being behind. The other thing to think about is that a 5th gen fighter force makes it someone you wish to have on your side in a geopolitical squabble, so this makes Brazil a player so to say. Not a bad place moving forward with the region being destabilized (American view) by the Chinese expansion in the area. It makes Brazil a much more viable dance partner for either the US or China. We need to remember that Brazil’s navy has nuke boats and has taken a peacekeeping role occasionally in the region and supplied many of the assets for the AF447 search.
Scott C:
I see the reasoning and I think you are right in regards to Brazil wants to be a player regardless of need. I look at the slums and think, oh my.
Slipped my mind they were working on Nuke Boat(s).
“We need to remember that Brazil’s navy has nuke boats …”
Sorry aren’t you slightly ahead (or about a decade or so too early)?
Perhaps. The Alvaro Alberto is on the ways now and the plant is assembled onshore
These are long-term contracts that can take on a life of their own. There reports of delays which aren’t unexpected, too early to tell but the latest expectation is EIS around 2034.
@ Frank
Don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not but you are probably closer than you think in this post.
‘BOTH the A320 series and the 737 series are dead end airplanes.’
Like Orwell said – some pigs are more equal than other pigs. Granted, you are the engineering expert, but as I understand it from my guy up the road, the Airbus lineup of the near future is going to be:
A220-100, A220-300, A220-500, A321Neo, A321LR, A321XLR
Taking advantage of the newer design of the A220 and the up-guage shift from the A320 to the A321 (Airbus has 4,400 A321Neo orders and BA has about 1,000).
—————————————————-
But here’s the thing;
The ball is solidly in Boeing’s court and to change things, it’s incumbent upon them to make the next move. Let’s just say, for whatever reason, BA & AB do absolutely nothing. BA has a lack of capital and has to fix it’s balance sheet and AB likes the way things are, so they’ll just work on getting production to 75 a month and bolstering their financial position.
What are airlines (outside of China) going to do?
C919 isn’t going to be certified for service outside of China. Russian has nothing. Embraer doesn’t have the $20 billion required to launch a competing product – even so, what engine would they put on it? Your choices are either the Max or the Neo for your NB needs. Airbus isn’t even going to make a A220-500; you can have a -300, but then you gotta order an A320Neo.
There are tons of A320CEO family aircraft and tons of 737NG aircraft flying that will need replacing. Here are your choices; Max or Neo.
—————————————
Let’s play conspiracy theory for a minute here.
AB & BA have a combined monopoly on the market. It’s those two or nothing. What if, during the many trade shows they attend, Calhoun and Faury quietly met, alone in a hotel room and decided that there would be no new launches for the next decade or so. They wouldn’t cut each others throat on pricing, bending over backwards to help airlines bank billions, while their companies suffered the consequences. No upsetting the apple cart.
It wouldn’t be the first time back room deals like this have been cut, would it?
Boeing is happy because they really need to get rid of their debt load and get back to making shareholders happy. Airbus is happy because they have a commanding position in the market. All they pledge to do is to get production up, work out the supply side of things and bank money.
Once in awhile they make noises about new technologies and funding needed from governments, but turn around and say the business case isn’t there, sorry.
—————————————-
The world still needs over 30,000+ NB jets over the next 20 years or more than 1,500 a year. Is there a scenario possible where Airbus delivers 1,000 NB’s and Boeing delivers 750 Max’s a year in half a decade or so?
Boeing is happy.
Airbus is happy.
Engine makers are happy.
Lessors are happy.
Oil companies are happy.
Airlines might go on about rising fuel prices and the need for more efficient aircraft – sorry; the business case isn’t there. Here’s what we have…
——————————————
So now you’re no longer in a slash and burn sales war. Sure there’s some back and forth, but Ryanair & SWA were always going to buy Boeing and Easyjet & Indigo were always going to buy Airbus.
All you gotta do is focus on production and make it look like you’re competing with the other guy. That and telling your BoD that you can’t make the business case for a new aircraft launch that’ll cost billions and that they should remember;
(BA HQ)
‘We need to fix our financial position and cannot afford it’
(AB HQ)
‘We don’t need another A380, things are good as they are’
A decade from now neither of them will not be around, they’ll be on some yacht in June in Monaco, watching the F1 race there, wondering when Max Verstappen will retire after winning his 15th title…
Why rock the boat? After all, you’re paying $25,000 to park it there. Let the next guy handle it.
williams:
Back in the robber baron days I could see Airbus and Boeing cutting a deal but I don’t see it happening in today’s world
As for the C919, China will sell a few to beholden countries that don’t require a internationally recognized certificate (or simply ignore whats on their books) – they will make a big deal out of it.
But countries that do require the internationally recognized certification will not let them fly into their airspace so it would be in country or to and from China (adjacent countries that fit that mold).
That is why its laughable that Ryanair would buy a C919.
or countries that need Chinese financing for their aircraft purchases This goes along with China “New Silk Road” or One Belt One Road strategy (China has already spent an estimated $1 trillion on such efforts) so these countries are leading contenders for the C919 and ARJ21 (147 countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population and 40 percent of global GDP—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so.)
OMG how about the so called “internationally recognized certification” fig leaf?? 😂
China-made C919 lands in Hong Kong in maiden flight outside mainland, viewed as future Boeing competitor
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/china-made-c919-lands-hong-kong-maiden-flight-mainland-viewed-future-boeing-competitor
COMAC C919 and ARJ21 arrived at HKIA.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBIDcPYaQAAI34b?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBHs7hBboAA4YD4?format=jpg&name=large
@williams
Although I hate to delve into conspiracy theories, I will say that it is plausible that AB & BA have ‘an understanding’ and it stands to reason. They are more alike then perhaps some might like to admit:
– They are both publicly traded
– They are both bound by US/Euro rules and laws
– The both have to deal with unions
– They both get played for pricing by airlines
– They both have had their fair share of failures
– They both are expected to perform for their shareholders
– They both have to deal with regulators
– They both have customers they really, really dislike
Just to highlight a few things. You telling me that those two guys, alone in a room, even if they disliked each other, couldn’t find common ground?
“Hey – did you here what so&so over at airline XZY said?”
“Yah – he’s an idiot. You like him?”
“I dread having to pick up the phone when he calls.”
“Me too.”
How long before the conversation becomes:
“What do you think about those guys out East? You think they’re going to cause us trouble?”
Because those guys in the East share none of the burdens that these two do – as long as their aircraft is made for domestic service. They might be way behind them, in the rearview mirror – both both guys know that it was once the same thing between them.
Two is company. Three’s a crowd.
(I think you’d have to be a little naïve to not at least countenance the possibility that some sort of arrangement has been made)
Truly funny, I guess the wailing how unfair Boeing was to offer Hawaiian Air a great deal on the 787s!
Airlines Play the Aircraft Mfgs? Wow. How could that possibly happen. Aircraft Mfgs play the airlines?
Airbus puts an assembly plant in China (as well as morphing mfg over to the plant). Hmmmm.
Airbus gets China deal while Boeing is frozen out?
All truly amazing and I await the next exciting chapter in the Hardy Boy book.
‘Industry analyst Scott Hamilton of Leeham.net, who broke news of Boeing’s expected win last month, said Boeing offered aggressive pricing to beat Airbus because it aims “to kill the A330neo program in advance of the potential launch of the Boeing 797.”
BA also won a 787 order from AAL, i wonder did BA make a buck from those 787?
Well Americans want to weaponize trade, they got what they wanted.
Kill the A330neo…not in the short term
A330 36 net orders in 2023 and backlog of 209
per wiki June 2023
never say never for the A330NEO
Brazil’s Azul buys 7 Airbus A330neos to expand overseas flights
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/brazils-azul-buys-seven-a330neo-planes-airbus-expand-routes-2023-12-15/
This was interesting background on the Hawaiian part of Prime.
https://simpleflying.com/amazon-air-airbus-a330-p2f-enters-service-us/
I am impressed that EFW pulled it off. That is harder on an Airbus than Boeing due to the FBW (or in the case of Boeing designing it in from the start)
I am suspect on the conclusion it keep Hawaiian in the freight area as its all for Prime and they need to supply pilots and ops support for that and the 787s. Amazon will keep it split up as they can play off one ops against another.
From Boeing => McDonnell
Boeing deepens strategy cuts as operations take center-stage
“The decision to cut core strategy teams has already drawn criticism from analyst and long-time Boeing skeptic Richard Aboulafia. On Monday, he said this and Pope’s appointment favor the harvesting of past investments over future technologies.
“If it doesn’t have these things, how does it know where it wants to be in five or 10 years?” he said.”
Well the one in charge of BA doesn’t want to know where to be in 10 years. Not Calhoun. Would there be any change after him?? 😏
How likely CFM’s open rotor engine will go ahead? For what aircraft?
Not happening so a mute point
On the Chinese 737NG fleet renewal;
Having a quick look at the fleets of some of the bigger players over there:
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Air-China
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/China-Eastern-Airlines?refresh=1
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/China-Southern-Airlines?refresh=1
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Hainan-Airlines?refresh=1
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Shandong-Airlines?refresh=1
Most of them have 737-800’s that average around 10 years old. Some have 737-700’s that are a little older, but they’re nowhere near Delta aircraft age…
…seems they’ll be OK for a bit.
Boeing to Face Lawsuit in a Spanish Court Over Deadly Crash That Claimed 154 Lives
Just looking over the BA projections for aircraft deliveries needed from 2022 to 2041, the next 20 years:
RJ – 2,120
NB – 30,880
WB- 7,230
FR – 940
Total – 41,170
Per year:
RJ: 106
NB: 1,544
WB: 362
FR: 47
Total: 2,059
———————————————————
In 2018, the banner year before everything,
BA delivered 806 aircraft; 580 NB’s & 226 WB’s.
AB delivered 800 aircraft: 646 NB’s & 154 WB’s.
That’s 1,226 NB’s & 380 WB’s.
——————————————————
In 2022, the first year of the 20 year projection
BA delivered 480 aircraft; 387 NB’s & 93 WB’s.
AB delivered 663 aircraft: 569 NB’s & 94 WB’s.
That’s 956 NB’s & 187 WB’s.
A shortfall of 588 NB’s & 222 WB’s.
——————————————————
In order to meet those projected needs, both OEM’s have to get back to the 2018 output and then out do the 2018 numbers by around 300 more NB’s and another ~30 WB’s & FR’s.
What I am wondering, is if we take the 20 year average as a baseline for demand and magically, say Jan 1st, both AB & BA could start producing at that rate…would airlines really be able to take all those planes as they become available?
Frank, you do need to include Embraer, COMAC and even Irkut into the deliveries. Granted, the latter two are only just beginning to come on line and there are all kinds of issues involved. I don’t know where Boeing places the E195E2, but by capacity it’s a mainline jet at the lower end. And, yes, its E2 deliveries are still low, but orders are picking up.
Frank
The Superjet will all Russian components (no imported parts) is in flight test), at best 1.5 a month rate in the future (e.g. 2027). TU-214 is a dead program.
MC 21 which is “scheduled” to start delivering in 2025….do not have enough fuselage production equipment on their floor (US sanctions) to only produce about 2 a month (at best) Only 1 of schedule 4 automatic fastening systems is delivered and operational…..nothing is going to changed that with US sanctions on Russia
So at best, 4 a month…48 a year….all for the Russian market
I stand corrected. Production estimates for how many aircraft they will produce;
‘COMAC aims to take a fifth of the global narrowbody market and a third of the Chinese market by 2035.[7] It expects 2,000 sales in the next 20 years’
‘FlightGlobal forecasts 1,209 deliveries: 687 standard and 522 stretched variants, for 85% in China.[36]’
Irkut
‘The initial target market is for 800 airframes in Russia over the next 20 years.[68] The aircraft was denied European certification on March 14, 2022.[69]’
Call it 3,000 aircraft from China and Russia over 20 years, or 150 aircraft a year. However, those numbers won’t be reached for quite some time. Only 3 aircraft are in service, from both OEM’s.
—————————————–
Embraer is a bit of a wild card.
I think Airbus taking over the C-Series program was the worst possible scenario for Emb. Left alone at BBD the program might have died. If BA buys it, well…it probably gets bean-countered to the back burner.
Embraer have around 5 years or so, to do something. After that, the Quebec gov’t gets out of the way, Airbus owns the A220 program outright and the A320Neo backlog gets delivered. The A220-500 is a real possibility.
Airbus can do things that BBD simply couldn’t, given it’s size, finances and sales/purchasing power.
Embraer needs a triple digit order from a mainline carrier outside of Brasil for the E2-195 to get recognized as a competitor in that niche. The closest thing they have is Porter, but they are #3 and the new guy on the block, stepping up to the big leagues.
I think it’s also very telling that David Neeleman, the Brasilian born airline guy who started 5 airlines, is currently using the A220 at Breeze and his former baby, Jetblue – has switched from the E Jet to the A220.
Here’s the list of E-Jet operators:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Embraer_E-Jet_operators
Which gives Emb an in to future sales. Once you remove all the Scope Clause E-170/175’s, who’s left to sell the E2-195 to?
Something needs to be done at Embraer, IMO. And quickly.
“COMAC aims to take a fifth of the global narrowbody market and a third of the Chinese market by 2035.[7] It expects 2,000 sales in the next 20 years’
‘FlightGlobal forecasts 1,209 deliveries: 687 standard and 522 stretched variants, for 85% in China.[36]’ ”
Seems both are not current.
Comac C919 production has enough western mfg. equipment and tooling capacity for 4 a month rate. ARJ 21 has two FAL in Shanghai….call that 4 a month
So for the foreseeable future (e.g. 5-10 years)…8 a month…so call it 100 a year….x 20 years…it clicks out to 2k
As I recall at best COMAC can assemble about 1 x C919 a month with a very slow ramp up.
As near as I can tell there are two flying (barely) in commercial service
As for any bloated enterprise, its slow and cumbersome, the goal here is not production numbers but a PR campaign to show the world China has the same stuff on top of the tech chain as everyone else.
All sales are to China Airlines (well imposed take up) and Chinese lease and or financial entities.
They continue to beat on the C929 drum though they don’t have the tech for it so that will take resources from an area they don’t have expertise in anyway (let alone world recognized certification)
Wow, may be our poster should know more about “China Airlines” before hitting the “post” button. 😳
Regarding propaganda and how far off from reality:
https://twitter.com/JustinTLogan/status/1734967125108826544
Not repeating the same “internationally recognized certification” talking point anymore??
Anyway, it was declared China is not buying aircraft!
According to Barron’s, BA forecasts: travel demand in North America growing at about 4% a year on average; OTOH BA sees commercial air travel in China growing more than 11% a year on average for 20 years.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/faa-to-require-737ng-nacelle-modifications-in-response-to-deadly-2018-cfm56-engine-failure/156169.article
“The FAA’s proposals would require airlines to replace fan-cowl hinge fittings and inlet cowl fasteners, and replace or modify “radial restraint” assemblies and exhaust nozzles. The FAA also proposes requiring airlines to change maintenance programmes.
“Boeing shifts policy, wants all employees back in the office full time As engineers and business operations staff lose the perk of days without commutes and an easier work-life balance, a thin silver lining of the dark pandemic era is dissolving.
https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status/1734954376392032369
‘The kicker on this story is a good one: “I’ll come in 5 days a week when [Boeing CEO] Dave [Calhoun] does,” the employee posted.
https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/1735022202771177850
Dave is special.
RTX CEO Greg Hayes plans to step down from the aerospace defense giant in May
https://twitter.com/business/status/1735426447043354694
How fast the 767 can be re-engined once the board make a decision? The MAX took about 5.5 years from program launch to certification. Does it mean the production has to pause? Plus a year or two of low rate production?
Pedro:
It seems you like to answer your own questions!
Now sure how much lower than 2 a month or so the current build rate. Actually a tad more but it up and down with 2 for the USAF and KC-46A conversion and one for freight.
So in theory the deadline is the end of 2027. USAF obvious does not care nor are they going to change engines on the KC-46A.
And throw in how many builds after 2027 and is a 787-F the better move?
After all we need to extend that accounting block.
From 2004 to 2010, BA delivered barely a dozen 767 or so each year.
“Turkish Airlines with the Friday splash: firm orders for 220 Airbus aircraft + options.
 150 A321neo
 50 A350-900
 15 A350-1000
 5 A350F
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1735688322956009900
simple flying article
https://simpleflying.com/turkish-airlines-orders-220-airbus-twinjets/
Bloomberg:
“[Turkish] airline is buying 60 A350-900 long-range jets and has purchase rights for 20 more, as well as 15 of the larger A350-1000 models, it said. Turkish also placed an order for 150 A321neo aircraft, with the possibility of a 100-unit top-up.”
more info
“Turkish Airlines pulled the trigger on its long-anticipated aircraft order, opting for 220 Airbus planes. The order could reach as many as 345 planes if all purchase rights are ultimately exercised. It includes both widebody A350s for overseas routes, and narrowbody A32neos for shorter-haul journeys.
On two separate occasions earlier this year, Turkish announced orders for 14 A350-900s, planes that compete roughly in the same size category as Boeing’s 787-9. The new order includes an additional 50 A350-900s, with purchase rights for another 20.
In addition, Turkish will take 15 A350-1000s, which are larger than the -900s. It added five (or 10 with purchase rights) A350 freighters. The A321 order, meanwhile, involves 150 firm units, with purchase rights for another 10”
so what does the 5 A350F say for future cargo operations at Turkish Airlines
Long in the tooth is 777-200F and 747-400F (A330-200)
from Yahoo news
“Turkish Airlines is a combination carrier that moves cargo with passenger aircraft and dedicated freighters. It is the seventh-largest cargo airline by traffic carried, according to figures from the International Air Transport Association. The freighter fleet consists of eight Boeing 777-200s, 10 A330-200s and six leased aircraft, including two Boeing 747-400s.
Turkish officials have openly talked this year about plans for major cargo expansion. In 2021, the company opened a mega-cargo terminal at Istanbul Airport.
Airbus did not give a delivery timeline for Turkish Airlines’ A350 freighters. It has previously said the aircraft, which is currently under development, will reach the first customer in 2026. Boeing is targeting 2027 for first delivery of the 777-8.
The A350F features the largest main deck cargo door. More than 70% of the airframe is made of advanced materials. Airbus claims the lighter airframe and efficient Rolls Royce engines produce a 20% advantage in fuel burn and CO2 emissions over the Boeing 777.
another source
“Turkish has not, to Boeing’s disappointment, ordered any 777Xs thus far.” No 777 in Boeing’s backlog
“Time to go home! @Qantas ’ first @Airbus A220 is en route to Sydney via Vancouver, Honolulu, and Nadi.
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1736064337511334032
“This weekend we welcome back VH-OQK – ‘John/Reginald Duigan’, after heavy maintenance in Dresden.
It will return to Australia following one of the longest flights ever flown by an @Airbus A380, which will equate to just over 16,000km.
https://twitter.com/Qantas/status/1735957311775203541
What’s Going On With The Boeing 777X?! by Mentour Now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyJFnPWe-gs
“Turkish Airlines will be able to operate five times more flights in and out of Australia than it previously could …
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-18/king-approves-turkish-airways-expansion-after-qatar-rejection/103243376
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/orders-for-freighter-aircraft-slow-to-a-trickle