Pontifications: Pope, the enigma

Editor’s Note: This is the final week of 2023 scheduled publications for LNA. Our usual posts this week will appear on Thursday and Friday. Then we’re taking the Christmas-New Year’s week off and will resume posting on Jan. 2, 2024, provided there is no breaking news of importance during the holidays.

Dec. 19, 2023, © Leeham News: Naming Stephanie Pope to the new position of EVP and COO of The Boeing Co. raises more questions than it answers.

By Scott Hamilton

Stephanie Pope. Credit: Pope’s Linkedin.

Pope was CEO of Boeing Global Services, the only company unit currently making a consistent profit. She was named to the new corporate-level post on Dec. 11. She immediately became the favorite to succeed president and CEO David Calhoun. Calhoun, 66, was given an extension of up to five years from Boeing’s mandatory retirement age of 65. Some press reports suggested Calhoun may retire in the next year or two.

Stan Deal, the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and Brian West, the corporate CFO, were said to have been in contention for Calhoun’s job. But Deal, who is also an EVP of The Boeing Co., is 59. At this age, any elevation to corporate CEO was a long shot at best. Calhoun brought West into the CFO position in August 2021. He’s 54, which could have given him 10 years as CEO if Calhoun steps down next year. Pope, at age 51, has four years to age 55 and then 10 years to be CEO.

In four years, Calhoun will be 70—the outside age the Board of Directors gave him with the extension.

Why Is all this timeline business relevant? Here’s why.

Calhoun’s leadership and legacy

Calhoun was thrust into the presidency and CEO slot in December 2019 when the Board fired then-CEO Dennis Muilenburg. Muilenburg in the view of many mishandled the 737 MAX grounding crisis, relations with the Federal Aviation Administration, and customers affected by the grounding. Calhoun, who had been on the Board since 2009, had been named chairman in October 2019 when the Board stripped Muilenburg of his chairman’s title.

Calhoun took office in January 2020. In addition to the MAX crisis, certification of the 777X was delayed, caught in the negative halo effect of the MAX. Then, in March, the COVID-19 virus exploded into a global pandemic. Airlines across the world all but shut down. Boeing’s remaining widebody business all but dried up. Boeing’s very existence was threatened.

Calhoun killed the development of the New Midmarket Airplane and the joint venture with Embraer. Say what you will about the strategic wisdom of these moves, but given Boeing’s cratering financial condition at the time, the moves made tactical sense.

Today, Calhoun advocates a “green” airplane vs a conventional NMA. Boeing has a contract with NASA to convert a Boeing MD-90 into a truss brace wing (TBW) demonstrator. The TBW potentially can provide a 9%-12% aerodynamic economic improvement vs today’s conventional design. (LNA’s initial analysis concludes there is a 9% improvement.) Coupled with the CFM RISE Open Fan engine now in development, a TBW/Open Fan combination could reduce fuel consumption and emissions by 20% or more. Calhoun believes the next new airplane needs to reduce fuel consumption by 20% to 30%.

The Open Fan service target is 2035. Calhoun says Boeing will introduce its next new airplane by the middle of the next decade. The timing fits.

Turning 70

Twenty thirty-five also fits Calhoun’s age 70 timing. A new airplane program in recent decades takes about seven years from launch to entry into service. A 2035 EIS for the Next Boeing Airplane (NBA) means the program launch is about 2028. This is also the year the MD-90 TBW demonstrator is supposed to first fly.

Calhoun turns 70 in April 2028. It’s certainly possible Calhoun could announce Authority to Offer (ATO) the TBW in 2027. This “green,” advanced airplane could be Calhoun’s last hurrah—and his legacy. He saved Boeing. He launched a new generation of advanced, eco-friendly airplanes.

In 2028, Pope will be 55. Does she assume Calhoun’s position when he turns 70 or before? Outsiders certainly don’t know and even insiders may not know. What promises have been made are entirely between Calhoun, Pope, and the Board. Regardless, Pope has to prove she’s up to the job of EVP and COO. And there is no information to indicate what Pope’s personal views are on a TBW and its feasibility.

This is where more questions arise than answers.

Pope’s background

Pope is an MBA and has a finance career. This background already causes groans among those I’ve talked to. These people point to the history of Boeing’s emphasis on finance and MBA leadership since the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas. Will Pope emphasize shareholder value, a mantra since the merger, or balance stock buybacks and dividends with new product development?

Before becoming president and CEO of Boeing Global Services, she was CFO for slightly more than two years at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. She previously was CFO of BGS. In fact, according to some in the know, Stan Deal was Pope’s mentor and benefactor. She was BGS CFO under Deal and BAC CFO under Deal.

Pope also spent a stint as CFO of Boeing’s Defense unit.

There is nothing I could find in the public that sets Pope apart or reveals her thinking about BCA’s future or even that of The Boeing Co. The only encounter I had with her was at last summer’s Paris Air Show. I asked about the long-studied possibility of BGS entering the 777-300ER freighter conversion market—something Deal announced to me in 2018 when he was CEO of BGS. Pope said there was no business case; three other companies are already in the market. Rather, Boeing will license IP to these firms.

Those I’ve talked to wonder whether Pope has the chops to become CEO of The Boeing Co. Although she was CEO of BGS, one pointed out that coming out of the pandemic, BGS had nowhere to go but up. She didn’t run BCA or BDS. Her views on product development are unknown. She’s an unknown among customers.

The bottom line: customers are wary.

Other contenders

Although there was immediate speculation Pope is in the pole position to succeed Calhoun, there are two members of the Board who have been mentioned to succeed Calhoun: Steven M. Mollenkopf and David Gitlin. Gitlin is chairman of Carrier Global Corp., which was spun off by United Technologies (now Raytheon). He held positions within UT’s aerospace divisions.

Mollenkopf spent years in the C-Suite at Qualcomm and retired in his early 50s. He’s been a Boeing director since 2020. His young age thrust him into the speculative successor arena.

It’s unknown, of course, whether the Gitlin-Mollenkopf speculation is rooted in anything of merit. Regardless, Pope must begin quickly telling the customers, supply chain, and shareholders just what her visions are. Right now, she’s an enigma.

275 Comments on “Pontifications: Pope, the enigma

  1. Her success depends on the team she forms. At this level you allocate top level resources; make sure you have a system to have the right staff in the right positions, make sure your key customers/suppliers are happy & profitable and deliver per contract requirements, make a few key decisions on large contracts/inform the board of directors what big decisions they need to wake up and make.

    • 100%. Exactly. At this level it has nothing to do with whether you know how to build a plane or not. Which many people seem to think it is

      • @Claes & Opus

        Yes and no. Opus, you were close to it when you said this:

        ‘Is if she’s able to respect her workforce I.e engineers and give them the tools they need to do their jobs.’

        A CEO is there for Culture. This is what Hamilton has touched on when he said this:

        ‘Will Pope emphasize shareholder value, a mantra since the merger, or balance stock buybacks and dividends with new product development?’

        Will the culture she fosters be one of a continuation of previous leadership or a return to it’s engineer roots (of which she is not)? She comes from the money side, which has run the company into the ground.

        She will have to go against her own type and education, putting more emphasis on engineering than finance, to turn things around.

        • I fully agree with Frank’s comment. Looks like Boing is about to get Poped, to me; not encouraging news.

          • Tend to think so, but nothing is written in stone and this change is quite off in the future. If one of her degrees had been in engineering… But both are of the bean-counting variety.

        • The board will decide who will be the next CEO, and it’s apparent they are quite satisfied with the current trajectory.

    • Claes:

      While that is true on the surface, having the chops and ability to understand the business and choose those people does depend on background and experience.

      I was hoping for some insight from Scott on the real background but sadly hanging in mid air.

      If I have one take, its this is not Calhouns choice. There may be a clue in that as to where Boeing is going.

      Calhoun has no where near the total control he had before. He was removed as Chairman of the Board.

      At the very least he is under the Chairman and how active the board is can also bring different views to the table.

      • @TW” Calhoun was not “removed as chairman of the Board.” The Board removed Muilenburg as Chairman, keeping him as president and CEO and making Calhoun chairman. When the Board fired Muilenburg, Calhoun was named to his position (president and CEO) and Larry Kellner was named chairman.

        • Scott:

          To be clear that was not a poke at you, just I had hoped to get some better feel of what was going on as clearly that sort of management mess is not my thing.

          Thank you for the clarification, that was a twisted time.

          I continue not to get the various titles, President and CEO? COO? sheese.

          I will stick to valves and such!

          • Not only that , the various Boeing division have the own CEO and Presidents
            Then theres is Boeing Global Services , a division , as well as Boeing Global which operates across all divisions.

            What ever happened to having 3 or 4 deputy Chief Executives to show the real power centers rather than flocks of VPs ?

            ‘The heads of Boeing’s three divisions—commercial, defense and services—will report to her, as will the Boeing chief engineer and head of Boeing Global. ” Aviation Week

      • We don’t know what team she will assemble and how the resources will be allocated. It is essential for Boeing to prepare the whole organisation to run more efficient, safe and profitable. Then comes the 737 replacement as how the organisation shall do that. The wing/engine development they get help from NASA and the X66-A/B program, but lots of work is needed for efficient robotic build of its successor and Boeing must have their own skill and not be totally dependent on Electroimpact to pull it off. You cannot produce a “Chevy Caprice with new dashboard” forever…

        • I thought Boeing went to court, or was it lobbied congress very hard, to avoid having to fit a new dashboard? 😂

    • Calhoun and the other power brokers would not allow anyone within a stone’s throw of the C-suites who does not prioritize short term “shareholder value” over everything else.
      If the Max disaster could not loosen this cliques grip on power, nothing will.

  2. Just out of curiosity,have any US politicians used this time of plenty to suggest to US airlines that they might build up a rainy day fund?

  3. All I know is those that have worked with Pope have nothing but good things to say about her which is few and far between for a lot of leaders at Boeing.

    Popes qualifications or training won’t be the determinant of if she’s a good leader for Boeing. Is if she’s able to respect her workforce I.e engineers and give them the tools they need to do their jobs.

    I’m surprised customers are wary seeing as she’s been running BGS for almost two years?

    I remember talk of Stan deal being well known by customers BECAUSE he was CEO of BGS, so I don’t see why this won’t apply.

    She was also CFO of BCA for almost two years particularly deep during the max crisis/covid and 787 delivery issues, especially when contracts would’ve had to be renegotiated so I’m not necessarily sure I buy the idea that she’s unknown amongst customers.

    I’m quite hopeful, at least let a woman have a go. The men have all taken turns at running it to the ground

  4. @Scott H


    ‘Calhoun killed the development of the New Midmarket Airplane and the joint venture with Bombardier. ‘

    Wasn’t the JV with Embraer? Or was there another thing going on?

  5. RTX, not Raytheon.

    this was another case of an MBA driven company buying an engineer driven company with the engineer driven company’s own money, just like McBoeing, Raytheon is now RTX. effectively UTC bought Raytheon and kept Raytheon’s name just long enough to assuage egos.

    when the “merger of equals” happened, UTC (minus Carrier) had ~26B annual revenue and ~24B of debt. Raytheon had ~24B of revenue and ~4B of debt. somehow UTC came out with 56% of the joint company shares, the large majority of the board & the CEO/Executive position. the Raytheon CEO got a 2 year fixed, non-extendable, non-executive chairmanship of the board and a $200M platinum parachute.

    at the time of the merger, Raytheon’s 4 business units were combined into 2 (eliminating ~40% of Raytheon upper management with buyouts), and just recently they combined the 2 Raytheon business units into 1, cherry picked some programs to give to the Collins unit, and eliminated ~half the remaining legacy Raytheon senior management. Legacy UTC Directors and VPs have been taking many open senior “Raytheon” roles, while very few senior legacy Raytheon managers have gotten UTC roles.

    • Thanks for the summary. All I know is I bought a good chunk of UTX before the merger and all 3 companies that have come out of the merger have done very well. Very good merger and spinoffs for stockholders.

  6. Will she join in the groupthink that has dominated Boeing strategy for the last 15 years?

    Plotting past success on the future and underestimating competitors and customers.

    Reaping short term benefits, living by communicating half truths at the cost of future capability.

    • @keesje

      Good question! I think the answer is Pope is tried and true Boeing, finance MBA one must know that you better tow the line even if you don’t agree with the financial decisions made.
      Group think = get ahead!
      She’s mentored by Deal, now being mentored by Calhoun. I’m sure she’s in the group think, which by the way started with the Condit deal in ‘97. This is why Boeing doesn’t bring in fresh blood from outside the company. Heavens can’t have someone with new ideas and disagree and say no.
      Play along/get along.

      This newly created position of COO is baffling to me. Calhoun killed the corporate strategy department back in November, which IMHO was a huge mistake. They dumped long time leader Marc Allen who did a good job. This department melds the ideas from throughout the enterprise. Makes no sense.
      You can read about it here in Richard Aboulafia monthly letter here, it’s excellent:


  7. For Pope, she needs to address the loss of engineering tribal knowledge (maybe time to revisit Embraer “strategy”) on launching a new clean sheet commercial aircraft program…its been 20 years since the “7E7”

    Then there is China, what does Boeing have to “give” to get back into the China market (Boeing 20 year forecast -China needing 8,560 new commercial airplanes through 2042). Maybe a 737 FAL or more likely partner ($$$) on new commercial aircraft launch (e.g. maybe complete fuselage tube production (like the Airbus A220 program in Shenyang), maybe the wing production (like the A320 in Xian) along with FAL (like the A320 in Tianjin) in Shanghai for China ordered aircraft) Boeing going to have to go big or go home on this one!

    But cutting strategy personnel, having a financial background, the focus will be on being lean producing profits and cutting debt, but that goes along with Calhoun 100 year program “strategy”

    on another note :Lufthansa orders 80 planes from Boeing and Airbus for $9 billion….good news for the A220 program


  8. Lufthansa Group orderd 80 new aircraft for delivery between 2026 en 2032.

    40 x Airbus A220-300’s, 40 x Boeing 737 MAX 8’s.
    And LH taken options for 20 x A220’s, 60 x MAX’en and 40 x Airbus NEO’s.

    So 737 is back at LH Group. I can understand their long term dual source policy.

    Probably the Max’s with go to Eurowings, Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines or possibly – ITA Airways.

    • And…

      easyJet new deal: 157 Airbus A320neo family jets confirmed


      ‘easyJet has officially placed a firm order for an additional 157 Airbus A320neo Family aircraft, following the green light from its shareholders. This substantial order encompasses 56 A320neo and 101 A321neo planes and also involves the conversion of an existing order for 35 A320neo aircraft into the larger A321neo model. ‘

      So a total of 136 A321Neo’s (35 from a previous order up gauged) and 56 A320’s. It’s all about the A321Neo…

    • At least for me Lufthansa buying MAX is a surprise.

      Is the A320 so back logged that slots even for them hard to get?

      The Reuters piece has it flipped as the GTF is the whole deal on the A220 and more or less half of it on the A320.

  9. Lufthansa Technik normally has a say “guiding” LH aircraft/engine purchases to get full shop capability with all licenses with spares discounts on all popular aircraft/engine types and if they have 4 engines the better.

  10. She perfectly fits the description of someone you put in place when you believe financial reality is finally going to sink into the investment community. In this regard, I’m thinking of Jeffrey Immelt. Hew was an MBA with a gold plated track record and no experience in the areas of GE where the biggest sins had been hidden (power plant generators, turbine motors, and corporate finance). He naively walked right into a trap that had been quite neatly setup for him. Probably the biggest difference is that GE had managed to keep its most awful sins out of the papers up to the time Immelt took over. That has not been the case at Boeing, but at Boeing for some reason that is difficult to fathom, the investment community has been tuning out reality for a decade, in terms of how the negative equity has been valued. Boeing investors know the net equity is a monster negative number. The GE investors did not.

  11. Boeing’s CEO should have a balance between financial execution and engineering product development experiences.

  12. In case anyone is counting, this is the order book for the A320Neo family:

    Type Orders Deliveries Backlog
    A319neo 61 16 45
    A320neo 4,127 1,856 2,271
    A321neo 5,613 1,210 4,403
    A320neo family 9,801 3,092 6,709

    This was as of Nov 2023. By now, with the Avolon, Turkish, and easyJet orders, they are well over 10,000 ordered. The backlog is over 7,000, with 407 ordered in those 3 orders.

  13. File this under ‘A great job to have’

    The Qantas A220 is on it’s way down under. Here’s how it’s getting along:

    16 Dec 2023 Montreal (YMX) Vancouver (YVR) QJE6075 5:28
    17 Dec 2023 Vancouver (YVR) Honolulu (HNL) QJE6075 5:58
    18 Dec 2023 Honolulu (HNL) Nadi (NAN) QJE6075 6:47
    20 Dec 2023 Nadi (NAN) Sydney (SYD) (QJE6076)

    So a couple of lucky pilots are enjoying the beach in Fiji, after spending the previous nights in Hawaii and Vancouver. If only Mirabel could get an A220 built for them every 2 weeks, or so…

    • On Embraer:

      From all of the Lufthansa group

      Austrian Airlines
      Brussels Airlines
      City Airlines
      Discover Airlines
      Lufthansa Cargo
      Lufthansa Regional
      Air Dolomiti
      Lufthansa Cityline
      Swiss International Air Lines
      Edelweiss Air

      Air Dolomiti (19), Cityline (7) and Austrian (17), fly either the E-190/195.

      Cityline is getting A320Neos from Luftansa and giving their Embraers to Air Dolomiti, who will have a total of 28, so it’s down to those two for an order. Unless one of the other airlines takes them on as a new type.

  14. “These people point to the history of Boeing’s emphasis on finance and MBA leadership since the 1997 merger”
    Phillip Condit 1996 to 2003 BE and ME worked in Aerodynamics
    Harry Stonecipher – 1997-2003 had BSc in Physics and started in engineering track positions in Allison Engines and later GE Aviation.Was CEO of McAir before merger
    James McNerny 2005-2015 MBA background
    Dennis Muilenberg 2015-2019 Aerospace engineering quals
    David L. Calhoun 2020- Accounting Finance background

    Only 1 CEO of Boeing – excluding current- had a finance background since the merger. The other 3 were engineers.
    The legendary Bill Allen 1945-68, who led through the 707, 747, 727 737 era was a lawyer

    • Also on Condit;

      ‘He earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley in 1963, a master’s degree in aeronautical engineering from Princeton University in 1965, a Master’s in Management from the Sloan Fellows program of the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1975, and a PhD in engineering from the Tokyo University of Science.[2] (He is the first Westerner to earn such a degree from that institution.)’

      But your point is well taken. Corrupted by the system, these engineers? Or is it just that hard to change a company’s culture, once it is on that path?

      • Just a note Condit PhD is more of honorary The “dissertation” just a complication of engineering notes (e.g. which precursor to the 7e7)

        Before you shoot the messenger, I have a copy of it

        • Yes. But to pinprick some more it wasnt a PhD which has always required original research.
          It was a Doctorate In Engineering which is different and is based on the body of professional work
          My old university awards them too , almost always for existing Engineering professors and their higher standard published work. Doctorate of Science degrees are awarded similarly. I understand its a part of the ‘British’ system too

          “Condit’s pursuit of the doctorate degree began in 1990, when Condit was general manager of the Boeing 777 Division. Condit was approached with the idea by Dr. James Seferis, director of Polymeric Composites Laboratory, University of Washington, who was intrigued with opening this Paper Doctorate System to others outside Japan.

          Over the next five years, Condit compiled a 342-page thesis entitled “Technology Applications in the Design of Commercial Aircraft: From Materials and Processes to Manufacturing and Operations.’

    • The degree gives some indication of the CEO focus, but the real issue is whether the management focus is on engineering and product development, or on sucking all the cash out of the company for dividends and stock buybacks.
      In this there was a clear 180 degree pivot between the pre merger and post merger Boeing.

      • Boeing fooled themselves thinking the 737-800 was way better than the A320ceo and the A320neo was just getting close to the 737-800 until AA told them it was not so. That order put Boeing into panic mode. One can wonder how they could fool themselves to get into that situation and also not develop a 757 sucessor when the A321 with winglets got very close, then the A321neo made its killing. They had plenty chances and projects but they did not push the button and spent the money. They knew from the 777 it probably cost more than what prel design calculated and the 787 verified it.

  15. I have zero special knowledge but am skeptical of both the RISE engine and the TBW design and if not, ultimately, of their desirability/acceptability then of the timeline. Almost everything it seems in the aviation world takes longer than it is expected (hoped?) to.

    I’d bet on the greater success of a more conventional narrowbody with ultra-fan geared engines (+/- 15/1 bypass ratio) and an advanced composite wing with folding tips to get a higher aspect ratio. Maybe they have such an idea on the back burner.

    Boeing would have to do this as a clean sheet design. Airbus could probably get much of the benefit (presumably less expensively) with a further reworked 320 series aircraft.

    • Calhoun as stated the TBW if viable will come out with a jet engine and then shift to RISE if its viable (or words to that affect).

      Granted Calhoun will be gone but P&W is working on the TBW test article (As is Collins )

      P&W has stated they have designs ready to go that incorporate the learning they have done on the current GTF – RR is also saying they can do a single aisle engine off the Ultra.

      • I dont know of any additional tech Pratt is putting into its engine for the TBW Nasa project. It would increase the technology risk, raise the costs and there is only a relatively limited test flight program to research the wing characteristics and the FBW systems which smooth out the less desirable narrow aspect thin wing features.
        A different engine can be added any time … hence the re-reengining’s that have been common from the early days of jets . The Comet first flew with a DH Ghost jet engine before changing to a RR Avon.

    • Good comment, DF. I’d bet dollars to donuts that the next new aircraft from
      anyone looks much like present-day aircraft. TTBW will not happen, esp not
      in the timeframe mentioned above (2028 demonstrator flights / 2035 EIS).

      Let’s first see when Boing can finally get the MAX-7, MAX-10, and 777-X into service.

    • The TBW is mainly a wing technology test aircraft. Everybody want a super efficient narrow wing with with active flutter control and that is what the TBW is pushing. Once they have the data and the safety systems OK’d by EASA/FAA the technology will move to a new aircraft design. For efficiency the wings and its engines are the major contributors. The rest is mainly systems engineering and cost optimization.

  16. Jeez, still?

    ARLINGTON, Virginia (Reuters) – The Federal Aviation Administration has no “specific timetable” to certify the Boeing 737 MAX 7, the agency’s top official told Reuters on Tuesday.

    FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker said the agency will certify the smallest variant of the best-selling MAX when “we have all the data that we need and it is safe.”

    Whitaker added that he is making sure he is getting briefed “on status, to understand the issues that are arising in that process” on the MAX 7 and other projects.

    Whitaker said “the issues are being worked and that will continue.” Boeing has said previously it expects MAX 7 certification by the end of this year.

    • Confidence-inspiring, no? No.

      So we can expect the 737 MAX-10 possibly before the end of this decade?

      • Remember the big news not that long ago: the certification of the MAX 7 is on track and could come “as soon as” blah blah blah “according to sources”?

        How excited our posters were!

        • I wonder what Southwest is thinking about now.
          “We Luvz Boing”, maybe?

          When you look at the whole big picture of that dismal
          company, the CEO-talk is but a distracting sideshow. To get into the game they’re gonna
          need to start with treating their employees (not “laborers” or “workers”) and suppliers
          with respect and fair compensation- on time.
          That’s where to start, not that Boing will do it.

          • The Max 7 is more of a reality than Airbus on SWA property. And you know it

          • @williams

            You are right. I was referring to the continued promises regarding aircraft certification.

            On the LUV thing;

            The A220 serves it’s purpose for them. It matters just how convincing they can be that LUV would order A220’s from Airbus, to hammer down the price.

            Dirty games, I tell you

          • @Frank

            Yeah, SWA played Airbus to get a better price from Boeing. But Airbus is hipped to that game now. I read over the decades, SWA has accumulated quite the A320 models in SWA colors over the years. Would love to see them.

            Airbus as a courtesy will stick pick up the phone, but I am sure they are not getting EasyJet quotes.

          • @williams

            Signs the boss doesn’t like you;

            You are an Airbus sales rep and the accounts you get are SWA, Alaska and Ryanair. Then you are told;

            “Look how big these guys are. Thousands of planes ordered. You just have to work harder…”

          • Better yet, Williams

            Sign the boss REALLY doesn’t like you;
            (and you should start sending out your CV)

            You are given Ryanair, SWA & Alaska. In a miraculous turn of events, in 2024 you manage to sell 100’s of A220’s to SWA, A321Neo’s to Ryanair & Alaska, all at decent margins…

            …and the accounts get taken away from you.

          • The valued customers of the old pre-merger Boeing were the airlines. The valued customers of the new Boeing are the shareholders. Old Boeing focused on getting planes to the airlines on time. New Boeing is focused on getting dividends and buybacks to the customers on time, the airlines can wait.
            I assume that the new Boeing has ceased writing sales contracts with hefty penalties for late delivery. I do not know this, but it is implied by the recent indifference to meeting delivery dates.

      • Which decade?😇😀.

        I remain flabbergasted that supposedly serious airlines “commit” to plane models the certification of which is iffy/doubtful/uncertain and therefore also very doubtful of delivery dates (737 u and 10, 777x etc.).

        The obvious carrot is that B is offering HUMONGUS discounts for the PR win, but also realistically airlines can plan to cancel without penalty (if) (when) – pick your term- B fails to deliver on time, as it is won’t to do. I can see this tactic as valid at LUV where they can default from the MAX. 7 to the 8, but the others?

        In any case, whoever is doing long range capacity projections at the airlines in question better have a large bottle of Tylenol handy!

  17. The 737-7 was launched in 2011, stretched in 2016 with EIS Q2 2019, rolled out early 2018 and since then, the time table has become, well, surreal?

    An aircraft OE launches, sells an aircraft and sees EIS 13 years later. Same as Comac ARJ21, but that was a first and has new wings, engines, systems.

    • Boing still has eleven days in 2023 for a 737MAX-7 EIS.
      They’ll make it; I have total confidence in them.

        • I’ll be interested to see if they have certification in 2023 and EIS in 2024 for the 737 MAX-7, then.

      • The FAA does not comment on when things will be done.,

        Boeing seems to think it will be soon, it matters not if its before or after Solstice. So it could be after.

        It alwyas was impossible to tell the string had not broken and daylight was coming back for some days after the event.

    • Keesje
      We do not have viability of the changes to the cert process initiated by congressional meddling after the loss of the MCAS Aircraft. Hanging BA for the delays may not be pointing the fingers in the correct direction. The 777x is in the same boat and word is they have to refly a lot of things already completed. Some day the real story will surface, and the odds are quite high that we haven’t seen it yet

  18. Congrats to Airbus

    Orders Galore: Airbus Celebrates Record-Breaking Year

    Airbus’ A320 family aircraft has seen a record-breaking year with 1,395 orders by November, compared to 857 in the whole of 2022.

    The A321neo is the most in-demand variant, accounting for over two-thirds of orders, thanks to its fuel efficiency and low operating costs.

    To meet the growing demand, Airbus plans to increase production to 75 A320 family aircraft per month by 2026, by doubling its final assembly lines and recruiting 13,000 new employees. (article has map of FAL)


      • About as long as we’ve been hearing about BA having the Max 7 & Max 10 certified. The 777X certified. Production issues native to BA being resolved. Delivery targets missed. Financial profitability that is right around the corner.

        AND….BA going to 50 a month by their date

        Probably about that long.

      • Look at the article (map) FAL A320/321 series final assembly lines being installed in the next year or so. Remind me again, how many 737 FALs in operation by 2026?

        You are right, 75 is not the real number, 100 A320/321/A220 a month is the goal.

        • Absolutely right.

          It’s all going to be decided by the suppliers and if they can increase production to those levels.

          We focus on BA & AB so much, but the engine makers hold the key.

          Mind you – they would have thought of this already and approached those guys and planned this with them, no? Like BA wanting to go to 50 a month…

          …otherwise, PW & Safran would be out there saying “Hang on…we’re not sure we can make that much”

          Can they get up to the 250 engines a month (AB & BA combined)? What have they said?

          • Mums the word.

            But while engines are a key item(s) its the whole supply chain.

            If your AC Pack mfg can’t produce, then its not even a glider (at least engines can be hung at the end).

            Its not what the engine mfg are saying publicly, its what they are committing to in discussion with Airbus and Boeing

            And all items in the supply chain are discussed and have to advance at the build rate or a bit higher.

    • I wonder how close the two companies will come to meeting
      their respective 2023 delivery targets. Last time I checked
      Airbus was right on target, or very close. Not sure about
      those other guys from WDC..

      • Like usual, there will be a mad flurry to get aircraft out the door, overtime for everyone, airlines accepting aircraft delivered in Jan for Dec financials, parts and stock run down in inventory…

        …then in the New Year it all becomes a trickle. People go on vacation. The FAL’s have quieted down, lots of guys passing a broom and wiping down machines – looking busy, no more OT, bills get paid and parts slowly start to come in from suppliers, who they themselves have done the same thing. Only the finance guys and gals are working hard, trying to close out 2023.

        Happens every year.

        • The production lines for fuselages and wings are pretty constant over 3-4 month periods and the planes are moved the doors

          Deliveries requires the engines to be added , internal fitout to be complete and the customer to have the finance all lined up.
          This is where the delays happen . Not the FALS at all.

          If you ever see a car factory its the same . Theres a storage area for cars ‘completed’ but extra parts to be fitted. This is apart from the making of the complete car which is driveable off assembly line.

      • They definitely close out the year in style. Add this in from Dec:


        EasyJet orders 157 A320neo Aircraft (In addition to upsizing an existing order for 35 A320neo aircraft into the larger A321neo)

        Lufthansa orders 40 Airbus A220s aircraft

        Azul Linhas Aéreas ordered four A330neo aircraft

        Turkish Airlines ordered 220 Airbus aircraft (150 A321’s & 70 A350’s)

        Avolon orders 100 A321neo aircraft

        Cathay Group orders the 6 A350F

        • Definitely impressive. Well earned bonus checks this year.

          The A321NEO today is the 777 of the 90s and there is nothing Boeing can do about it except watch.

          • Agreed. It’s going to carry the company and fund the A220 until it stands on it’s own and the A330Neo (if that program hasn’t covered it capex).

            Right place, right time.

            Now the question is, if you are an OEM…what is the next ‘A321Neo’ market niche? Let’s say you had $20 billion sitting around, collecting dust…which model of plane would you make to duplicate that success?

            Me? I keep it in the bank and earn 5% a year,,,hahaha.

          • If France is funding the A320 replacement , with $1.2 bill committed so far , whats happened with all the vaunted profits for Airbus for its A320/321 series ?

            perhaps some accountant could tell us ?
            Are discounts too deep , is the cash flow going on A220 or A350F and similar development

          • Lol. Propagate myth again. A substantial fund goes to Safran and others to “mature” the engine tech. I wonder why NASA is not interested in a contract with GE for similar research? 🤔

            GE has no interest to invest for the future?

          • @Pedro. GE gets its government money in different ways. Especially to enhace its military and commerical core engines and all the science needed to stay ahead. It often takes 30-40 years of research and testing from the first trails until you have a cost effective product that works in your hand. The CMC ceramics is just one example. The government is more of less constantly supporting that type of work

  19. It is interesting that the Max 10 doesn’t seem to be making substantial inroads into the A321neo market yet, the ratio seems to be 2:1 in favour of the A321neo at least – but then again there’s a similar split, in the opposite direction, with the 787 vs the A350, so perhaps it all averages out in the end! It’s also interesting that Lufthansa’s surprise Boeing order this week was for the 737-max 8 rather than the -10, coming at a time when most carriers seem to be upscaling in a/c size.

    • Just a quick look shows that there are over 5,500 A321Neo’s ordered (not sure how up to date this is and if it includes Avolon, Turkish & easyJet)

      In July 2023, Boeing first revealed the 737 MAX sub-type orders as follows: 2,751 MAX 8 (63%), 810 MAX 10 (19%), 344 MAX 200 (8%), 297 MAX 7 (7%), and 137 MAX 9 (3%).


      Looks like a better than 5 to 1 ratio to me.


      It’s the A330Neo vs the 787 & the A350 vs the 777X.


      In which case you’re talking about some 300 A330’s vs 1,800 787’s or about a 6 to 1 advantage & 450 – 777X’s vs over 1,100 A350’s ordered….a 2 to 1 ratio.

    • Roger:

      Kind of different in comparison as its a limited set of Airlines that fly both the A321NEO and MAX.

      A 321NEO is actually 3 different configurations and the MAX -10 is one.

      An all 737 fleet or an All A320 series fleet is not going to do a mixed buy for a few MAX-10.

      Lufthansa will have selected the MAX version they did based on the routes they plan to put it on and don’t need or want the capacity.

      The MAX-10 allows an all 737 fleet to pick up a larger version if the pax numbers justify it on a route.

      • TW:
        LATAM adds 5 more 787’s to the order books, powered by GENX engines ..OUCH !!!

        • Robert – you’re back.

          Still waiting for an answer about Airbus discounting from you – specifically how you derived ‘mouth watering’ discounts from that article?

          • Greetings to our resident accounting “guru”, and welcome back..
            Your the self proclaimed financial expert here ;
            So tell me, how is it someone can tell us the exact amount Boeing makes on every order, to the last cent,yet says he needs more information in order to do the same for an Airbus order.
            Then you claim you need list prices to come up with a number.
            Okay, Cathay signed a $2.71 billion order for 6 A350f’s at current list prices.
            Even you can do the math and figure out each one is going for.
            Get to work !!

        • @Robert

          ‘So tell me, how is it someone can tell us the exact amount Boeing makes on every order, to the last cent,’

          I’d really like you to quote a post from me, saying this exact thing. I know you’re just trolling, but some poor soul who reads this might actually believe what you’re saying. Some people are very gullible.

          ‘Even you can do the math and figure out each one is going for.
          Get to work !!’

          Enjoy ordering people around, do you?

          But please, just answer the question on how YOU derived ‘mouth watering discounts’ and stop answering questions, with more questions.

          • Passing the buck..
            Face it Frank.
            Your a fraud ,and it’s time someone called you out on that .
            A pity , you claimed it’s a very simple formula..
            I just need Airbus list prices to come up with a number on discounts..
            Yet,I called you out on that and all you can do is parrot a comment.

          • @Robert

            ‘Your a fraud’

            Blessings from the Pope.

            First off – it’s ‘You’re’ as in ‘you are’, not your.

            Secondly – As I’ve said many times, the percent off discount is not for a discreet order, but a series of deliveries, over a period of time.

            Thirdly – financial understanding. Profitability (‘So tell me, how is it someone can tell us the exact amount Boeing makes on every order’) is completely different from percentage off of list price.

            Fourth – How can you determine how much of a discount was received for a delivery period…WHEN THE DELIVERIES DON’T START FOR YEARS?

            Fifth – Yes. I can determine and did in fact, in a previous thread (if you bothered to read it) on how much Airbus was discounting it’s aircraft.

            But we’re still waiting on you to tell us about your theory on mouth watering discounts.

            Great whataboutism….

      • The point I made was based on sheer numbers sold, and on that basis if you compare all types of Max sold versus all types of A32X without breaking down into subtypes the comparison is still unflattering to one side – so far. Equally, though, if we switch to a comparison of suitability to purpose then overall the A32X series is well ahead as the preferred buy. As I pointed out, though, with widebodies it’s a different story – so both sides have the need and opportunity to raise their games!

        • Maybe it’s Airbus who need to make a twin-aisle 767 replacement, and call it an A325? 2-4-2 seating, a reliable GTF, folding CF wing, and… Katie bar the doors! Hoo Boy would that thing sell, and they would then have exactly zero holes in their lineup.

          • True but screw the golden goose called the A321NEO/xlr? A350 sales are just now clicking.

            There is a bean counter in Toulouse spitting out his coffee after reading this

            There is a reason Airbus is not in a hurry or concerned about replacing A330NEO

          • @Vincent & Williams

            I don’t think the business case is there.

            Anything AB does in that regard, BA can do cheaper;

            1) The 767 FAL is already there
            2) The suppliers are already in place
            3) BA has the advantage in folding wingtip tech

            Anything AB does is going to be a clean sheet design – read $20 billion, Boeing can for a lot less, if they do a 767Max. Which means they can price the aircraft less than AB can. They also have a customer base using the current 767’s.

            United migrated to the 787 from the 767. Airlines will have to make do with what is offered from the two OEM’s for now…you either fly the 767 for as long as you can, or you up gauge.

            There have been a total of ~1,400 orders for the 767, including 150 for the KC-46 & 280 for the freighter.

            Is 1,000 pax aircraft enough (and remember, this is from 1982 until today, 40 years or an average of 35 planes a year for all types), with a bunch of different variants (read: added costs to build, test & certify)?

            Even if the market demand has grown, is it a profitable endeavor?

            I think BOTH AB & BA have looked at it and come to the same conclusion.

      • Lufthansa airline wont be using them, they are most likely for its Eurowings LCC. Same goes for the A220 it only going to its City Airlines carrier

    • @Roger

      What are the advantages of the MAX 10, other than price, when compared with the A321neo as UA was forced to order a bunch of A321neo to fulfill its needs?

      • Delta will answer that for you. They gave both the MaX on order and NEO operating.

      • The MAX10 is the most economical aircraft to haul pax between major US cities with long runways.

        • ‘The MAX10 is the most economical aircraft to haul pax between major US cities with long runways.’

          Wow – sounds like that thing is really doing a great job for airlines. Which airlines are using the Max 10 currently to move their pax between major US cities?

          • It is not yet certified and less flexible than the A321neo, still if you don’t need the A321neo range, containers, common pilot rating, FBW, more modern systems and are happy with a narrower and lighter body with +200 seats with a new wing and LEAP-1B engines working pretty well and have the routes and volume of pax, the 737-10 looks to be very profitable.

      • The Air Current previously reported that Delta CEO was eager to place an order with BA, as a political/industrial cover. “The order was not part of a head-to-head competition with Airbus”, i.e. a sole-source contract.

        For Delta, the regular A321neo can carry almost one-third more Comfort Plus passengers which are more valuable to Delta, and a couple more economy seats than the MAX 10. Boeing has to pay for this deficit in lowering prices.

        Right now, Delta’s fleet consists of:
        77 737-800
        163 737-900ER and
        111 757-200
        but has ordered 100 MAX 10 only.

        P.S. In Delta’s press release, the MAX 10 are going to be delivered from 2025. However United has been expecting certification and delivery of the MAX 10 from 2023!

        • If that was true, Delta would order more A321NEOs. Period, end of story. Delta is not a charity. Delta is rumored to be in negotiations for more Airbus WBs, why because for them they are very profitable. Apparently Delta is not concerned about the reaction from Washington DC.

          • 🤣

            but but … good news for BA from the same outlet is more credible? Not all news reports are created equal, some are “more credible” than others depending on they are good news or bad news for BA??

          • Google Translate must not be working again…………………………Where are you going?

      • Pedro.
        The aircraft are dissimilar enough that they are very sensitive to the route segments flown. You cannot say 1 or the other airplane is better absent a hard look art the routes being flown and proposed by the potential customers. Your basic question is so basic that it is meaningless……..

        • Morning Scott C,

          To that point about routes;

          Airlines know exactly what the A321Neo will do, at this point in time (unless you have GTF’s on them, but that is a Pratt problem). I know engineers can get pretty close to modeling what a plane will do in service, but IMO there is no experience like real-world usage, yes?

          Someone made this statement:

          “The MAX10 is the most economical aircraft to haul pax between major US cities with long runways.”

          Which I kinda have a hard time believing and would ask them to get back to me after it’s been in service a couple of three years.


          I know that OEM’s always model conservative so that when the plane reaches service, it is always certain to hit it’s targets. How close were the 767 numbers to actual in flight usage? Sometimes airlines are pleasantly surprised when a plane does significantly better that what is promised, no?

        • Let’s see how airlines pick which aircraft since you believe they would probably know a lot better:

          For the market of MAX 10 & A321neo, is it split evenly 50/50 or more one-sided in favor of the A321neo?

  20. Nice for some as the state aid subsidy ‘train’ continues on track

    ‘In June 2023, Airbus Group CEO Guillaume Faury opened a second avenue for Airbus. He told Aviation Week that work had begun on a more conventional successor for the A320-neo family, a project known internally as eAction.’
    ‘France has committed €300 million ($330 million) to research and development support per year in 2024-27


      • Frank P:

        Then Germany throws in 300 million+, the UK throws in 300 million+, Spain throws in 100 million+.

        That does not count the various European state supplied infrastructure as well as several so called clean air funding’s.

        Boeing at least has to ante up for the NASA money.

        • Transworld.

          Airbus fans get very touchy about state aid. You see a lot of the fans weren’t around in the 70s and 80s when Airbus was receiving aid and doing what they claim Boeing is doing now. Giving airplanes away below cost.

          • The thing is, Boeing has been getting state aid and subsidies for years and years.

            But hey – if BA can survive with negative margins, go for it.

          • Frank P:

            You need to read the real history.

            The Airbus fans always want to link Boeing to its military programs (and those were gone prior to the MD takeover)

            That said, Airbus makes the A400 and it does not benefit from the tech that went into it. Right.

            The Claim is that Boeing got the B-52 for nothing (using it as an example ). They bid on the project, were deemed the best design and its still flying and being upgraded (engines and avionics). That was not a give away. Argue about the military industrial complex all you want. Did Boeing transfer its knowledge on the B-47 ad B-52 to the 707? Yep.

            Europeans won’t fund defense needs and resent it when we do and a company benefits. Truly twisted. But the Typhoon, the A400 and its engines, That Helicopter people keep dumping, all good, no competition for the bid, all good.

            What occurred was Boeing got side benefits just like Europe did from various contracts. The claim is they were all for Boeing and that is also not true.

            What then happened was Boeing began to realize that the game to Share Buy back was to leverage the States to keep or get facilities (Everett and Charleston).

            So yes, Boeing joined the ugly game and that will continue. They did not get cash hand out from the United States.

            Individually the various Airbus states give them free cash and also give them local breaks in building infrastructure. So they get two benefits.

            The question is why with all its success does Airbus need to put its hand out for cash?

            The Washington State aid was dropped by Boeing, Charleston still is getting breaks for the facility there.

            Ask yourself, what Corporation is not playing that game these days?

      • Is the TTBW a ‘conventional successor to the A320 family’.

        Clue : Its a wing with a novel design …but with an existing 5 abreast fuselage attached and existing tech engines

        nasa reserach results will be available more widely. Good luck with the Airbus ‘eAction ‘ IP
        Plus the budget is $330 mill PER year for 4 years which is $1.32 bill from France alone. plus no suggestions its even ‘repayable’ like the days of yore

        • TBW is not a novel design. It is a design developed by Maurice Hurel in the 50’s.
          It was used in France on the Hurel Dubois twin engined aircraft that was moderately successful, mainly for the systematic photo mapping of the whole country, a low speed exercice!
          There is a lot of data available to Airbus as a result, and also a modern TBW project run by ONERA.

          • Use of a TTBW in a high speed commercial aircraft is a new design.

            Just because Cessna used and still uses struts on a C-172 does not make it a TBW.

        • Duke:

          P&W is going to put a GTF on the aircraft so its a current tech engine.

          • Not a Cesna at all!

            The HD was indeed slow, but also used very high aspect ratio wings – as now being considered in the carious TBW projects.

      • Frank.
        The 425 million is not a subsidy, Its an IRAD contract where the aircraft is delivered to NASA for a flight test program. The data package becomes the property of the US Government and is licensable at minimal costs by anyone wishing access, including Airbus.

    • Lol. Scroll down and read this:
      ‘ The annual €300 million will support “breakthrough technologies including engines,”’

      A substantial amount is going to evaluate readiness of CFM RISE – also benefits BA indirectly. 😂

      • Why is any engine maker getting subsidies, they have their own development programs, seemingly well advanced.

        • There is a name for the close coordination or merger between corporation and state. Starts with “F”. I don’t like it either, and
          it is becoming more prevalent (and obvious!) each day.

          • Thats EU funding stream a different story to the *Airbus airframe * project funded by French government
            “EU-funded project that will support work on the RISE open-rotor demonstrator being conducted by the CFM International joint venture ”
            Glad to help

          • Lol. Let me remind you if you fail to remember:

            Airbus will modify an A380 Superjumbo “to mature and accelerate the development of advanced propulsion technologies, as part of CFM’s Revolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engine (RISE) demonstrator programme”;
            CFM aims this decade to begin flight testing its open-rotor demonstrator with support from Airbus, using an A380.

            It’s more about the demonstration of the CFM RISE. I don’t see how a modified A380 would directly lead to the successor of A320 family. Can you explain your reasoning?


        • NASA’s charter is to fund IRAD programs on an R&D basis to advance the nations air and space technology. Engine programs have been few and far between of late. The last big project was the development of a lead free fuel suitable for GenAv as a universal replacement for 100LL. With Turbine engines reaching limits, NASA decided to launch an IRAD program to try to keep US manufacturers relevant. That’s their charter and purpose.

          • The point is, whatever Safran/GE comes up with will most likely be used by both manufacturers. I bet at this point Airbus and Boeing rather not be tied to a single engine manufacturer, especially as these engine manufacturers will be debuting new unproven tech the next generation.

          • Airbus A320 family has dual engine suppliers, *unlike* Boeing!

          • Yes, I know, how are the PW issues coming along? The point is AGAIN, no manufacturer will want to be held hostage to one engine manufacturer. With new engine tech debuting, one does not want to be at risk and tied to one manufacturer.

          • How do you know? Has BA made any announcements, or you can single-handedly dictate what BA is going to do when they finally make up their mind and launch a clean-sheet new aircraft program?

          • You seem to be jonesing for an argument.

            Not me.

            Not today.

          • I think there needs to be a rethink on two engine thing.

            LEAP and GTF are both having their issues, more so GTF but LEAP has had and is still having problems.

            Does engine choice get you anything or are you better off with an mfg that gets a ROI and puts money into its engine and not try to get by on the cheap

            Just a thought. I don’t claim to have the answers

          • Airbus has dual engine suppliers because… SAFRAN is half of CFM

            Pratts engine has MTU in Germany as a major share , not equal like GE and Safran but still high.

          • @TW

            Imagine the A320neo family only has one engine supplier: P&W; or the A350/A330neo have dual engine suppliers.

          • If Safran was involved in widebody engines with GE , then Airbus would ‘want’ them onboard alongside RR.

    • The pilots still need to approve the contract. It is good news for the pilots tho.

    • The Geopolitical mess has thawed and both sides are now saving face trying to play nice.

      I hope they don’t put a FAL over there.

          • Pedro:

            Well it seems the so called outdated tech works just fine and is equal to the latest whiz bang Airbus tech (or what they have put into the A320 series, its getting pretty dated as well)

            Not that I blame Airbus, they got more orders than they can fill by 2035 so why change?

          • “Well it seems the so called outdated tech works just fine and is equal to the latest whiz bang Airbus tech”

            Not sure I would agree after a quick glance of the sales and number of backlogs.

            May be like Calhoun, you believe everything of BA is just humming along nicely and Calhoun can spend more time WFH or on the green. 🙂

          • What I was referring to is the 737 MAX is likely to be the last generation of the 737, no headroom for any further derivative development for another generation.

    • To me just more confirmation the Boeing freeze was political despite posts to the contrary.

      Now the question is why? Why normalize now?

  21. Boing got all kinds of “aid” from South Carolina for the 787 move, and busted the union to boot! What’s not to like? (plenty, to me).

    • We can sit here and play naïve when it suits us, but we all know this is SOP for corporations, or do you think Airbus moved Mobile because of the awesome Red Beans and Rice? You want to play the naïve game, go ahead.

      • The location with a sizable harbour helps also. Other companies found out like ST Aerospace in Mobile.

    • Talking about Unions, is anyone concerned about Airbus unions talking like Boeing’s unions and wanting a transformative contract (record pay raises?)

      • williams:

        No, no, no, its the BBQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        I have it on good authority the BBQ in Charleston is heavenly (pun intended) and that is why Boeing picked a city in a swamp (they don’t call it the Low Country for no reason).

  22. Frank P
    December 21, 2023
    @Vincent & Williams

    I don’t think the business case is there.

    Anything AB does in that regard, BA can do cheaper;

    1) The 767 FAL is already there
    2) The suppliers are already in place
    3) BA has the advantage in folding wingtip tech

    Anything AB does is going to be a clean sheet design – read $20 billion, Boeing can for a lot less, if they do a 767Max. Which means they can price the aircraft less than AB can. They also have a customer base using the current 767’s.

    United migrated to the 787 from the 767. Airlines will have to make do with what is offered from the two OEM’s for now…you either fly the 767 for as long as you can, or you up gauge.

    There have been a total of ~1,400 orders for the 767, including 150 for the KC-46 & 280 for the freighter.

    Is 1,000 pax aircraft enough (and remember, this is from 1982 until today, 40 years or an average of 35 planes a year for all types), with a bunch of different variants (read: added costs to build, test & certify)?

    Even if the market demand has grown, is it a profitable endeavor?

    I think BOTH AB & BA have looked at it and come to the same conclusion.

    @ Frank

    The A320XRL is selling well and the Air France order of the A350 shows they have a plan to make it work in place of the A330s. So, as stated, what is the business case? Airlines “want” a lot of things, but will make use of what is presently available. Despite all the talk of MOM, the airlines are making use the present products very effieciently.

    Curious if Scott is hearing something or just an opininon regarding the “767MAX”. If you are going to re-engine, Boeing might as well look at a new wing and prepare this for another 15 year production run.

    • hmmm….let’s look at old mfg. infrastructure for the 767. The fuselage aft (MHI) and wing riveting (Everett) production machines date back to the late 1970’s (still using hydraulic squeezing of rivets). Still using 7075-T73 need to upgrade to AL-LI fuselage and wing The FAL is old technology. Are the suppliers willing to update their mfg. technologies and ramp up production capacity for a 45 year old aircraft? But from Calhoun 100 year program strategy….its in its prime

    • Scott C can explain ‘mission creep’ and the enemy that it is, better than I can.

      If I am understanding the problem (in my limited engineering knowledge), it’s how heavy the new engines are and what effects they have on how much it changes the aircraft.

      Funny – I was always under the assumption that newer materials and a newer engine made it more efficient, but as I understand things, a great deal of economy is derived from a larger bypass – meaning a larger (and heavier) engine.

      Everything has to be beefed up and you also need to stretch the fuselage to get more pax in to increase revenue potential, which is also factored in as a savings.

      So only so much can be done, if you keep the engines the same size as the previous generation.

      • Boeing has huge excess mfg capacity and in that regard they are moving to build 737 in Everett. Maybe move the old NG line for the P-8 and E-7 there (quite a bit of demand for both)

        You won’t see Boeing doing an FAL in China nor I suspect anywhere else though they will play off the US States against each other for facilities.

        • As Scott C, the retired BA engineer told me;

          1) You currently have a 767 FAL line producing aircraft
          2) You want to be able to produce whatever new aircraft you introduce on that line
          3) Any new line would entail billions in tooling, a cost you want to avoid
          4) The quickest way to market is to use whatever you have available, not opening up something new

          • The Everett plant was producing 747 , 767, 787. 2 have gone with 747 ending the the 787 only being produced at Charleston and the low rate 767 unless its re-engined finishing in a few years.

            Plans have a new 737 line being installed at Everett for a ramped up production rate and that still leaves room for an additional new airliner in a 2030s time scale even with 767 staying in production.
            Remember these are FAL which dont include actual production of the major parts and assemblies . Boeing has its own factories and suppliers for that

          • just an updated Everett 767 Wing Riveter line with new machines on the existing track and pit system will be $100 million Boeing has been out of quote for the updated Renton 737 wing riveters (replacement of 1960’s and 1970’s riveters) for over a year.

  23. So if Airbus achieves 75 A320 family a month ( again, depends on the engine makers, why would they invest in more infrastructure?), if my math is correct, that is still a 10 year backlog for the A320 family!

    • Who’s to say it’s an infrastructure problem?

      How many shifts do the engine OEM’s have running? Could the solution be to open up an afternoon or night shift and just get more qualified people in the door to make the things?

      (assuming of course that these people can be found and paid well enough to want them to work there)

      • I am going on the assumption they are running multiple shifts now, since that is less costly than moving dirt.

        • Not for nothing, but I don’t know that any of us have any idea how many shifts or at what capacity those shifts are working at. As well, given that the engine OEM’s went through the same pandemic slowdown/layoffs/stoppages that everyone else did and that the supply of titanium was interrupted (mind you, I couldn’t begin to tell you how much titanium there is an a Leap or a GTF), I don’t know if we could form an opinion on where they are at, manufacturing wise.


          “The supply chain is still struggling to recover from the shock of the pandemic, as well as the other shocks: Ukraine, energy, inflation and labour,” Olivier Andries said during a visit to Morocco to sign a government pact on boosting supply chains.

          “The supply chain was really shaken, and today it has not returned to a normal level,” Andries told reporters. “So for us the question is what is the right speed for the ramp-up. It’s not a question of demand … demand is there.”

          Andries reiterated a preliminary target of 2,000 LEAP engine deliveries in 2024, subject to final discussions with GE ahead of annual forecasts in February.

          “It is already very ambitious given the state of the supply chain today and for me to tell you today that we can do 2,100 or 2,200 in 2024 – no. So we are targeting 2,000.”


          For 2025, Andries said CFM would raise LEAP deliveries but that there was no urgency to agree precise volumes with aircraft manufacturers until around the middle of next year.

          Andries reiterated that CFM was ready to accommodate a return to output reached, or planned, prior to the pandemic: 50 twin-engined narrow-body jets a month at Boeing or 65 at Airbus.

          But he cautioned that planemakers had recently shown a tendency to lower their demand as years progress. He also noted that Airbus had pushed back a target of 75 a month from 2025 to 2026. Airbus has said it is on track towards reaching this goal after missing targets in 2022.

          In a further clue to CFM’s output potential beyond next year, Andries said it continues to base assumptions on a market share of 60% at Airbus, where it competes with Pratt & Whitney (RTX.N), and 100% at Boeing where it is sole 737 supplier.

          Andries declined to give a numerical estimate for 2025, but his production and market share estimates imply deliveries of some 2,200-2,300 engines after allowing for spares output and a few dozen deliveries for the new Chinese Comac C919 jet.


          Nothing about having to build a new plant or expand existing facilities.

          2024…2,000 engines. 1,000 aircraft – call it 900 after taking out China and some spares. If they split 50/50 that mean BA hits 450 Max deliveries and AB has 450 Neo’s. Go 500 Max’s & 400 Neo’s.

          Now add in P&W orders for the Neo.

          • Frank P:

            You need qualified people and those are hard to come by. Its not a matter of pay, if the skills are not taught then you have a deficit.

            Then shift work where your good people don’t want to be there 6pm to 2am and 2am to 8 am.

            And then you start to need more tools and stuff in general as you wear it out faster and a break to get it fixed and or more than required so some can be down.

            All the years of work told me that two pumps was never enough. You needed three if you wanted to be sure one would run (or pretty sure). Why? One would break and then it was all on one pump and until you got the down one fixed, you had no backup.

            ps: Yes you are right about the engines, they get heavier with each generation and more efficient. If they work its great but as we have seen, they don’t work as good as the previous until they are matured (which is why the previous generation engine work now but did not when they were introduced)

          • @Transworld

            The point I was trying to make, was that

            1) We have no idea how many shifts are running
            2) No mention of facility expansion has been made to expand capacity
            3) Capacity expansion may be as simple as increasing staffing, without capex. Tools? Sure. But tools isn’t spending $100’s of millions and months of construction to increase floor space, is it?

            Qualified people tough to come by – sure. So is training a newbie.

            But this is far less difficult that building a new plant FIRST, putting extra machinery in there…then finding qualified people with skills to produce engines.

            Staffing, materials, suppliers…all of these were mentioned. But not plant constraints.

  24. Again,our resident financial expert “FRANK”, is at it again
    How can you determine how much of a discount was received for a delivery period, when the deliveries don’t start for years !!
    Couldn’t agree more FRANK .
    Would you kindly explain how you chopped $30 billion off of the latest Emirates 777 order last month, for an order that deliveries won’t start for years!!
    Well Done !!!

    • @Robert

      If you could please paste the link for the quote, that would be greatly appreciated. I would hate to trust your para-phrasing and understanding of the facts as to something I’ve posted.

      Thanks so much.

      Side note:

      Any details on how you came up with mouth watering discounts?

      • Quite easy Frank..
        I’m sure your capable of scrolling down to November archive Comments at bottom of site..
        Go to Embraer’s 3rd quarter results dated November 6th..
        And find your comment dated November 13, with your “some
        info on Boeing order” lead-in..
        Sound familiar?
        It should , you stated how a 50 billion dollar Emirates order should net them about 20 billion !!
        Any other questions ?

          • The link is in your head . Those bogus numbers were obviously fabricated by you.
            So your in denial now ,?
            Like you never made that comment ..!!
            I’m glad I called you out on that.
            Fortunately,you can’t take away what you stated last month..
            Go ahead ,and see for yourself..

          • Robert L: you can make your point without the accusations. Tone it down.


        • Jeez, not only do you not understand what you are talking about, but you want me to go searching to rebut it. Sigh…

          Yes, I have questions:

          ‘It should , you stated how a 50 billion dollar Emirates order should net them about 20 billion !!’

          Incorrect. This is my statement:

          ‘So Boeing is discounting orders at 61% – ballpark numbers. Could be a point or two more.

          That makes the MEA order worth around $20 billion.

          This is strictly a calculation of what list is and what Boeing is receiving in actual revenue for the models delivered.’


          This is not a ‘net’ number. This is a gross revenue number, based on historical data. Perhaps you should have a quick revue of financial terms before commenting.

          Furthermore, as I posted – the 61% number is derived from PREVIOUS deliveries, none for a specific order. Yet you keep claiming that I can predict order revenues and margins. Falsely.

          The only order that had anything close to it was the SWA account, only because they sold 10 Max’s in a sale/buyback transaction for $41 million a bird and claimed a $7 million profit, per aircraft.


          You said:

          ‘So tell me, how is it someone can tell us the exact amount Boeing makes on every order, to the last cent’

          Please tell me where I said this. A quote with a link would be nice too.


          It’s obvious from the way you interpret things that you have very little education and understanding in financial matters. You conflate terms and then draw wilding incorrect conclusions.

          While you managed to find the quote, you ignored an even clearer depiction of the post a few replies down:

          “All I’m saying is that IF the current trend of prices continues, that BA is giving around a 61% discount off of list.

          Who knows how much each airline pays individually.

          This info is hardly secret and even though we’ve been over the same ground with Williams on it (the individual airline thingie) doesn’t detract from what the numbers are saying.”


          So either two things:

          1) Stop trolling and putting words in other people’s mouths


          2) Learn about the subject matter first or ask questions, before spouting off.

          • Simple question Frank..
            Why can’t you apply that same logic, when an Airbus order is heavily discounted ?
            Is that asking too much ??
            I realize I’m not a regular commenter like some.. I’ve been warned and moving on..I suggest you do the same !!

        • And BTW if you or anyone else have a bone to pick with the methodology, here is the post you are referencing. I will provide everyone here a curtesy that you could not:

          Frank P
          November 13, 2023
          Some info on the Boeing order.

          At LIST prices, here is where they get that $50 billion figure:

          BOEING 777-8 $418.40 35 $14,644.00
          BOEING 777-9 $442.20 55 $24,321.00
          787 order $338.40 35 $11,844.00
          Total ………………. $50,809.00

          I couldn’t find what model of the 787 was sold to Emirates and Fly Dubai, so I plugged in the most expensive.


          What kinda discounting is going on?

          If the past 9 months are any indication, this is where they stand:

          2023 List price 9 months delivery
          BOEING Max 7 $99.70
          BOEING Max 8 $121.60 286 $34,777.60
          BOEING Max 9 $128.90
          BOEING Max 10 $134.90
          BOEING 747 $418.40 1 $418.40
          BOEING 767-300ER $217.90
          BOEING 767-300FR $220.30 17 $3,745.10
          BOEING 777-200ER $306.60
          BOEING 777-200LR $346.90
          BOEING 777-300ER $375.50
          BOEING 777F $352.30 17 $5,989.10
          BOEING 787-8 $248.30 9 $2,234.70
          BOEING 787-9 $292.50 25 $7,312.50
          BOEING 787-10 $338.40 16 $5,414.40

          Total 371 $59,891.80

          Actual Revenue $23,420.00

          % of list 0.39


          So Boeing is discounting orders at 61% – ballpark numbers. Could be a point or two more.

          That makes the MEA order worth around $20 billion.

          This is strictly a calculation of what list is and what Boeing is receiving in actual revenue for the models delivered.


          and the link:


          (mind you, I can see why you wouldn’t want to post it because it directly refutes what you claim…)

        • Simple question Frank..
          Why can’t you apply that same logic, when an Airbus order is heavily discounted ?
          Is that asking too much ??
          I realize I’m not a regular commenter like some.. I’ve been warned and moving on..I suggest you do the same !!


          1) There is a previous post, as I mentioned before, which using the same methodology (revenues received and old list prices) showed that AB is not discounting as heavily as BA. It was awhile back, if you can find it, we can discuss it.

          2) There is a little difficulty as AB no longer provides up to date list prices. Get that for me, for each model they deliver, than I can do the calculation for you. I have already said so. EOY 2023 is coming up. When the numbers come out, I can run them.

          3) Funny. I can’t recall Scott Hamilton warning me. Perhaps that’s because I didn’t call you names and try to run you down. I did ask if you were here trolling, but that seems within bounds.

          Thanks for your suggestion – I’ll take it under advisement.



          ‘Why can’t you apply that same logic, when an Airbus order is heavily discounted ?’

          What leads you to believe that AB is ‘heavily discounting’?

          Have YOU dissected the revenue numbers to determine that or are you just guessing?


          The real meat of the discussion:

          Any comments regarding discounting? Any feedback? Anything wrong with the methodology? Do you feel that a ballpark of $20 billion in Revenue on the order is too severe? Why? What would be your estimate? How did you get there?

          and lastly:

          How did you determine that AB gave away mouth watering discounts?

          If you be so kind.

          • What so.you want to play games with me .
            So you have to get in the last word because someone offended you.
            Obviously ,your childish behavior is worthy of a timeout..
            Just remember the next time you come with a bogus discount number for the next large Boeing order that comes up !
            I’ll be waiting ..

        • ‘Just remember the next time you come with a bogus discount number for the next large Boeing order that comes up !’

          How is it bogus Robert?

          Why can’t you answer any of the questions I’ve asked, yet you continue to go on about my behavior? Scott had to warn you about how you conduct yourself, yet I’m the one who is childish.

          Answer some questions. If my claims are bogus and yours aren’t – how did you get there? How did you determine that Airbus is giving mouth watering discounts?

          You’ve done nothing but attack me, calling me out, calling me a fraud, calling me childish….yet you still provide no insight into how you’ve determined your position.

          So next time another BA order is announced, you’re going to pull the same thing, going on about everything else, but the facts on hand…rinse repeat.

          I’ve pulled the research, corrected your errors and supported my point. Why can’t you do the same?

  25. FEDEX is on a tumble

    (Reuters) -Shares of FedEx sank 11% on Wednesday following dismal results and an outlook that prompted a slew of price-target cuts from Wall Street analysts.

    Quarterly operating income for the air-based Express unit fell 60%, hit by volatile macroeconomic conditions, muted retailer restocking and reduced demand from its largest customer, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The U.S. Post Office has been diverting more packages from higher-margin air services to ground services.

    • Amazon Prime is proving the concern everyone thought it would be for UPS and FEDEX.

      If you are a Boeing or Airbus sales person one better put their best sales presentation in front of Amazon.

      • Williams, I thing Amazon is going to do the Delta thing and get older aircraft (like the 767’s they bought from Air Canada) and fly an older fleet.

        They’re showing a fleet of 86, with 15 older A330P2F’s and 6 to be converted 767’s on order.

        No new aircraft. All operated by contracted partners.


        So I’m not sure here, but I’m an Amazon prime customer. One thing I’ve noticed is that some products you can get fairly quickly, some take some time – even when they are ‘Prime’ products.

        Amazon is not like FEDEX/UPS where you get guaranteed delivery and freight has to fly, to make certain target times.

        I’m thinking if a product is close by, then you can get it quickly. If it isn’t, and you still want it ‘free’ using your prime account, you have to wait. If it’s in North America and can be moved by air to you, great. If not, it’s slow boat to China unless you are willing to pay added charges.

        The customer is told when ordering, when it can be expected. Which is different from the FEDEX/UPS model.

        • Frank P:

          I will add in that I am also a Prime customer. Not because I like it but often I simply can’t get what I need in town.

          Or I have to spend gobs of time calling and trying to track it down.

          Or, oh yea, I need this as I am running an errand and 4 stores latter its, you got to be kidding me, you don’t have THAT?

          So yea, for sure its not a FedEx model. Having been in the heart of the beast I could tell you tales or horror (how do you think they process packages so fast? Yep, they mash them in). The laugh was the phrase, Golden Package, all packages were gold, then they mashed em in.

          Frankly it tells you how rugged computers were they survived that.

          And that does not address the Whack Diverters. Yep, send a package down a line and it needs to go down a certain chute. A diverter does not gently ease out, whack. They could not get pneumatic to move that fast so they build one powered by an electric motor. Fast yes, reliable yes, gentle, oh no.

        • @Frank P

          The A330F Hawaiian operating on behalf of Amazon is just five-year old.

    • D Andrews:

      Interesting. Notice that Juneyao is private? Of course the Chinese government would know about it and accept it.

      And don’t tell Frank P that they call the MAX a cash cow in the article, we know how bad the news is about details.

      • Well, lemme jump in here and help you with something, then:

        cash cow
        /ˈkaSH ˌkou/
        a business, investment, or product that provides a steady income or profit.


        A cash cow is also a reference to a business, product, or asset that, once acquired and paid off, will produce consistent cash flows over its lifespan.


        Is that what’s it been doing? Producing consistent cash flows and profits over it’s life?

        I guess so if they said it, it’s not like the Max cost them some $20+ billion or anything like that, right?

        • @Frank P

          BA is still trying its best to dig out of the hole caused by twin crashes of its “cash cows”.

      • Furthermore, according to Cirium data, “Boeing has delivered 8 777-200LRFs into China this year”.

  26. Air Lease gets insurance settlement for four jets stranded in Russia

    (Reuters) – Air Lease said on Friday it had received about $64.9 million in cash as part of an insurance claim settlement for four Airbus jets it had leased to a Russian carrier, which were blocked from leaving the country after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The settlement amount, received from the Russian insurance firm NSK, covers three A320-200 and one A321-200 aircraft that were leased to S7 Airlines. It does not include the five A321-200neo aircraft previously leased to S7.

    Earlier this year, Ireland-based lessor SMBC Aviation Capital received a cash insurance settlement of $710 million for 16 jets and their engines stranded in Russia.


    Can you say “Insurance Rates to Rise”?

  27. As I understand, the best time to move forward to re-engjne the 767 has past. There’s no business case for freighters only.

    • My guess is that it won’t happen, and Boing will get (yet another) waiver allowing them to continue production as-is.

      • No – they have to make a pax version. Why do it? The line will stay open for KC-46, but why spend billions for a couple hundred orders?

        The pax variant sold over 1,000 units – there’s the bread and butter. Delta wants it and I’m sure others will as well. I’m would bet that United would flip some of the 787’s they ordered into a 767Max if it was offered.

    • Have you read the LNA paywall series on that very topic. I dont think you have.

      When the 737 was re enginned with the CFM56 it was only seen as a relatively small production run at the time . maybe 500 ?

      I think it only makes sense for Boeing as part of the USAF KC-46 production continuing and a freighter for the package flyers. Is that 500 planes at 60 per year over 8-9 years ?
      Never quite understand why the newer efficiency engines have to be so ‘much heavier’ than the replacements

        • “When the 737 was re enginned with the CFM56 it was only seen as a relatively small production run at the time . maybe 500 ?”

          Geez. What’s in BA 2011 CMO NB estimate? 500? What a joke.

          In 2011, BA said it would increase 737 production rate from 38/mth in 2013 to 42/mth in 2014.

          • It was particular to the early 737-200 reengining with the CFM56, the 500 possible orders.
            Its was like the A321XLR, a niche product, with possibly some large discounts
            Even now most A321 sold are low gross weight versions around 82-86 tonnes which cant fly even the max range for the standard type with 95 T

          • When a 737-200 cost between US$4 m (1968) to US$5 m (1972), can we turn back the clock so that you are at least 50-year younger?

          • @Duke

            ‘Even now most A321 sold are low gross weight versions around 82-86 tonnes which cant fly even the max range for the standard type with 95 T’

            Do you have a source for that, with a link?

            I’ve looked around a bit and found some deliveries and they all seem to claim an mtow of 97t;



            I know you said ‘most a321 sold now’…where would you find such info?


          • @Duke

            Having a look at the TCDS for the A321Neo

            A321-271N / -272N / -251N / -252N/ -253N

            The variants start with a Basic Mod #50 with an MTOW of 89,000K and increasing MTOW’s, except for Mod 70, which has an MTOW of 80,000K.

            50 BASIC









            A321-271NX / -272NX / -251NX / -252NX/ -253NX

            Again the MTOW starts with Mod 50 at 89,000K and only increases up to 97,000K (mod 71 & 72) and the only mod with 80,000 MTOW is Mod 70.

            50 BASIC













            There is no Mod with an MTOW of 82-86T and unless you are saying that all sales are of the MTOW Mod 70 with an MTOW of 80,000K….I’m having a hard time believing what you are proposing.

      • @duke and Pedro

        I posed exactly this same question to Bjorn. It’s a function of higher bypass ratio, which means larger fan diameter. That and a more efficient hot section. But then, once you make it heavier, you have to beef structure, which changes all kinds of things.


        On a side tangent:

        If you look at the specifications of the CFM Leap engines supplied to AB & BA:


        You’ll see the Leap 1B for BA has a bypass ratio of 9 to 1, with a fan diameter of 176cm.
        The Leap 1A for AB has a bypass ratio of 11 to 1, with a fan diameter of 198 cm. There’s higher thrust, as well;

        Max. Take-Off thrust 143.05 kN (32,160 lbf) 130.41 kN (29,320 lbf)
        Max. Continuous 140.96 kN (31,690 lbf) 127.62 kN (28,690 lbf)

        You put that engine on an A321Neo, which can squeeze in 240pax and you have a segment killer. BA was undoubted limited by the amount of space they had under the wing, which in turn limited the size of the fan they could use.

        No doubt that if they had the Leap 1A under the wing of a Max 10, the sales ratio might be a little different.


        The lurking threat:


        This is the P&W GTF.

        Fan diameter of 206cm
        Bypass ration of 12.5 to 1
        Takeoff thrust: 30/33G: 33,110 lbf


        …P&W can ever get their sh!t together, at first glance – it looks like it could be really good.

        Once again, not an engineer and I could be completely wrong about all of this. I’m sure there are a whole bunch of factors I am missing. Just pointing it out.

  28. I think everyone is in holiday mood right now.

    AW: “In late May, Boeing SVP development programs and customer support Mike Fleming told reporters the company was “getting close” to certification and anticipates having the MAX 7 variant certified this year.”

    • Let me see, as many have their vacations around this time, the chance that the MAX 7 is certified by y.e. approaches zero.

      • Yes and no. Yes, it is the Holiday season now but both OEM’s are pushing to get as many aircraft out the door as possible, to make targets.

        Mind you, production staffing is different from cert staffing (logically) and while the line people might be hard at work, the people moving piles of paperwork and interfacing with the FAA might be down south, on a beach, already.

        Who knows, maybe the FAA folks have also had their Xmas party and have closed up shop until the New Year, as well.

        You wouldn’t want people to think you were part of the war on Christmas and won’t respect the holidays by working through them, would you? If you showed up in the office, ready to do work, they might call you ‘woke’ and say you are part of cancel culture.

        No no…best to look observant, send best wishes emails to all and make yourself scarce until the new year.

    • People don’t like stats. It only got worse in Dec with Turkish, Avalon & easyJet all placing sizable orders.

  29. Air China plans up to $842 million share placement to buy planes, boost capital

    HONG KONG (Reuters) – Air China plans to raise up to 6.0 billion yuan ($842 million) in a private share sale on the Shanghai Stock Exchange to expand its fleet and replenish working capital, it said on Friday.

    The flagship carrier is aiming to sell up to 854.7 million shares, equivalent to 30% of its existing capital, to its controlling shareholder China National Aviation Holding Corporation Limited, it said in a statement to the Shanghai exchange.

    At the end of November, the group operated a fleet of 900 aircraft, including 386 company-owned aircraft, 215 under financial leases and 299 under operating leases.

    Separately, Air China also said it planned to raise up to HK$2.0 billion ($256 million) via a private placement of H-shares to replenish capital.

    • A little update on deliveries;

      Just had some news from up the road and I’ve been told that the A220 program has hit it’s delivery target of 68 for the year. If they get another 4 out the door, it’ll hit 6 a month.

      • Good job by Airbus! We’ll see how that “niche aircraft” does
        over a bit more time.

  30. Nice work tracking down those A321neo numbers, Frank.

    Why am I again not surprised by our counterfactual, language-challenged friend.

  31. U.S. airlines are starting to defer aircraft? Who (didn’t) see this coming …

  32. Thanks you to all of you that make the forum what it is. I hope the holidays find you in good places. To my Canadian frend Pablo and his lowly manservant Frank, a special shoutout about a classy Canadian Christmas Tradition……. Every Christmas Eve, Canadian Radio broadcasts Frederic Forsyth’s story “The Shepard”. If you can listen to it on the radio, its a fabulous story, especially if you are an airplane guy. They finally made it into a movie. If you can listen to it, its well worth the time.

    Here’s a link about it, I hope the holidays finds you well

    Here’s the radio broadcast

    Heres the movie trailer

    Merry Christmas to all

    Joey and his lowly manservant ScottC

    • Hahahaha,

      To Joey and his porridge making dog cushion, all the best in the holiday season to you and your better half. May the new year be an improvement for you and all of us, over the previous one.

      Health, wealth, happiness and a better 2024 for Neil Robertson, Lance Stroll, the Canadian & US biathlon teams and any North American cyclist in the Tour De France.

      (But in 2023 I am wishing all kinds of bad on your Seattle Seahawks next week as we visit you, with both of us vying for a playoff spot. Nothing personal and the next game you play I will cheerfully root for them again. Just not next week.)

      All the best.


      P.S. Great call on The Shepard

  33. The Wall Street Journal

    Trump Is Primed for a Trade War in a Second Term, Calling for ‘Eye-for-Eye’ Tariffs

    WASHINGTON—Donald Trump upended U.S. trade policy during his first term, launching a tariff war with China and pulling out of trade agreements with close allies from Europe to Japan.

    Be ready for more confrontation if he retakes the White House.

    Trump, who has referred to himself as “Tariff Man,” has been stocking an arsenal of protectionist measures for a potential second term, filled primarily with new levies on imports from China and elsewhere.


    Better thing twice about which was you cast your vote, if you work for Boeing, a supplier or anyone else in the aerospace sector.

      • Until the veggie dip goes bad.

        Give everyone 100 Euro’s and tell them to eat wherever they like. Spread out the risk that way.

  34. A flurry of A220 Deliveries

    In Dec, the Airbus A220 lines had a busy holiday season. The (unofficial) record of delivery flights shows:

    Dec 20 – Breeze (BFM) 55239
    Dec 21 – Breeze (BFM) 55241
    Dec 6 – ITA (YMX) 55248
    Dec 6 – Ibom (YMX) 55250
    Dec 16 – Qantas (YMX) 55253
    Dec 21 – Jetblue (BFM) 55254
    Dec 21 – airBaltic (YMX) 55255
    Dec 19 – Delta (YMX) 55256
    Dec 19 – Jetblue (YMX) 55258
    Dec 21 – Delta (YMX) 55259

    Ten aircraft with 3 from BFM and 7 from YMX.

    Given the Day Shift/Afternoon shift/Midnight shift breakdown of 100%/66 %/33% previously noted – what amounts of overtime were needed to make this level of production? How do they get suppliers to provide them with a glut of parts needed to make that amount?

    • Assembly lines make sure they have in all required parts, subassemblies >6 months ahead, although I doubt they were able to keep this up 2022-2023..

  35. File this under “Things we wouldn’t normally talk about, but because of recent history…”

    Boeing urges 737 MAX inspections for possible loose bolt — FAA

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Thursday airplane maker Boeing is urging airlines to inspect newer 737 MAX airplanes for a possible loose bolt in the rudder control system.

    The FAA said it was “closely monitoring” Boeing 737 MAX targeted inspections and will consider additional action based on any further discovery of loose or missing hardware.

    Boeing recommended inspections after an international operator discovered a bolt with a missing nut while performing routine maintenance on a mechanism in the rudder-control linkage, the FAA said. Boeing discovered an additional undelivered aircraft with a nut not properly tightened, the agency said.

    The FAA said Boeing had issued a message urging operators of newer single-aisle airplanes to inspect specific tie rods that control rudder movement for possible loose hardware.

    • This is how a functioning quality system / NC process should work and apparently does.

      • The airline QC process, right? It wasn’t caught going out the door by the QC team at the OEM.

        • So a root cause analyses is done, corrections are made. Also a root cause analyses is done to determine how this could happen, where the QMS failed. And if there are similar products/ processes that could be affected.

        • 1) According to BA, all it takes is a “visual inspection”?

          “Boeing said the repair involves removing an access panel and visually validating the nuts and bolts.”

          2) CNN:
          -> ‘The Max has faced numerous notices for additional inspections since it returned to service. Boeing says that’s a result of its increased focus on safety, but a missing nut on a crucial system cannot be explained away, noted CNN safety analyst David Soucie.

          “If the airplane left the factory with this missing part, it indicates the past three years of safety culture improvements and improved inspections on critical safety of flight systems at Boeing isn’t working,” Soucie said.’

  36. There’s an article from AW that said LH ordered the 737 MAX in order to have a competition between AB and BA (to ensure LH gets the best deal), isn’t that a slap in the face for airlines like FR or WN?

  37. Boeing 737-7 Might Not Get Its Certification In 2023


    ‘Southwest has recently said that it expects to start operating its first 737-7s in October or November next year. That’s assuming that the aircraft gets its certification by the coming April.

    Boeing expected the FAA to award the 737-7 with its certification before 2024, as we had seen. This estimate had come alongside Boeing’s expectation that 737-10 certification flights would start in 2023, which turned out to be the case.’


    Looks like the Max 7 cert is going to fall into 2024, with 2 days left in the year.

    • 1) We need new definition of words.

      -> “The long-awaited 737-7 certification is on track for year-end at the latest and could come as soon as next month …

      2) WN is better to assess when the 737-7 is certified?

      • Oops.. and be sure to check the loose/missing bolts in the rudder control ass’y; we don’t need another MaxCrash.

  38. The Problem with the Internet:

    Another financial genius on an investing website had this to say about the revenue BCA receives for it Max’s:

    ‘Assuming Boeing successfully fulfills their commitment to increase final assembly to 50 per month by FY25/26 and based on historical financial results indicating an average 737 price of around $75 million, with 60% of cash received upon aircraft delivery, the estimated cash flow impact is $6.5 billion.’


    Based on ‘historical financial results’ – says the individual who has obviously done zero research.



Leave a Reply

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