Boeing releases Executive Summary of FAA plan (Update with FAA comment)

Update: The FAA, responding to a query from LNA about deadlines and milestones, had this to say:

“This is about systemic change, and there’s a lot of work to be done. Boeing must meet milestones and the timing of our decisions will be driven by their ability to do so.  Boeing has delivered a roadmap to change its safety culture, and the FAA will make sure Boeing implements the changes they have outlined. We will not approve production increases beyond the current cap until we’re satisfied they’ve followed through on implementing corrective actions and transforming their safety culture. The FAA will make sure Boeing makes lasting change using all of the tools at our disposal. We need to see a strong and unwavering commitment to safety and quality that endures over time.”

May 30, 2024, © Leeham News: Boeing today released an 11-page executive summary of its plan to the Federal Aviation Administration.

A top-level summary is below.

“A significant component of our Safety & Quality Plan are these six key performance indicators (KPIs) focused on safety, quality and production health,” a spokesperson wrote in an email.

  • Employee proficiency measures share of employees who are deemed proficient in core skills.
  • Notice of Escape (NoE) rework hours measures time performing rework in Boeing’s final assembly facilities to address non-conforming work from its fabrication division and external suppliers.
  • Supplier shortages measures shortages per day from Boeing’s fabrication division and external suppliers.
  • Rework hours per airplane measures time spent performing rework in Boeing’s final assembly facilities.
  • Travelers at factory rollout measures unfinished jobs traveling from Final Assembly
  • Ticketing performance measures quality escapes per ticketed airplane prior to delivery.

Milestones and Deadlines

Nothing either the FAA nor Boeing said indicates milestones or deadlines to complete future objectives. The 11 page Executive Summary is largely a recounting of what’s been done to date and continuing objectives. There are references to internal metrics and measuring points, but no public disclosure (by Boeing or the FAA) for milestones and target dates.

For Boeing to return to full-rate, pre-grounding (ie, February 2019) production rates, and returning to self-certification and confidence in the Organization Designation Authority (ODA), the FAA must be satisfied that all objectives have been met.

LNA asked the FAA and Boeing about milestones, deadlines and duration of this program. As yet, no responses have been received.

The Executive Summary is here: Safety and Quality Plan_Executive Summary 5 30 2024


194 Comments on “Boeing releases Executive Summary of FAA plan (Update with FAA comment)

  1. This is such BS!
    All those highlighted bullet points posted below were all being done when I worked as a delivery manager 14 years ago!
    Eliminate defects? Hell they’ve been saying that for 100 years…. Of course we want zero defects.

    KPI’s is nothing new. Been there done that.
    Nothing’s changed…. Nothing.

    • “Deemed proficient in core skills “
      What am I not understanding here?Surely this is supposed to be everyone not in training
      If this is Boeings idea of a plan,what have they been doing until now?

    • Either those KPIs failed to prevent the current quality problems and Boeing needs new ones. Or Boeing failed to monitor and enforce them, so what are you doing differently now?

      • It does not seem like the production limit has been lifted.

        Not that Boeing can make even 30 a month right now let alone 38.

  2. Stronger action with deadlines are needed by Boeing. They continue to say the right things and never implement any actions that results in improvements. As they say, kicking the can down the road…they are experts at it.

    • I fully expect Boeing to declare Chapter 11 protection now, because they are incapable of changing their way, and the next accident is bound to happen.

      • You guys have been saying this chapter 11 stuff for about 6 years lol

        • Another group of commenters here has been telling us “for about 6 years” that things are improving at Boeing, and that better days are just around the corner (lol).

          I know which group I believe 👌

          • As long as BA can go out and borrow $10 billion to keep the lights on and has access to another $10 billion credit card…it’s gonna be awhile

  3. I’m confident that with this latest top-down directive (and plenty of new acronyms!) Boing will finally have The Situation well under control.

    “NoE..” perfect.

  4. Reading the real cudgel on Boeing is that their production rate is not going up from 38/mo until they meet their milestones. Granted 38 is a pipedream now but at some point it is motivation to get their homework done early if they are harboring delusions of meaningful deliveries the next few years.
    Any increase in delivery rate really ought to be tied to hitting metrics on squawks and travelled work.

  5. One observation are rules when it is enough with an inspector remark on a tag, mechanic sign-off corrective action and production quality stamps after check. This compared with an inspector remark going to production engineering that decides what detailed info they need in an inspection/measurement protocol, then engineering makes a repair scheme work card referencing approved data like the SRM with all tooling, materials and spares needed that production planning collects and assigns a qualified mechanic and inspector to perform/verify work and collects the completed work card for “ships achive”. Most likely this already exists since before WWII.

  6. So, the net outcome of the 90-day deadline has been that Dave/Steph coughed up all the vacuous MBA terms that they could think of, and put them — in no particular order — on a few sheets of paper. After that: back to the golf course!

    Meanwhile, the company is expected to have burned through $8B in cash in H1, with just 27 MAX deliveries in 2 months…but that will just fix itself, right? After all: June is the start of garden party season in The Hamptons, and that’s not to be missed!

  7. I love the bullet point on “Employee Proficiency “.
    Proficiency is generally correlated with experience, and experience is correlated with cost, which these clowns have spent the past 20+ years doing everything in their power to minimize.
    They used the covid shutdown to golden handshake out their most experienced employees. Those that remain are often R3’s on the retention totem.
    This bullet point will become more than hot air the day management actually values and retains experience.
    But what these clowns will actually do is continue to hire the cheapest help possible, then send them all to some inane “training courses” and claim they are now fully proficient….(they must be cause we spent $100m on their “training “!)

  8. The first bullet point of any serious plan to improve safety would be the immediate ejection of anyone who ever managed anything at GE, starting with Calhoun.
    The fact that Calhoun still reigns as CEO and will remain on the board shows they still don’t get it.

  9. Was always wondering where the leftovers from Longacres stables were stored for future use. Must be a spillover from the Welch tank.

  10. I never went to business school, so maybe I’m not qualified to speak to this, but …..

    If supplier deliveries are late, I would rather spend my time upstream with the suppliers, looking at their processes and investing in process improvements that stabilize their delivery rates. …

    If we have rework and travelled work, that might be a good place to sort out why work is being done out of sequence, and then I could invest in process improvements or reallocate resources to address the root causes of work being done out of sequence ….

    I don’t understand “ticketing performance,” since the issue there seems to be quality problems, not ticketing problems. In any case, if quality escapes are the issue, then I would like to know what we could be doing better to improve quality.

    My theme here is managing work, not managing cost – finding out why we have problems, and changing what we are doing so we have fewer problems; even if it requires time and resources.

    What I would NOT do is create and track key performance indicators, which too often are really just signals to discourage reporting problems, gloss over why problems occur, avoid understanding the cause of the problems, and not invest in improved productivity, quality, and performance.

    Of course, if people in charge cannot imagine what the root causes are, and have no lived experience in process improvement, and if the people in charge believe their business is “mature,” and all productivity improvements were already been wrung out years ago, and all you’ve got is management by numbers that can easily be decoupled from the work, then I guess, sure. Do that.

    • @Stan
      As it relates to production you are really hitting the nail on the head. Everything I have read about the Max production was that just about every aircraft was delivered on a variance and with re-work. I am not holding up Boeing as a shining beacon of craftsmanship, but it seems obvious that any quality audit needs to set a mechanism that throttles production when supplier quality is that far out of bounds. Quality loves routine…and this has been a production stream where every aircraft was a unicorn.

      • “.. any quality audit needs to set a mechanism that throttles production when supplier quality is that far out of bounds. ”

        When you have “choked” your suppliers with excessive partnership
        up front ….

        • @Claes
          That is another problem. If squawks are out of control then production really needs to slow. The fact that Boeings supply chain is borderline solvent is another issue completely but it does have a very real effect. Your suppliers are so squeezed that they are incentivized to ship bad product just to get paid.

          • First holiday job I had as a student was instructive.
            The shop I worked for supplied a large mail order entity with sail sets for/and inflatable catamaran boats.
            to my surprise semi complete sets were loaded onto rail cars for delivery _just to avoid paying contractual penalties.
            ( making successful ( as ordered ) delivery even later at vast cost markup.)

            Here and for Boeing the basic contract already seems to be nothing more than churning money with no gain for the supplier.

    • -> One mechanic at the complex, who has worked for Boeing for more than three decades, has claimed it is “full of” faulty 787 jets that need fixing.

      Many of these jets are flown from Boeing’s site in South Carolina, where the company shifted final assembly of the 787 in 2021 in what was characterized as a cost-cutting measure.

      “There is no way in God’s green earth I would want to be a pilot in South Carolina flying those from South Carolina to here,” the mechanic, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, told the Guardian. “Because when they get in here, we’re stripping them apart.”

      Managers at Everett “will hound mechanics” to keep quiet about quality-assurance concerns and potential repairs, the mechanic alleged, emphasizing speed and efficiency over safety. He added: “Boeing has to look in the mirror and say: ‘We’re wrong.’”

      • Gosh, that last paragraph (inter alia) gives a very different impression to the glossy, MBA-esqe story being told by Ms. Pope.
        Quoting from her memo last Thursday:

        “In the months since, we have slowed production to examine every aspect of our airplane production system and develop actions to strengthen our safety management, quality system and safety culture.”

        “Please continue to Speak Up, and we will work the issues and share updates. We will succeed as a team and execute with safety, quality, and compliance in everything we do.”

  11. “no launch today.”

    What??? 😳
    “NASA says the GLS did not load the proper configuration files when the countdown resumed”

    • Looks like McSpace is in a close tie with McTanker for the title of McB’s most hopeless program…

      • I challenge you to find one of the Boeing programs that you can point to (Services don’t count) and say, “Look how great this program is! It’s a production and financial success for the company.”

        Just one…

        • There are none!

          However, the tanker program is particularly painful because of its importance to the main customer — which has been very vocal in expressing its dissatisfaction.

          The space program is similarly painful because of the way in which it continues to constrain NASA’s hands in servicing the ISS.

          Of course, the MAX and 787 are also disastrous programs — but at least they had a (brief) period in which they appeared to be (sort-of) successful…before falling into a pit of woe.

          The company has a Reverse Midas effect on everything…

          • Yes, but I suspect that @Frank P was referring to current programs.

            But even the 747 ended on a sour note (flopped 747-8).

          • 747-8 had a $1 billion write off, when they shut it down.

    • “Just hours after NASA was forced to scrap the Florida launch of the Boeing Starliner for the second time, a Chinese spacecraft landed on the far side of the moon Sunday to collect soil and rock…”

      “The mission is the sixth in the Chang’e moon exploration program, which is named after a Chinese moon goddess. It is the second designed to bring back samples, following the Chang’e 5, which did so from the near side in 2020.”

      “China has put its own space station in orbit and regularly sends crews there.”

    • “What is DOJ going to do about it’?, said Mark Lindquist with Mark Lindquist Law, Aviation and Personal Injury. “They can extend the original deferred prosecution agreement, they can make another plea agreement with Boeing, or they can proceed forward with an enhanced prosecution.”

      “”Though the victim’s families are pleased the Department of Justice determined Boeing violated the deferred prosecution agreement, there was still a lot of frustration in the room. First, victim families would like to see individual executives at Boeing prosecuted, not just the company,” said Lindquist.

      “Lindquist said the DOJ indicated that there are some obstacles to prosecution. Those include a statute of limitations with the crashes happening more than five years ago. Also, potential problems with providing proof in the case. He cited the example of a Boeing employee that was acquitted by a jury in that case.

      “”DOJ looks at the acquittal of Mark Forkner as an example of the risk involved in a trial. Personally, I view Mr. Forkner differently than a top ranked executive. Jurors acquitted Forkner I think, because he looked like a scapegoat,” he said.

      “Lindquist says despite obstacles, the victim’s families feel it’s time to bring down the hammer.

      “”There was a general sense from the victim families that DOJ is not prosecuting this case vigorously enough,” said Lindquist. ”

      Sounds like the DOJ and the FAA have a lot in common when it comes to cushioning Boeing from the consequences of its failings.

      • DOJ is true.

        The FAA has a history and a conflicted mission – that may be changing but like correcting Boeing mfg, it does not happen in a day or a week.

    • Uhhh I believe BA agreed to waive SOL limits as part of the ‘ deferred’ mea culpa agreement.

      Can anyone confirm

      • It did.
        But you can be sure that its lawyers will assert that, if the DPA dies, then so does the SOL waiver.

  12. While McB continues to trip over itself, COMAC steams ahead — 6th C919 delivered:

    “On May 28, China Eastern officially received its sixth COMAC C919 from the manufacturer”

    “According to the new release by COMAC, the seventh C919 is already in the final stage of testing and will be delivered to China Eastern soon. Based on the annual reports of Air China and China Southern, both state-owned airlines will receive their C919s this year. We can speculate that the eighth C919 may be its first delivery to Air China or China Southern.”

    • I’d hardly call delivering a 6th C919 is “steaming ahead.” “Crawling” is more like it.


      • Look at the rate at which Airbus started — and very slowly ramped up — its A350 deliveries.
        Also look at the start-up curve for the 737 Classic.
        And is the current (real) 737 MAX line rate anything to get excited about? Particularly bearing in mind how long BA has been in business compared to COMAC?

        The mean time between C919 deliveries is steadily decreasing. Extrapolate that.

        p.s. Heard any rumors as to when DC is going to ban LEAP-1C deliveries to China? Presumably, that won’t take long.
        That might make an interesting Leeham article — including updates/analysis regarding the CJ-1000 and PD-14 turbofans.

        • A cutting edge carbon fiber widebody vs a previous gen NB is hardly an apt comparison.

          But let’s check the numbers, anyway;

          EIS for the 919 was just over a year ago – so six.

          Airbus had 15 A350’s in service after a year.

          • Don’t forget to include in your comparison the relative experience level of the two companies, maturity of their supply chains, ready supply of engines (or not), etc.

            I remember a time — not so long ago — when the Chinese car industry was dismissed. It’s now just become the largest in the world.

            “It took China 55 years to increase the number of automobile exports from one to 1 million. In 2021, they exceeded 2 million, and in 2023, they reached 4.91 million, approaching 5 million,”


            “BYD, the Shenzhen-based manufacturer, overtook Tesla (TSLA) as the world’s top seller of EVs at the end of last year, crowning an extraordinary rise for the Chinese carmaker”


            Let’s look at C919 production rates again one year from now, and then two, and then three.
            Of course, as alluded to above, the US will try to throttle this by stopping exports of the LEAP-1C…but that, too, will be overcome.

          • @Abalone

            Absolutely. You are correct – given time, things will pick up steam.

            Banning the Leap engine is, as you have mentioned, a rumour. I have another theory;

            Given that the GOP would absolutely hammer Biden if he was to be seen as weak and backing away from the tariffs Donnie put in place, in his ‘easy to win’ trade war, nothing of note will happen before Nov.

            Once Biden has secured his second term and is no longer in jeopardy of being a one term wonder, he can begin to thaw relations economically, between the two.

            As has been mentioned in the past, the lack of Max orders and deliveries to China is part of the retaliation for the trade war that was started. Perhaps some horse trading goes on, where China agrees to order/take some Max’s, as long as the Leap supply doesn’t stop.

            Win/win all around. Boeing sells aircraft. GE sells engines. China can produce it’s 919.

          • @ Frank P
            I’d like to believe your theory regarding the US-China trade war, but I have severe doubts.
            To me, Biden appears to be just as hawkish on this point as Trump — after all, Biden introduced his own bans on semiconductors, and his own tariffs on PV panels, EVs and EV batteries.
            It would be nice if you were right, but I don’t see this ending — in fact, I see it worsening.
            Once the national security card starts to get played, things go quickly downhill.

            The US is continually pressuring semiconductor firms in Europe, Japan and S. Korea to join in US sanctions — much to the annoyance of manufacturers in those countries. I’m wondering when the US will similarly try to curtail Airbus exports to China…which, of course, will lead to a major Transatlantic row. A ban on LEAP-1C exports is only a matter of time, I suspect.

          • @Abalone

            ‘Biden introduced his own bans on semiconductors, and his own tariffs on PV panels, EVs and EV batteries.’

            Hang on a sec:

            ‘The executive order, signed by President Joe Biden earlier in August, restricts outbound investment to China, Hong Kong, and Macau in areas deemed critical to U.S. national security. These include three main industries: advanced computing chips and microelectronics, quantum technology, and artificial intelligence (AI).’


            ‘ In some cases, especially regarding technology destined for military or surveillance purposes, investment is prohibited outright, while for less sensitive products, it is permitted with government notification.

            The order specifically targets investments that risk transferring “intangible benefits” such as managerial expertise, talent networks, and market access. It does not target less involved investment in publicly traded securities such as stocks or bonds.’

            Details matter.


            Biden urged to ban China-made electric vehicles
            12 April 2024


            ‘President Joe Biden has been urged to ban imports of Chinese-made electric cars to the US.
            The chair of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Sherrod Brown, wrote “Chinese electric vehicles are an existential threat to the American auto industry”.
            His comments are the strongest yet by any US lawmaker on the issue, while others have called for steep tariffs to keep Chinese electric vehicles (EV) out of the country.’

            ‘The world’s two biggest economies have been locked in a trade war since 2018 when the then-Trump administration imposed tariffs on more than $360bn (£287bn) of Chinese goods.
            Beijing retaliated with tariffs on more than $110bn of US products.
            President Joe Biden has largely kept those tariffs in place.
            Last year the value of goods the US bought from China fell by just over 20% to $427bn. At the same time, US exports to China dipped by 4% to just under $148bn.’

          • @ Pedro
            That’s a good interview!
            Ironically, I recently read an article indicating that China is only about 1-3 years behind the US as regards AI. All the hype here in the West revolves around Nvidia — but, in China, Tencent and Alibaba have their own AI products, with their own AI chips made by Chinese manufacturers (such as Intellifusion and SMIC). So, the Biden bans on US semiconductor exports are effectively only serving to reduce the revenue of US chip firms, while encouraging the Chinese to become more innovative and self-sufficient. Then again: that’s usually how such things pan out.

            In the interview that you posted, Mr. Roach opens by asking a very pertinent question. It’s clear that the US doesn’t have a cogent answer to that question — bans, tariffs and sanctions are all kneejerk in nature, and all ultimately backfire. The unilateral withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA and re-imposition of sanctions on Iran are another good example.

            I agree that this whole process is only going to escalate. However, China has other, non-adverse trading partners to which it can sell its goods — whereas the US has more limited options in that regard.

        • @Abalone:

          Analyzing production rates, ramp ups and learning curves is what we do. We’ve done several consulting jobs on these very points. I think we know more about this than you do.


          • Scott, my view is that estimates of rates, ramp-ups, certification challenges don’t really matter. It’s all about motivation and opportunity; capability can spring from both. Besides, Western assessments of Comac’s (in)ability to move into the market big time are simply a recipe book for Comac to achieve success, should they be motivated to try.

            There’s no easier way to win a war than to have a full and frank appraisal from the adversary of what it’d take to beat them.

            If the USA wants a guarantee that the market will not move so as to denude the USA of airliner manufacturing capability, one has to confirm the assumptions being made for the opportunities, motivations and capabilities of others. And on that front, with Boeing having bashed itself into the mire over the past few decades, there is a confirmed opportunity for a new player to enter the market. Boeing has orders, but they aren’t delivering very well. Someone else might be able to instead.

            At that point, that’s pretty much the end of the analysis. The other two factors – motivation and thence capability – cannot be so easily controlled, and so should not form any part of the calculation of “what to do next?” where a guaranteed outcome is required.

            The obvious priority for the US gov – if it does want to be sure to stay in the commercial aviation market – is to close the opportunity that Boeing has currently left open to others, and the faster it’s closed the better. That means either 1) Boeing magically fixes itself very quickly, or 2) some acceptable alternative is fostered by the US gov. Relying on Boeing for a guaranteed outcome feels, well, inadvisable. Therefore, if the US gov wants to remain in the commercial aviation market, instigating a good dependable Plan B now is probably necessary.

            For those relying on Boeing being too big to fail, it’s not really a matter of “how big a business is Boeing?”. What matters is, “What does a competitor have to be to steal their business?”. If Boeing continues to suffer production shutdowns / problems, then they are (at those points in time) a business of size zero with zero market share. By definition, any other company able to serve any fraction of the market is then beating them, and success breads success. For example, I can see that if Boeing keeps stumbling and Comac gets a pathway to EASA certification, there will be plenty tempted to give Comac a go. The only way for “Boeing to be too big to fail” is if they were reliably producing aircraft at the ordered rate and preserving a vast chunk of the market to itself.

          • Matthew:

            I don’t see where Comac has not been given a go.

            Comac is not going to magically turn into Airbus.

            Airbus did things that had not been done before (wide body twin) and then moved into FBW.

            Comac has been smudged together by the Chinese Govt and it operates in that same arena. Its not competitive. Its not fast. By its nature it can’t be. China owns their AHJ, it does what they are told to.

            So what we will see is a very slow ramp up and it will not reach Boeing or Airbus production levels ever.

            It has a copy cat platform. They went uber cautious because that is the nature of that setup.

          • @Trans

            There’s no guarantee that BA/BCA is able to design & engineer a clean-sheet program by the middle of 2030s!

      • For a new company and new aircraft Comac (C919) is making progress. They are ramping up slowly (and now putting in second FAL for C919). Remember the Chinese don’t measure their success by quarterly financial results but meeting a national industrial policy to invest in their commercial aircraft industry.
        By the way, when was the last order Chinese order to Boeing (e.g. 2017) and there are 61 completed aircraft for China in the Boeing “storage yard” I guess China figured out how to live without Boeing.
        Two key milestones to watch in the next few years for the C919 EASA cert and adoption of the Chinese engine to the mainframe

        • Certification/adoption of the CJ-1000 engine (or the PD-14) will be of critical importance to the C919 program.
          I doubt we’ll have to wait long for a LEAP-1C embargo.

  13. “Airbus prepares for the A321XLR’s entry into service”

    “The A321XLR’s ongoing certification and flight-test campaign is now in its final stages. As well as debriefing after the airlines’ recent route-proving flights, attention is also being focussed on ensuring that the first operators will have everything that they will need in terms of airworthiness compliance and operational support on day-one”

    Of note:
    “the XLR’s new extended belly fairing design Extended Belly Fairing has been introduced following new requirements from the Airworthiness Authorities, with a new material to increase protection to the RCT in specific crash scenarios – such as a belly landing. In contrast, the belly fairing on today’s A321neo, which contains no RCT, primarily serves as an aerodynamic shape.”

    • @Pedro
      Doesn’t hurt to ask I guess. Talk about being over a barrel. The operator with half your backlog is making veiled threats to take their ball over to Airbus unless you write off whatever remaining margin in the form of penalties

    • But TC (Emirates) still places more orders for 777s It will be interesting to see in 5 years where the Emirates, Southwest and Ryan Air will be in their fleet “mismanagement” strategies!

      “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results” – Albert Einstein”

      • Based on that scathing TC interview that came out yesterday, we may finally be about to see Emirates throw in the towel as regards the 777X.
        Emirates’ older 777X orders can be canceled without penalty (contractual delivery delay clauses).


        “Boeing’s 777-9 model, of which Emirates has ordered more than 100 units, is about five years late, and Clark said he has “no visibility” on a new time frame, most recently scheduled for mid 2025.

        “The carrier is “extremely exasperated” with Boeing as delays are obstructing the airline’s growth plans, Clark said, adding that he plans to meet Stephanie Pope, the new head of Boeing’s commercial aircraft subsidiary, in Dubai in coming days.”

        • Interesting Clark said he’s never met David Calhoun. What does that tell you about David and his most important 777X customer?

          • It tells me that Tim Clark has absolutely no interest in going to New Hampshire. The nerve of the man…

          • Frank P:

            I think it was Main.

            But yea, Calhoun too busy living the life to run Boeing let alone meet pesky annoying customers.

      • I get the feeling that Emirates, Southwest and Ryan Air are squeezing the bejeezus out of Boeing. They’ll wring every concession and demand every penny in compensation they can get.

        They obviously feel the BA is too big to fail, so they’ll make do with the planes they have and send the bill to Seattle. No – Chicago. Nope. Virginia!

        For their sakes, I hope they have competent lawyers that wrote up the purchase agreements.

  14. Big order sprees coming — it will be interesting to see how many go to Boeing:

    “Qatar Airways to order 200 Airbus & Boeing jets”

    “Korean Air Mulls 30-Strong Boeing Jet Order as Early as July”

    Royal Air Maroc
    “Royal Air Maroc In Talks For 200 Boeing, Airbus, Embraer Jets”

    Of interest regarding the Korean order:
    “The US is the last of 14 jurisdictions to respond to Korean Air’s more than three year effort to secure approval from competition authorities.”
    (1) Is a Korean order “leverage” to get US approval for the Asiana merger?
    (2) See how long and complicated foreign anti-trust procedures can be? Boeing can forget a rapid acquisition of Spirit.

    • Add Flyadeal to that list:

      “DUBAI (Reuters) – Saudi budget airline flyadeal is studying a possible order for between 10 and 20 wide-body jets to carry more passengers, and could make a decision by the end of the year.

      “The low-cost subsidiary of state carrier Saudia is in the early stages of comparing the Boeing 787 and Airbus A330neo, CEO Steven Greenway told Reuters. It has not yet started a formal competition between planemakers, he added.”

      • “We have mapped out a long term plan (in which) we could potentially have a fleet of 10, 15, 20 – I would say 10 minimum in the next three, four or five years,”

        Who’d bet BA can(not) deliver 10 787 to flyadeal in three years?

    • And add Turkish, also:
      “Turkish Airlines in talks with Boeing for 225 aircraft order”

      “…for 150 MAX narrow-bodies and 75 Boeing 787 wide-bodies”.

      “Bolat said, “We finished with Airbus. We have ordered 385 aircraft; some are fixed, and some are options. So, with Airbus, should we exercise our options or not? That is the question, but it will happen after three to four years,” he said.”

    • I wonder if Qatar’s new CEO is working to restructure its BA 777X order.

  15. “Emirates Remains Interested in the Airbus A350-1000”

    “As per @rschuur_aero, Emirates President Sir Tim Clark has expressed his interest in the Airbus A350-1000 once again.

    “It is understood he will be meeting with Rolls Royce at the Farnborough Air Show next month to discuss the durability improvements on the XWB-97 engine, which powers the -1000.

    “Furthermore, if the improvements are to the standard Clark is expecting, this could be good news for Airbus.

    “It could potentially mean seeing an order for the -1000 from the UAE carrier.”

    Looks like the penny may finally be dropping for Mr. Clark…

    • @Abalone
      My hunch is TC is leveraging Airbus to get Boeing to pay for his 777Classic retrofits. A full-on defection to the A350 could almost spell the end of the 777X.

        • Didn’t the program have a reach-forward loss of $7B? And that was some time last year…

          Incredible that Qatar is still talking about potentially ordering more 777Xs…looks like a mixture of tunnel vision and denial…

          • @Abalone
            One of the quirks of program accounting is that you do not have to set an accounting block until EIS. Theoretically, Boeing may have to declare a program loss the day the aircraft hits EIS. Or they could set a program block that is comically ambitious that could keep the program in the black. Of note, Boeing has been taking charges along the way against the program…not sure how much deferred cost is still yet to be either written off upfront or burned off over the length of the accounting block.

          • @Casey

            It says it right in their financials:

            ‘$2,160 of deferred production costs’


            As far as the accounting block goes, it really doesn’t matter, does it?

            If Boeing tries to use the rosiest projections to claim profits during the deliveries of the 777X, when the butchers bill comes due – they’ll have to write off the rest of the expenses.

            There are some rules regarding program accounting, which they can’t get around, no matter how much they’d like to avoid taking charges.

            The $6.5 billion on the 777X program and the $3.5 billion on the 787 program a year later, come to mind.

            Someone either ‘encouraged’ them or wouldn’t accept pushing those amounts into the future.


            On the 787 write off. (this is the scary financial part)

            Boeing has some 1,900 orders for the type, with about ~1,100 delivered. 800 in the backlog, more or less.

            That $3.5 billion write off translates to about $4.375 million per airframe remaining in the backlog.

            Whatever profit they are making (and claiming, which is different), they came up some $4 million a plane short.

            They are sold ~$4 million less, than they need to be.

            1,900 orders and you still can’t cover your expenses….

          • Or being an airline customer, they are privy to more information than we are.

          • @williams

            Didn’t Lufthansa/Emirates/Cathay/ANA say they are left in the dark and got no update from Boeing?? Lol.

        • @David

          Jeez. That would be a disaster. From the Q1 financials:

          ‘At March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 777X program:$5,337 and $4,638 of work in process, $2,160 and $1,792 of deferred production costs and $4,139 and $4,063 of unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs.’


          So these 3 amounts, totaling $11.636 billion, are sitting in Inventory and would have to be written off. They could probably get a few dollars for scrap value for the WIP and Tooling.

          This falls as an expense on the Income Statement and would make for a very bad quarter.

          Then there is this:

          Advances and progress billings 58,972

          That’s almost $59 billion. What percentage of that is the 777X? This is their backlog:

          ‘Commercial Airplanes delivered 83 airplanes during the quarter and backlog included over 5,600 airplanes valued at $448 billion.’

          Deposit are ~13% of the backlog. There is 481 orders for the 777X.

          Call it an average of $200 million an airframe or about $26 million in deposits at 13%.

          $26 million X 481 = $12.669 billion in deposits to be returned to customers. Cash they don’t have.


          To summarize:

          Just with what is available in the financials, they would have a $11.6 billion expense (less scrap value) and they would have to return some $12.6 billion in cash to customers

          (assuming that airlines would be so pissed off with them, they ask for their money back instead of shifting those monies to another type)

          • wonder if there is any supplier clawback clause for their investment if the program is cancelled by Boeing

          • @David

            Just imagine how GE would feel, if BA scrapped the 777X?

            But this is all pure speculation. IMO Boeing is in too deep to not see this through. The program will never be profitable but it will generate some cash for them.

            I would estimate that they have spent about $20 billion on the program so far;

            $11.6 billion in Inventory waiting to be expensed.
            $6.5 billion written off a few years ago.

            Plus a few odd and ends (abnormal productions costs) every so often.

          • Boeing spending $20billion on a mild upgrade of the 777 puts Airbus’s reputed €25billion spent on A380 in a somewhat better light than is normally perceived. At least Airbus did a whole new from-scratch aircraft of extraordinary design, got it into service and delivered something pretty amazing.

    • I think Airbus wants the EK A350-1000 order, finally.

      But they aren’t desperate, sold out for years & confident, asking a fair price for a strong product.

      • On the other hand: Airbus would *love* the huge symbolism of TC jumping ship…so I think very attractive terms will be offered, if judged necessary.
        The recent announcement from AB concerning an increase in the A350 rate, with attendant earlier slots..I suspect that message was aimed at Emirates.

        • @Abolone
          There are other ways to squeeze Boeing. I am sure TC learned the hard way about going all-in with an airframe that has zero secondary market value (A380). One of the first things I would ask of Boeing is special fixed trade-in values and residual value guarantees for used 777C and 777X aircraft.
          Airbus can provide those types of guarantees with much less risk given the broader operator base on the A350.

          • @ Casey

            “I am sure TC learned the hard way about going all-in with an airframe that has zero secondary market value (A380).”

            Over the years I flown (longhaul) A380 EK&SQ&QA, B777 EK&SQ@NZ, B787 NZ, A330 QA@QR and believe you me nothing compares with the A380.

            In terms of passenger preference no other aircraft comes close to the A380. Don’t take my word for it, just ask around.

            The simple calc below gives some idea in percentage terms of what the A380s are contributing to Emirates profits:-

            A380s In Service = 116
            A380 Average Pax Cap = 510
            A380 Fleet Seats (116 x 510) = 59,160

            B777s In Service = 133
            B777 Average Pax Cap = 510
            B777 Fleet Pax (133 x 380) = 50,540

            The above fleets counts from Wikipedia which shows the Aircraft in service as at Nov 2023. The Average Pax Capacity per A380/B777 is a guess.

            The the Total Number pax seats available to Emirates from which they can generate revenue generation is then: A380 Fleet Pax 59,160 + B777 Fleet Pax 50,540 is 109,700 of which nearly 54% are being flown on the A380.

            Lets keep things simple and assume the A380 and B777 are operated with same load factors, dispatch rates, etc…, then 54% of Emerates profits would be generated by the A380!!!!!

            Compared with most other airlines Emerates has been and is a very profit able airline. What is often over looked by many Leeham posters is the role the A380 role play in making it so.

            By the time Emirates retires its last A380 the residual book value could be 0, and they would have made their money.

          • I’m not sure TC cares about the secondary market value of the A380. That’s relevant only if he intends to sell them into that market.

            Given how much Emirates (like no other airline) depends on A380’s capaciousness, popularity and range, and how any other airframe would result in a reduction in tickets Emirates can sell, I’m pretty sure Emirates are going to keep their A380s flying to their very last legal landing cycle. They’re currently investing a vast sum in technical and cabin upgrades on their fleet, and that’s not something you do if you’re intending on parting with them.

            Emirates are minting money at the moment, and that’s *because* they went all-in on A380. In just my own personal experience, I’ve seen Emirates flights that, last Christmas, were on a 777-300ER and are now A380 (KIX-DHB). The 777 was full. The A380, on the same route just a few months later, was also full. The same flight 10 years ago would operate nearly empty on occassion.

            TC might ask Boeing for such guarantees for remaining with 777X, but to be honest that’d have to go down as a risky move. If Boeing folded – an eventuality more likely nowadays than in yesteryear – the guarantees given won’t get honoured. It’s far safer to focus on a reliable fleet strategy with a reliable supplier and concentrate on the business of selling airline tickets, than taking chances,

          • I believe many (if not a majority) of Emirates’ aircraft are leased. The resale value would be more relevant at the inception of leases when terms are negotiated. Right now I believe Emirates would want to pick up some A380 at the end of leases on the cheap.

          • Emirates prides itself in newer aircraft.

            Conundrum when your favorite is not new.

          • Paying customers have no issue flying in Delta’s “old” aircraft. Make sure the interior is refreshed from time to time.

  16. Boeing safety crisis has been brewing for more than a decade, Emirates boss says

    “Sir Tim Clark, president of Emirates, said the aerospace giant’s issues can be traced back 10 to 15 years to when he claims that they began to focus on profits rather than focus primarily on engineering excellence.”

    So knowing this, why does he have a over reliance on the 777s (keeps ordering them)

    “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results” – Albert Einstein”

  17. for the sake of variety

    No More Widebodies? American Airlines Will Remove Boeing 777 & 787 Dreamliner Flights Between Miami And Los Angeles

    “In October, the frequencies will increase to 434 flights across the A321ceo, A321neo, and 737 MAX 8. The A321ceo will handle 10 flights, five in each direction, while the 737 MAX 8 is scheduled on 56 frequencies, 28 each way. The A321neo will operate the overwhelming majority of the flights – the remaining 368 flights – handling 184 frequencies in each direction.”

        • @Abalone
          You have to have a very long view of industrial investment. Cars are not planes…and the Chinese cars are still “barely” in the US market. Of note Boeing and Airbus do not make all of the systems in their aircraft. The development to date feels more like a national pride project than it does a bona fide attempt to make a world class aircraft with the best components available internationally.

          I am especially chuckling because EK does not fly narrow body aircraft. The earliest you will ever see a widebody Chinese aircraft is 2040, but that is just opinion.

        • @Abalone

          This is the key statement:

          Cars are not planes

          The safety, certification and production requirements for commercial aircraft are far different from cars.

          The suppliers you sub-contract from, have to be certified. So many strings to the design and development bow.

          It doesn’t mean China can’t do it. But it’s a decades in the making, taking baby steps, kind of thing.

          • We’ll see.
            We’ve already seen 3 countries accept CAAC certification of the ARJ21, without corresponding FAA/EASA certification.
            Perhaps we’re entering an era in which the whole concept of “certification” will evolve…not in the West, but in the Global South. Along the lines of: “If it’s good enough for China, it’s good enough for us”.

            Remember that Western “certification” has failed miserably as regards both the MAX and the 787.

          • ‘Remember that Western “certification” has failed miserably as regards both the MAX and the 787.’

            And now Boeing is paying the price for talking a mile, when given an inch. $20 billion and 5+ years late, the party is over and nobody is getting given the benefit of the doubt, anymore.

            Max 7 & 10 have been pushed back and are costing BA billions to get into service.

            BTW – it wasn’t western certification that failed, it was the FAA and regulatory capture. EASA, Transport Canada, Brasil et al. took the FAA’s word that everything was up to snuff.

            Times have changed.

        • “[…] It was unrealistic for Deng to open up.
          It was unrealistic that 40,000 km of HSR could be built in 17 yrs.
          It was unrealistic to send a spacecraft to take samples on the far side of the Moon.
          China is the country where the unrealistic becomes real. So I won’t take “unrealistic” as an answer.

  18. Boeing isn’t even trying to keep its customers accurately apprised of (lack of) progress with the 777X:

    “Emirates and Lufthansa chiefs reiterate concerns over 777X delivery dates”

    Carsten Spohr: “But I share Tim’s worry that there could be additional delays which would of course create issues for us, because these aeroplanes are needed not for growth, but to replace older airlplanes which we fly longer. So I share the concern, but 2025 is still the official date.””

    “Two early Asian customers for the type told FlightGlobal they have not been told of any delays.

    “Shinichi Inoue, president of All Nippon Airways, says: ”We are co-ordinating the timing of the deliveries based on our mid- to long-term strategy…and we expect to see deliveries of our first Boeing 737-8s and 777-9s in fiscal year 2025. We are communicating with Boeing regarding any possibilities of delays.””

    “Cathay Pacific meanwhile says: ”We haven’t heard anything about delays – we are still expecting the first to arrive in the latter half of 2025.””

    • You won’t hear the word “delay” from Calhoun. That won’t be on his watch. He won’t upset the golden apple cart at this juncture. Progress is being made.

  19. “Airbus in Talks to Sell More Than 100 Widebody Jets to China”

    “(Bloomberg) — Airbus SE is negotiating a major sale of A330neo aircraft to China, with talks gaining momentum since President Xi Jinping visited his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron last month.

    “The largest Chinese airlines are considering buying more than 100 of the upgraded A330 models, according to people familiar with the matter. The terms are still being discussed and the timing is uncertain, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter is confidential.”

    “China has once again halted imports from US-based Boeing, just months after it had restarted following a five-year drought, as regulators review a cockpit voice recorder design already approved by their counterparts in the US and Europe. Meanwhile France-based Airbus benefits from its local investment in Asia’s largest economy, including a factory that builds the workhorse A320neo model and another that installs interiors in the A330, and was one of the key beneficiaries of Xi’s recent outreach to European leaders.”

    • Let’s remember there is an A330 finishing center in China.

      • Sure glad politics had nothing to do with this.

        The Completion Center in China would be a big reason too.

        • Well maybe if Donnie didn’t start his ‘easy to win’ trade war, BA would still be selling aircraft there?

          • Although Donnie started the whole mess, his successor has extended it.
            The phenomenon appears to broadly R/D.
            One way or another, Boeing isn’t happy with it — see link posted below.

          • @Abalone

            Republicans called for a tough stance on China. Are they happy with new tariffs?



            The dangerous new call for regime change in Beijing


            Republicans criticize Biden for being too soft on China. Their preferred approach is much more dangerous.


            WASHINGTON — Republicans on the House Select Committee on China sent a letter Wednesday to President Joe Biden ahead of his scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week, urging him to shift policy toward China and “challenge Beijing” to prove that it wants to improve relations with the U.S.



            ‘Don’t Give an Inch’ to China, Republicans Warn Biden



            The long and short of it is that GOPers will hammer Biden if he is seen as doing ANYTHING positive to improve economic relations with China. That includes walking back any sanctions in order to get China to start accepting aircraft from Boeing.

            After the election, might be a different story.

          • From the Chinese “view”, how can they trust the US as reliable trade partner (e.g. LEAP engines) for the C919? Maybe Boeing received its last China order back in 2017. And yes, China can succeed without more Boeing aircraft

          • @David

            At the end of the day, the world at large (including allies) got a slap in the face, when you-know-who went on his ‘burn it all down’ policy rant.

            All things being equal, in Nov it’s all put to rest and everyone can move forward, once the movement get’s marginalized.

            Do you think that (normal) politicians really want to further harm the countries exports (GE, in this case) and hobble another corporation with job losses?

          • @ Frank P

            (1) You seem to be assuming that the D candidate is going to win the election in November. That’s a dangerous assumption.

            (2) Despite your efforts above to pin the current sanctions policy on the Rs, it’s not at all clear that Biden wants a détante with China. After all, he’s publicly called Xi a dictator on two occasions.

            (3) Although you appear to dismiss it, BRICS intends to drop a bomb in October, with further announcements regarding a BRICS currency. The launch of such a currency is expected to have a significantly negative effect on the US economy, as it will severly erode the reserve status of the US dollar. Neither the Rs nor the Ds will like this.

          • @Abalone

            1) Not assuming. Hoping…that the convicted felon, sexual assaulter, king of debt…doesn’t get back into power.

            2) If it were clear, then the R’s would hammer him for it. Donnie started it and everyone on that side of the aisle must support the dear leaders’ initiatives. Even the farmers, who now require welfare, because of the trade war.

            3) BRICS again. Last I heard, they were supposed to launch a currency LAST year, but didn’t. But a BRICS currency is all about getting around US sanctions. We’ll have this discussion again if:

            a) A currency is launched
            b) It stabilizes
            c) It has any effect on the economy

            Until then, it’s pure hyperbole. And IIRC, the pecking order in currency reserves is the US dollar, the Euro, the Japanese Yen, the British Pound – then the Yuan. (US$ is 3 times the Euro)

            Don’t worry, if you’re right and it upends the apple cart, like you’re claiming it will…I’ll tell you that you were right.

          • @ Frank P
            Your list in (3) is a little outdated. Things have been changing very rapidly in recent years.
            – The Yuan overtook the Yen in 2022. Its share doubled again in 2023, when it climbed to 4.61%. The 2024 figures will show a further climb.
            – The Dollar (47%) is only 2x the Euro (23%).
            – In terms of global trade finance, the Yuan is now number 2.


            De facto, a BRICS currency already probably exists behind the scenes, as the BRICS countries are doing inter-currency clearing through the NDB in Shanghai. This is analogous to the ECU — the precursor to the Euro, which existed behind the scenes as a clearing currency from 1979 to 1999. So, in effect, the next step just entails an official announcement, with exchange rate details, to facilitate international trading of the currency.


            It suits the BRICS countries just fine that western countries are in “dismissive denial mode” while this upheaval is occurring: it means that they can quietly get on with their show, without interference.

            p.s. Extra tidbit of info: 20% of global oil trade last year was in non-dollar currencies…I think you can guess which currencies those were.

            p.p.s In case Mr. Hamilton is wondering what relevance this has to aviation: a BRICS currency means that China and Russia can conduct non-dollar aviation business with the Global South, without any interference mechanism from DC. That means not only parts and planes, but also raw materials for plane manufacture.

          • @Abalone

            Reserve currency


            From the IMF. 2023 Q4

            US – 58.41%
            Euro – 19.98%
            Yen – 5.7%
            Pound – 4.84%

            China – 2.29%

            A little info:

            ‘Countries don’t fill out an application to have their currencies become reserve currencies, and there is no international organization that confers this status. To get a seat at the grownups’ table, it helps to be a developed country with a big economy with relatively free capital flows, to have a banking system able to handle being a creditor, and to have export clout. These requirements make reserve currency status a rich world club, much to the chagrin of many developing countries. The currencies of China (the world’s second largest economy), Brazil (sixth), Russia (ninth) and India (10th) – the BRIC countries – are not considered reserve, which is why these countries have been more vocal proponents of the creation of a reserve country unattached to any one country.’


          • @ Frank P
            Your link talks about reserve currencies (i.e. what central banks hold in reserve), whereas my link talks about trade currencies (the flow of monies to pay for commerce) [the source in my link is SWIFT].

            The first follows the second, with a lag. For example, China has halved its dollar reserves (from $1.4T to $700B) because it now conducts 52% of its foreign trade in yuan.

            Your link also neglects to factor in gold, which is being increasingly used as a reserve instead of currencies. BRICS countries are switching en masse from dollar reserves to gold. Some western countries are also switching, though to a smaller degree.

            Let’s see what your link says 1-2 years from now. In the meantime, we can all ponder this:

            “Since 1450 there have been six major world reserve currency periods. Portugal (1450–1530), Spain (1530–1640), Netherlands (1640–1720), France (1720–1815), Great Britain (1815–1920), and the United States from 1921 to today”


          • Apr 2023: Yuan exceeds dollar in China’s bilateral trade for first time
            China can trade with Vietnam, MX and Brazil etc in yuan.

          • @Abalone

            I guess you didn’t read when I posted this:

            ‘Until then, it’s pure hyperbole. And IIRC, the pecking order in currency reserves is the US dollar, the Euro, the Japanese Yen, the British Pound – then the Yuan. (US$ is 3 times the Euro)’

            In which I clearly state ‘currency reserves’, because then you try to correct it with:

            ‘Your list in (3) is a little outdated. Things have been changing very rapidly in recent years.’

            And it is not outdated. It is current.

            I wasn’t talking about a trading currency to get around sanctions.


            Comparing the Euro to the BRICS is apples and oranges. You’re talking about advanced western nations and developing nations.

            If I was Brazil, Russia, India et al., I’d be very wary about getting into bed with the big dog in the park.

            If something goes wrong, what are you going to do? Launch a lawsuit in China to recover damages?

            But like you said, Oct is just around the corner and we’ll see what happens then.

        • @ Williams
          Hard to say *for sure* if it’s politics or not (although very likely that it is). Remember that the alternative OEM in this instance is currently in an ungodly mess…who’d want to order from that outfit?

          • Of course its politics.

            As for your last question. It’s why airlines like UA’s CEO are clamoring for a third OEM.

          • 🤭
            Saudi Arabia Joins BIS’ CBDC Project mBridge as a Full Participant

      • Next step will be A330 FAL in China…..just like the A320 Most likely to keep wing production at Chester compared to Xian for the A320.

        • could be 10-15 year production run in China for Airbus FALs (330/350) before the C929/939 will have serial production.

          As of mid 2023…Airbus has delivered more than 630 A320 family aircraft assembled at its Final Assembly Line Asia (FALA) in north China’s Tianjin Municipality over the past 15 years, according to the European aircraft manufacturer

          • Well that is very open ended minded.

            So, the A330 that has low rate production is moved to China where the A330MRT frame (and engines) would come from?

            Clearly the US missed a great deal to outsourced Battleship produion to Japan in WWII.

            And the 929 is done for but we have the 939 now.

            We call that Vapor ware. In the meantime thousands of 919 are rolling down the lines (well with all that western equipment that has to be changed to China supplied)

            Its nice when you own the AHJ so you don’t have to actually meet any certification requirement that annoy you.

            It brings regulatory capture to a whole new level!

          • They will ship the fuselage and wings via ocean like they do for the A320 (except wings)
            The A330 FAL in China (is additional line, not moving the line) comes under Airbus certification process (duplicate tooling in Toulouse). As for C919 EASA cert should be done by 2030, before that all the C919 are sold to Chinese carriers

            C929(290 seats) C939 (390 seats) will be flying by the late 2030’s

            see the article below


            as for vapor ware how’s that 777x launched in 2013 doing TC (Emirates) said there is no test flying going on.

          • ‘Clearly the US missed a great deal to outsourced Battleship produion to Japan in WWII.’

            What an apt comparison.

            In the Second World War, it was clearly evident that the days of the battleship were over and it was the aircraft carrier that was the capital ship of the ocean.

            Had the US outsourced battle ship production to Japan, they would have had them making ships from a bygone era.

            It would have been a brilliant move, as then the US could focus on producing the Essex class carriers, while the enemy was making outdated products.

          • @Pedro

            No – it hasn’t. From the article:

            ‘One way to increase capacity in domestic public and private shipyards and build up the nation’s sealift fleet would be to move construction of vessels such as roll-on-roll-off cargo ships to nations like Korea, Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said at the House hearing. He added Seoul’s yards are producing 25 of those ships annually, while the United States produces one “every two years or so.”

            Sen. Mazie Hironho (D-Hawaii) and the Senate panel’s chair, was skeptical about the value of moving more Navy repair work overseas.’


            This is the only place that the article mentions offshoring work. Additionally, when you read it, some GOP Rep from Georgia ‘suggested’ that one way to increase capacity was to build Ro-Ro’s in Korea.

            The Senate chair shot it down.

            It’s hasn’t ‘happened’


            Secondly, Ro-Ro’s are not Capital Ships. Which is what was suggested.

            Japan was, as well, an enemy – at the time. S Korea is not.

          • Sorry @Frank. It’s not about offshoring, it’s about the backlog and the inability to resolve it.
            Spending $$$ on F-35 that comes with costly maintenance contract with LM is another boondoggle.
            Is there any political will to break up a blood-sucking military-industrial complex?

          • [I don’t necessarily agree with everything below.]

            👇 Take a look at this:

            “All across Alaska, people are seeing signs like this in stores.

            Why? Because a single ship, the North Star, is temporarily down for repairs.

            Why would a single ship being down cause a shortage crisis for an entire state?

            Because thanks to a ridiculous law that passed 104 years ago today, only a handful of ships are allowed to deliver goods within the US.

            The Jones Act has crippled the US maritime industry, driven up the cost of living (especially in the US Islands and Alaska), killed American jobs, and made our lives worse. It is long past time to repeal it.

            In order to understand the problem, let’s look at how we got here: […]


    • And on a related note:
      “Boeing CEO Warns Isolation Will Hurt Trade as US Election Looms”

      “(Bloomberg) — Boeing Co.’s chief executive officer warned that a turn toward isolation in US politics could hamper free trade and damage the economy as the nation prepares for a pivotal presidential election.

      ““We’re a company that relies on trade,” outgoing CEO Dave Calhoun said in an onstage interview at the Berlin Aviation Summit on Tuesday. “I’ll be the first to acknowledge that that seems to be going in the wrong direction and has been for quite some time.””

        • He was quoted as comparing things before and after the Alaskadoor blowout: “Boeing is a different company now.”
          Really??…..with exactly the same management minus Stan Deal?
          That dude must have been super powerful if swapping him out for Pope was the only personnel change required to make it “a different company “.

  20. FG: Qantas confirms certification of extra fuel tank for ‘Project Sunrise’ A350-1000

  21. Generally I am not a what aboutism guru, but I did find this interesting.

    Toyota, Honda and a couple other Japanese auto mfgs were falsifying car cert data to the govt. I believe that was for in Japan production.

    While the impact is no where near the same as an aircraft mfg violations (read Boeing) it is interesting that the poster child(ren) of quality control went down the dark and ugly patch and no one pulled the production line rip cord (yes I am deliberately mixing up metaphors here).

    A system is only as good as the people in it. Any system can be corrupted by ill intent. That is why the FAA failed on the MAX, they tried to do it on the cheap and paper audited it.

    As anyone who has run paper knows (and the powers that be know, I spewed out endless amounts of it per the requirements) you can pencil whip and or cheat. And when reported it gets swept under the rug in many organizations (and the people not held accountable, though it helps if you are the managers buddy)

    You also have to love the don’t do as I do, do as I say aspect. Line workers come to mind vs management

    • What’s the connection of your post with the subject matter, huh? JFC.
      Are there any incriminating emails like: “created by clowns… supervised by monkeys”??

      From Honda’s press release, an extract:

      “[Case] ​​The following two cases occurred during noise testing conducted between February 2009 and October 2017.

      ・The test vehicle weight was set beyond the legal limit (insufficient test conditions) – The test report stated a weight within the prescribed range that was different from the weight of the vehicle actually tested (false statement)

      [Background/Reasons] If the vehicle weight changes after testing due to design changes, etc., there is a possibility that retesting will be required. However, by conducting testing under conditions that are stricter than those stipulated by law, it was interpreted that noise performance could be guaranteed, and it was thought that an increase in the man-hours required for retesting could be avoided.

    • Trans

      The fuselage of a BA 777X “split” during stress test. Can you remind me if BA/BCA redo the test??

      • As I understand it, no. They knew what happened and the modeling was close enough that the fix was accepted.

        The A380 failed its wing test, broke 3% before it should have.

        But they had modeled it, predicted where it would break and EASA agreed that a beef up was all that was needed.

        I fully agreed.

        • The fact of the matter is the tested fuselage didn’t* meet the 150% requirement no matter how much you tried to spin it.

          “… the modeling was close enough…”

  22. It would appear that China is allowing MAX delivery again after the holdup over the 25 hour cockpit voice recorder battery (that EASA and FAA had approved)

  23. Comac could be ‘genuine’ rival to Boeing and Airbus in 10 years, Iata chief says

    “Chinese jet maker Comac could rival the western duopoly of Boeing and Airbus in the next 10 years to 15 years as supply chain woes persist in the aviation industry, the International Air Transport Association’s chief has said.”

    “It will take time for Comac to be a genuine competitor on the global scale [but] I believe they will get there. You’re talking 10, 15 years … it’s a longer time frame but I definitely believe they will get there,” he said.

    • @Pritchard
      They absolutely could be a rival. It will take the strategic decision to market this aircraft outside of the east Asian orbit and to diversify production of components to top tier suppliers. Comac is trying to home brew everything, which is actually slowing them down.

      I would also take a pass on a widebody aircraft and focus on something in 200-250 long-range category.

      • “…Comac is trying to home brew everything…”

        They have to: (continued) use of western parts only exposes them to sanctions risk.

        As it is, the LEAP-1C is the Achilles heel of the C919 program.

        • C919

          OEW 45,700 kg (100,800 lb)
          Seats 158 ((8J + 150Y)) to 192 (1-class HD)

          Range (STD PL) 4,139 km (2,235 nmi; 2,572 mi)


          Operating empty 44.3 t (97,700 lb)
          1-class maximum 195 @ 27 in (69 cm)

          Typical range 6,500 km (3,500 nmi; 4,000 mi)


          The C919 is 3,100 lbs heavier.

          Per pax (exit limit) OEW is 525 lbs for the C919 and 501 lbs for the A320Neo.

          It also doesn’t fly as far.


          Bjorn summed it up nicely:

          ‘The C919 is a prudent design. It’s closely modelled after Airbus A320 with similar technology. The avionics side has Ethernet-based IMA architecture instead of the older point-to-point design on the A320 and the Fly-By-Wire is all digital, but otherwise, the C919 is similar to the 30 years older base design of the A320neo.’

          The Russified MC-21 is reportedly 6 tons heavier than before and it’s range has dropped to the 2,000km range.

          It’s more than just the engines.


          COMAC aims to take a fifth of the global narrowbody market and a third of the Chinese market by 2035.[8] It expects 2,000 sales in the next 20 years.[113]

          FlightGlobal forecasts 1,209 deliveries: 687 standard and 522 stretched variants, for 85% in China.[37]

          In January 2023, COMAC said it wanted to expand its annual production capacity to 150 airliners within five years.[122]


          12 a month by 2028? Could be.

          20% of the global NB market is some 4,000+ aircraft, in a little over a decade (2035). That is Airbus A320Neo family numbers. EIS was 2016 and by 2024 they’ve delivered 3,300.

          Not so sure about that…

          • (1) The average NB flight is 2-3 hours, which the C919 can easily handle.
            (2) If the countries purchasing it have access to cheap oil (lots of them in the world), then its fuelburn isn’t a dealbreaker.
            (3) As soon as there’s a homegrown alternative for the LEAP-1C engine, the plane can be traded and operated free of sanctions meddling…that will appeal to many parties.
            (4) We don’t yet know how quickly COMAC will do an upgraded version.

          • @Abalone

            It’s all good until:

            Your competition has an aircraft that can not only fly those 2-3 hour legs, but can use the same NB to fly a 6 hour leg. No switch of equipment needed.

            Your competition has access to the same cheap fuel that you do, but it can make an even greater margin then you, because you have heavier, underperforming aircraft.

            How’s that homegrown alternative going for the MC-21?

          • @ Frank P
            Depends on what you consider to be a “competitor”.
            Are any western airlines providing extensive domestic networks in Africa, for example?
            How about to/from Iran?

            Also, when did US airlines finally ditch the archaic MD80/90? Just very recently. Even though competitors had been flying with “more advanced” NGs and CEOs for quite some time. Didn’t seem to work out all that badly, did it?

            How about comparing US cars to their more advanced counterparts from Europe and Japan. Has the US car industry shut down because it can’t produce products with the same fuel efficiency and performance? Have you looked at the build quality of a BYD compared to a Tesla? And, yet, the US still produces cars — predominantly for a domestic market.

            Why are you suddenly bringing the MC-21 into a thread about the C919?

          • @Abalone

            Depends on what you consider to be a “competitor”.

            Whoever is competing in your market. In the 919’s case, it would be airlines that don’t fly the 919 and use, for instance – an A320Neo family aircraft.

            However, after having taken a look at the orderbook for the C919, the Big 3 there (China Eastern Airlines, Air China and China Southern Airlines) all seem to have the exact same order for the type:

            Customer Orders Options

            Air China 100 15

            China Eastern Airlines 105 15

            China Southern Airlines 105 15

            Imagine that, huh? What would be the odds of that? Nothing like getting forced to buy a product, whether you want it or not.

            Take one for the team.

            Who knows, maybe they’ll all be told to fly them on the same routes, so the playing field is the same for everyone?


            ‘Are any western airlines providing extensive domestic networks in Africa, for example?
            How about to/from Iran?’

            So you think that Ethiopian, Egyptair, South African Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Air Algerie & others are going to ditch their Airbus or Boeing fleets for the C919?


            Iran Air has a total of 30 aircraft in their fleet, with 13 being the ATR-72. 13 others are Airbus.

            You think it’ll go in service there?


            It’s not about a ‘Western Airline’ – it’s about airlines operating fleets with Airbus or Boeing planes. You’ve completely missed the point.


            Let me explain it to you this way:

            IndiGo Airlines. One of your BRICS nations. Has over 900 modern A320Neo family aircraft on order.

            SpiceJet, all of a sudden, decides it’s going to exclusively fly the C919 and compete with IndiGo.

            All things being equal, they are at a fleet disadvantage. They’re flying heavier aircraft, that use more fuel and fly shorter ranges, limiting flexibility and the supply chain for parts is uncertain. All with the same LEAP engine.

            Ask Mexican carrier Interjet how that worked out for them, with their Sukhoi Superjets.

            It’s not about what some other airline outside your country is flying.



            Yes, but those airlines wo flew them, most notably Delta had a couple of other things:

            1) An extensive in-house MRO op to keep them flying
            2) Cheap acquisition costs (we’re talking a couple of million dollars per)
            3) Some 300+ other NB aircraft that flew the longer missions, as well as the shorter ones. Fleet flexibility.

            You hamper yourself, with an exclusive C919 fleet. You need other NB aircraft. Try flying transcon with a C919, while the competition can put an A220, A320Neo, A321Neo on the route. Then they can fly that short 1-2 hour hop, before making the trip back.


            ‘Why are you suddenly bringing the MC-21 into a thread about the C919?’

            Because you keep going on about how the Leap will be embargoed and China will source domestically. Here is an example of how it worked out, with the MC-21. How’s the domestic engine going?

            ACAE CJ-1000A


            A model of the CJ-1000Al was exhibited at the AVIC booth of the September 2011 Beijing Air Show, and was expected to be completed in 2016.[4] At the time, entry into service was targeted for 2020 and a possible cooperation with MTU Aero Engines was studied.

            In May 2018, AECC intended to certify the CJ-1000 by 2027 and introduce it in 2030, eight years behind the original schedule.

            (Funny thing, the dry weight is not published. I wonder how it compares?)

          • I dunno about you, is it worse than the spineless GC that forced Bombardier to sell its 50% in C-series to a lower bidder, refused to bless a higher bidder that would ensure Canada still has its place in the field. It’s the law of the jungle, no half measures.

  24. “Pressure mounts as more Boeing whistleblowers step forward after colleagues’ deaths”

    “At least three have come forward publicly so far. Others are weighing the risks of adding their voices with concerns over the production of civilian and military aircraft.”

    “Santiago Paredes, another Spirit AeroSystems employee, told “Fox & Friends First” last month that his superiors pressured him to “falsify information” about defects in 737 aircraft. In another interview, he told the New York Post he faced pushback on hundreds of issues including missing or damaged parts and incomplete frame assemblies.”

    “And Roy Irvin, who worked with Barnett at the South Carolina plant, told the Post that he found problems on a near-daily basis, including missing safety devices and loose bolts. “If the fastener is not secured correctly, it’s going to fall off and you’re not gonna be able to control the airplane,” he told the paper.”

    “Another whistleblower, Boeing engineer Martin Bickeboller, had two complaints substantiated by the Federal Aviation Administration going back to 2014, according to the Seattle Times. He filed a new one in January alleging the company had failed to make government-ordered fixes.”

  25. “Will FOMO create an order frenzy at Farnborough?”

    “FOMO, or fear of missing out, is raising its head in aviation. With supply chain issues impacting Airbus and supply chain, regulatory and safety issues impacting Boeing, new commercial aircraft are in short supply. The situation is probably not going to improve markedly until 2026-2027, when Boeing can clear its certification and regulatory shortfalls, after a partial turnaround. Some industry observers like Emirates Tim Clark, are predicting that it could take 5 years or more for a return to normal at Boeing.

    “What happens to airlines whose orders have been delayed? Do they investigate alternatives, including more expensive leased aircraft? Should they place additional orders because future order books may be too full to obtain the lift required to grow in key markets? When essential items are in short supply, the fear of missing out, and taking actions based on that fear, can occur.”

    • You pull a Delta, keeping older aircraft around for longer.

      Costs you more in fuel, maintenance (especially if you have to run an aircraft through another heavy check) and you refurb the cabin.

      If it’s a leased aircraft, you extend the lease (if you can).

      Then you go to BA for compensation…if you had smart lawyers

      • @Frank
        I have to hand it to Delta…they will fly “anything” but they can pull it off because they have the MRO resources to support it. B717 / B737NG (max on order) / B757 / B767/ A320 (ceo and neo) / A330 / A350. They only just somewhat recently retired MD80/90.

        I will also point out that you can pay for a lot of fuel when your aircraft are otherwise paid for.

  26. Perfectly symbolic “mascot” for the company that made it:


    “…a worrying new development, particularly given Boeing’s disastrous track record so far when it comes to its maligned astronaut shuttle.”

  27. “European aerospace giant Airbus delivered 53 aircraft to 34 customers in May 2024 maintaining its strong delivery record for the year.

    “Wide-body deliveries included four Airbus A350s (3x -900 1x -1000) to customers including Turkish Airlines, Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic and Air France. Two A330-900s were also delivered to ITA Airways and LATAM Group.

    “The single-aisle deliveries included six A220s (1x -100 and 5x -300) to airlines including Delta Airlines and Breeze. 41 A320neo family aircraft were also delivered including 19 A320s and 22 A321s to customers that included easyJet, Wizz Air and Delta Airlines.

    “Gross orders for the same period totalled 27 including 20 A330-900s for an as yet undisclosed customer and seven A321neos for Nordic Air Capital.

    “The May deliveries bring the total number of aircraft delivered by Airbus in 2024 to 256 across 58 customers.”

    An order for 20 A330-900s from an undisclosed customer…interesting.

    Now that slot availability for the A350 is (nominally) receding further into the future, I wonder if we’ll be seeing more orders for the (more-available) A330…

  28. “ — Boeing (NYSE:BA) has delivered 36 of its Max aircraft so far in the second quarter, including 19 in May and 1 in June, according to estimates from analysts at Barclays.”

    “The analysts added that roughly 40% of the 250 Max planes that are still in inventory are aircraft that have been in storage since the grounding. Many of these are slated to be sent to Chinese carriers and have now been parked for four years on average, the analysts said.

    “Of the remaining aircraft that are in inventory (~150 that have come off the line since grounding was lifted), we estimate that ~55% are for North American airlines and ~30% are for Chinese airlines, with ~55% having been parked for more than a year,” the Barclays analysts estimated.”–barclays-3473477

  29. Interesting development: ordering small widebodies when narrowbody slots are scarce:

    “Saudia turns to Airbus, Boeing wide-body jets amid single-aisle shortage”

    “The state-owned group, which owns Saudia Airlines and budget carrier Flyadeal, last month ordered 105 narrow-body Airbus planes but had a requirement for 180, said Saudia Group General Manager, Communications and Media Affairs, Abdullah Alshahrani.”

    “A lack of production slots at Airbus, especially for the A320, forced the group to look at wide-body jets, Alshahrani said in an interview on Thursday on the sidelines of the CAPA India aviation conference in New Delhi.

    “Alshahrani said the group had been “lucky” to get the 105-plane order with Airbus but needed more, adding that Saudia is looking at the Boeing 787 and Airbus A330.”


    Two interesting takeaways here:
    (1) No interest in MAX junk, despite theoretical availablity.
    (2) Yet another party showing recent interest in the A330neo.

    • Back when 787 delayed in development, Airbus sold almost a thousand of A330ceo.
      May be the same is happening to the neo now.

  30. David Calhoun is asked to testify at a [Senate ??] hearing on June 18th

    • What can Calhoun possibly say to Congress that is not total nonsense?
      More rubbish about how they prioritize quality and safety???
      He needs to have a Jim Carey Liar-Liar moment:
      “Senator, I can assure you that at Boeing safety is the top priority……Well, right after schedule, budget, cash flow, and the share price. So let’s just say safety is within the top ten items on the list of priorities, which is pretty high”

  31. Yet more (threats of) US sanctions…on China:

    Anyone still believe that China will be ordering from Boeing again?

    Related: I’m wondering when the US is going to (try to) stop LEAP-1A deliveries to Chinese Airbus customers. Since LEAP-1As are made by Safran in France, it’s not sure that a direct ban will be possible…but DC can just resort to sanctioning Airbus or France instead.

    • Now that is a credible source.

      And by the way, its a LEAP 1-C not an A. Different diameter, different thrust.

      • Airbus aircraft use the LEAP 1A.
        Go back and re-read what I wrote.

      • If you read Abalone above it is as he states a Leap-1A.

        • Thank you for that affirmation.

          The question remains: when is the US going to try to impede Airbus trade with China?
          The US is already constantly harassing semiconductor manufacturing equipment suppliers in Europe and Japan — asking them to stop supplying certain equipment to China. The list changes every week. The US has even gone so far as to ask those companies to stop servicing previously sold products. It defies belief. Next up: aviation!

          • an offshoot of that, will the US impede EU suppliers to sell to China for supporting the design, mfg. equipment. and tooling for C929/939?

          • @ David Pritchard
            I suspect that the answer to your question will be “yes”…particularly if “that other candidate” wins the US election.

            The latest tools on the US sanctions list for the semiconductor industry were designed for the 45nm node — zero significance for military applications. And the list keeps growing. Particularly ironic: China’s own, homemade tools are already starting to produce at the widely-used 28nm node. Can you see any logic in this?

    • From the article:

      “China is the top supplier of machine tools, microelectronics, nitrocellulose, which is critical to making munitions and rocket propellants, and other dual-use items that Moscow is using to ramp up its defence industrial base,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during a visit to Beijing in April.

      Simple solution. Pack up. Leave Ukraine. Then normal programming can be resumed.

      • Double standards.

        A certain other country is the main supplier of arms to a badly misbehaving buddy in the middle east.

        “Simple solution. Pack up. Leave the occupied territores. Then normal everything can be resumed.”

        Giving bad examples doesn’t encourage others to tailor their behavior to your tastes.

  32. United plans its A321XLR to fly like a dozen new route

    Which would deliver earlier? The A321XLR or the MAX 10??

    • @Pedro
      Wikipedia is betting on the XLR coming to United first

  33. Airbus builds new A320neo assembly line in historic hangar swap

    “The move will not lead to a net increase in the number of assembly lines but is part of plans to modernize and speed output of the best-selling A320neo/A321neo family to meet rising demand at a time when aircraft supplies are under pressure.”

    “Airbus narrow-body lines in Toulouse to two and the worldwide total to 8. Airbus plans to bring this to 10 by adding capacity at existing plants in the United States and China.”

    How many 737 FALs?

  34. Yet another big order brewing — and, once again, the A330neo is being referenced:

    “Cathay Pacific Eyes New Widebody Aircraft Order To Replace Aging Airbus A330-300s”

    “Cathay Pacific CEO Ronald Lam has confirmed that the carrier is continuing its search for a widebody replacement for its Airbus A330-300 fleet. The airline says that the Airbus A350, Boeing 787, and Airbus A330neo are on the table, with an order to be placed later this year.”

    “Cathay operates 49 Airbus A330-300s per ch-aviation data. The aircraft have an average age of 17.4 years and offer a combined capacity of 14,150 seats for the carrier.”


    Since Cathay is Chinese, I think we can strike the 787 from the list of (realistic) candidates…

  35. @ Frank P
    We’re (pointlessly) flogging various topics to death above…probably to the exasperation of other readers. Shall we just agree to disagree? As with many other topics, one group here has one opinion, whereas another group has another opinion. We’ll just have to wait to see how things pan out…the market/world will decide. In times of upheaval, things tend to move quickly…so I suspect there’ll be plenty of news (as opposed to speculation) to discuss in the coming months.

    • Sure – as long as you understand that if you choose to comment and express an opinion, you may find replies to rebut your position.

      • Same applies to you.
        We can continue exasperating others if you want…just ask Mr. Hamilton for a green light.
        But, brevity is the mother of clarity…less padding would serve everyone better 😎

Leave a Reply

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