Airbus 9 month 2024 results: Inventory build-up for Q4 and Space Business lowers results

By Bjorn Fehrm

October 30, 2024, © Leeham News: Airbus has presented its results for the first nine months of 2024. The operational result (EBIT Adjusted) is €0.8bn lower than in 9M2023, caused by an inventory increase of €7bn for Airbus Commercial compared with 9M2023 and a write-off of €1bn in the Airbus Space business during the first nine months.

Apart from these areas, group performance was as expected, with 495 commercial aircraft delivered, increasing Commercial revenues by 4% compared with 9M2023, Helicopter revenues by 5%, and Space and Defense revenues by 30%, mainly from the Air Power business.

Airbus announced a 9M2024 profit of 1,808m€ (2,332m€) on revenue of 44.5bn€ (42.6bn€).

Group-level results

Revenue for 9M2024 was €44.5bn (€42.6bn 9M2023), and net profit was €1.8bn (€2.3bn). The revenue growth comes from delivering 497 commercial aircraft compared with 488 9M2023. The decline in profit is due to Space systems problems and a large buildup of inventory for fourth-quarter deliveries (€40.7bn compared with €33.7bn 9M2023).

Free cash flow for 9M2024 was€0.9bn (€0.8bn) as the ramp-up of commercial aircraft requires an increase in inventory. The net cash position at the end of 9M2024 was €7.2bn. Liquidity was €29bn.

Guidance for 2024 is unchanged at:

  • Airbus targets 770 commercial aircraft deliveries.
  • Airbus expects an EBIT Adjusted of €5.5bn.
  • Free Cash Flow of €3.5bn.

Airbus announced a long-term (1 January 2026) replacement of Airbus Commercial Chief Christian Scherer by the MTU CEO Lars Wagner, who leaves MTU when his present contract finishes at the end of 2025.

Commercial aircraft

Market demand is strong, but new orders are tempered by the long lead time for new slots. Net orders for 9M2024 were 648 aircraft compared with 1,241 aircraft for 9M2023. The backlog grew from 7,992 at 9M2023 to 8,749 aircraft.

Of the 497 (488) delivered aircraft, 396 were A321/A320, 45 A220, 36 A350, and 20 A330.

The monthly delivery rate for the A320 family still targets 75 by 2027. Specific supply chain challenges (engines, landing gear, cabin) remain.

The delivery rate for the A350 is set at 12 per month by 2028, whereas the A330neo is at four per month.

Helicopters

The Airbus helicopter saw a pickup in orders, to 308 net orders compared with 191 9M2023. Revenue was up 5% to €4.9bn (€4.7bn), with EBIT €0.42bn (€0.41bn).

Defense and Space

Revenues increased by 7% to €7.6bn (€7.1bn), as Air Power (Eurofighter, A330MRTT..) increased deliveries and services. EBIT was hit by the Space system write-off of -€1bn during 9M2024. Five A440Ms were delivered in 9M2024.

141 Comments on “Airbus 9 month 2024 results: Inventory build-up for Q4 and Space Business lowers results

  1. It’s interesting that AB is still forecasting 770 aircraft deliveries for 2024- at that they appear to be on track to do so. And then the A321XLR coming onstream.. nice.

    • Adding: I wonder if the early mention of the replacement of AB Commercial CEO Scherer by Lars Wagner of MTU portends anything in particular.

      • I guess its the other side of the Pond experts to pontificate on.

        No idea if that is normal over there or not. Definitely seems odd but ??????

      • Agree. It’s curious to see such an important, early appointment of a “young” person with experience at an engine manufacturer that is also a customer of the aircraft manufacturer (PW/MTU for the GTF). If we remember the arrival of a GE man at the head of BOEING and BOEING’s subsequent choice of engines for its new programs, GE and SAFRAN should be “attentive” to their relationship with Airbus .

        • I very much doubt that Airbus will be dumping Safran any time soon. Apart from its 50/50 partnership with GE, Safran is developing an open rotor engine as part of the European Clean Sky initiative, and it’s part of a consortium involved in making the TP400 engine for the A400M.

          The move *might* have something to do with the recent announcement that, for its LH2 propulsion projects, Airbus wants to supply its own engines.

          It also *might* have something to do with the fact that engine issues are the main bottleneck for Airbus commercial aircraft — so, having an “engine guy” onboard might help to navigate around this problem.

          On a related note: I’m wondering when we’re going to see a European engine consortium that manufactures narrowbody engines without US participation. The Chinese are doing it with the CJ-1000A, the Russians have done it with the PD-14. In the age of the “great de-coupling”, it would be logical for Europe to follow suit.

          • @ Pedro
            They’ll certainly *try*, but that doesn’t mean that they’ll succeed.
            Powerful winds of change are blowing, on all sorts of fronts.

          • Sadly not until VDL and most of the current crop are gone

          • @ Pedro
            Not so sure about that.
            Fiscal and political developments at the other side of the Atlantic are giving a cold shower to idealists here, and VDL nowadays has to deal with more dissent than she might like. Many politicians here are preparing for more transoceanic confrontation, as a base case scenario.

        • Airbus will not be dumping CFM, period.

          They already are not where they want to be with purely RR as a wide body supplier.

          Unlike Boeing they have tried to make sure there is a choice.

  2. It seems profit margins are still too low and it shouldn’t be given that in theory, Airbus should have decent pricing power, especially for the A321NEO line.

    • Prices were set a long time ago, when Boeing and airbus were competing for orders. So nobody’s margin would be very good. Airbus are lucky that in the end they actually have a positive margin. Or maybe they forecast the costs better.

      • At least Airbus still has posiitive margins, despite competition.
        BA discounted itself into zero/negative margins in order to win orders.

          • BA hasn’t had positive EBIT for years — which means that revenue is not enough to cover pre-interest costs. In other words, average margin per plane is zero-to-negative.

            Moreover, you can calculate list-price revenue per period and compare it to actual revenue — and you’ll find discounts of the order of 64%, which are not enough to break even.

            The program costs for the 787 will never be recovered, thus indicating a loss per frame. LNA has written previously on the price-gouging effect that the A330neo had on the 787.

            Surely you researched this before you recently bought BA stock…?

      • @RobertPhoenix : There are usually “inflation clauses” as well in contracts. Also, Airbus has known for a while Boeing doesn’t have a plane to compete with the A321NEO.

        I’ve been critical of Airbus for decades regarding this. When Boeing was at their peak 10-15 years ago, their margins were literally 2x better than Airbus.

        • Comparing Airbus and Boeing margins is a little apples and oranges. Boeing using program accounting, which inflates margins. Airbus uses the more accurate unit accounting.

    • The profit margin of Airbus was always lower compared to Boeing. This type of profit is sustainable and doesn’t sucks out the live of a company.

    • Too low?? Compare with which competitors? Yap AB is hit by suppliers incapable of delivering as scheduled like CFM.

      • We also know that one of AB’s competitors created the illusion of big profits by consistently pushing write-offs into the future, in addition to taking engineering shortcuts.

        That really worked out well 👍

        • How can you compete against one which put up fancy numbers “modeled” by the mgmt, oh reminds me of financial accounting adopted by oops ENE, WCOM etc?

          • Magic!

            In three years, BA would had lost $$$ if they reported under unit-cost accounting!

            Profits inflated by program accounting:
            2015 $2,488 (m)
            2014 6,533
            2013 7,377
            2012 8,472
            2011 1,278

            Total profits under program accounting: $25,569 m
            Total losses under unit-cost accounting: $(534) m

        • @Abalone: Profit margins are a bit harder to hide. Boeing’s biggest problem was their manufacturing screw-up. Had they not made some serious mistakes, they would’ve been fine.

          Personally, I like the fact Boeing’s stock is doing poorly. It’s allowed me to pick up cheap shares. 🙂

          • Profit margins are determined by costs booked in a given period.
            Pushing costs down the line serves to “dress up” today’s margins.
            See Mr. Hamilton’s remark above regarding program accounting.

            Regarding your stock:
            Buying “low” is the easy bit…the tricky bit is to sell higher.

          • ..and a restive workforce and suppliers; unhappy
            customers (including CN); low or no line rates
            on their products; continuing issues with their
            regulators..

            Hardly just a mfg screw up or two at Boeing.

          • Airbus has copied Boeing by using program accounting, but dont give the details other than to say its used for new program launch orders- which is where production costs far exceed selling price….ie big losses

            Airbus dont separate its commercial airliner programs apart each other like Boeing does either.

            No side by side unit accounting-program accounting numbers released like Boeing does in annual report.

            EU accounting standards ( Dutch double sandwich !)are far looser than US, they say international yet in virtually every thing else EU had far stricter standards than the minimum ‘international’…Agriculture, industry, clean air and so on

            Airbus corporate HQ ,like Boeing used to be, wasnt where the planes were made but its Leiden the Netherlands . Home of creative accounting

          • Program accounting is used by Airbus on a highly limited basis, as Duke noted. Unit accounting is used beyond that.

          • Airbus is headquartered in NL because it has attractive offshore tax laws (like Ireland and Delaware) — not because of “creative accounting”. Since EBIT is calculated before tax is levied, this point is irrelevant.

            Other than that: always fun to read the “bogey man” conspiracy theory about Airbus somehow magically managing to conceal huge imagined losses…🤭

          • Well you have to love that they are in the NL for tax purposes but it has nothign to do with creative accounting! Hmmmm

            Now there is not question that Boeing if not the King of shenanigans accounting is certainly a Queen or Duke royalist (are Dukes higher than Barons? – we just have masters with no labels.

          • Deferred tax and writeoffs is the name of the game for corporate taxation
            The ‘double dutch and or Irish sandwich’ is tax avoidance or evasion strategy’s.
            It become public due to a whistle-blower that Airbus was “going to” wipe the A400M massive losses by a creative accounting trick of ‘selling the IP’ to some shell company.

            Then theres all the convictions for bribery … and for the UFWD volunteers who pile in, there was the Paris court conviction for the civil case related to the A330 Air France crash and its faulty airspeed/AOA sensors

        • Easy, in addition to fancy numbers from financial models by the mgmt, BA sacrificed long-term survival, no clean-sheet aircraft since 787 in 2003(?) to juice up short-term profits – their most experienced engineers were pushed out the door one way or the other (that’s why they have to had contract employees to resolve their deficiencies), killing the goose that lays golden eggs. “At what cost?”

          • Was the A321XLR and A330neo ‘clean sheets’? These are the new programs in the last 15 years

            I wouldnt stay in that hotel!

            Look at all the A321 XLR changes : Completely different wing flaps, main undercarriage completely new , integral belly tank.
            Thank heaven for grand fathering but at least the integral tank didnt pass the family DNA test.

          • @ Dukeofurl

            A cleansheet narrowbody was a less urgent task for AB than for BA, because the 737 has a much greater vintage, and was starting to visibly suffer from that vintage (e.g. as regards ground clearance for the NG engines). More recently, the 737’s lack of EICAS became another issue.
            A cleansheet replacement here was an absolute necessity — not just a luxury.

          • Its worth a great deal to go to Mentour Pilot and see his most recent video on the differences between Boeing and Airbus.

            Unfortunately for the non technical EICAS is a one shot wonder. Until it swamps you with information overload. See Qantas Flight 32! (Airbus has another acronym for it).

            Bottom line, some think whiz bang is the answer to everything and the reality is its not.

            The same congress that wrote the legislation that made sure the USAF had to adhere to its RFP aka the KC-X program, also wrote the language into the aviation bill.

            Now before we get all spun up, as a body, politicians come out with stupid stuff regularly. Brexit comes to mind (leading into it and not getting out of it but people annoyed at stupid stuff as well)

            There was NO report that said that the alert system on the Classic, NG or MAX has ever caused an accident. As with Airbus, pilot screw up is the most predominant aspect computer alarms and lists or not.

            Congress has NO and did NO research that said otherwise.

            So you can blow smoke all you want about EICAS, it was no more than the standard belly button lint that gets included in all bills.

            Continui9ng to say it was or is when you have been informed you are wrong and proven, is disingenuous at best and sadly deliberate in its false hood.

          • Haha AB was working on various programs, quietly, don’t you know?? 😂

            Can you tabulate how many SPEEA members were laid off by BCA each year cf AB over last twelve years or so?

          • Pilots need an Alarm that tells you there is a problem, they don’t need to be overwhelmed.

            AF447 is a poster child for bells, whistles etc when the only thing that was relevant was Stall, Stall, Stall. Any pilot including those know what to do if you can get it through their thick heads.

            Pilots can and do disagree on that stuff. Bjorn likes AOA, but he is fighter pilot background and they live and breath AOA. More than one crash and near crashes have been caused by AOA, including Airbus because your EICAS is useless when your AOA os blocked no matter how many AOA vanes you have.

            LCA did not originally have AOA. It was only because so many ex military pilots had it, wanted it and we got it.

            Clearly Synthetic speed is the way to go and you can put AOA with it.

            The 737 has a simple alarm system and it works and it works just fine.

            Frankly a mix of Airbus and Boeing approach would be better.

            Best of all is if they quit having engineers decide about bells and whistles and finish the research on what really works.

            It helps if you have a background in these areas. I worked construction for a lot of years. OSHA decided we needed back up dingers on equipment. For those who don’t know (most) its a bell with arms and going backwards it bongs the bell with the arm (nor forward)

            First thing you do is tune it out. What is a construction site? Yea, a lot of equipment backing up. Dingers are just background nose.

            Well or course the answer was more tech. We will put audible speaker alarms. Then it was that with warblers, and then it was all of the above with flashing lights. It still does not work.

            Backup cameras may be a help, auto stop may be a help (its all in cares now) but you need to TEST it. Probably too much stuff on a construction site to have it work.

            We had one guy research steel toes boots (mandatory in many US work sites, not just construction, warehouses and the like). 15% of foot injuries are due to toe crush. So for 15% saving (and then you crush the toe anyway with a roll off behind the steel toe) you inflict untold misery.

            I have seen sneaker like (tennis shoes) footwear that passes the toe test. Truly a joke. T

            But that means 85% of injuries are not on the toe. So a good set of solid leather or leather like above the ankle footwear is the answer. And yes, I was saved some really bad injuries because I used that footgear that was protecting to above the ankle, two severe.

            A politician deciding something is needed is the best example of what not to do.

  3. Dominic Gates wrote on “X” that Christian Scherer would be retiring. I asked a friend who works at Airbus and she confirmed this. But is there another reason for his departure? Does Scott know any information about this?

    • Scherer is 65 or more and has been at Airbus (and ATR, 50% owned by Airbus) his whole career.

      • Scherer is 62 years old, but I believe the reason is indeed retirement. Thanks, Scott.

  4. “EBIT was hit by the Space system write-off of -€1bn during 9M2024.”

    Seems like Airbus is no better at space than Boeing is.

    • Ariane 6 has experienced delays.
      It is a complete launcher system.
      ( not just a tin to vacuumize astsronauts.)

      Beyond that:
      SpaceX has changed the market significantly.
      EU space politics are toooooooo slow to react.

      • “Despite Rare Profit, SpaceX Still Mostly Loses Money. SpaceX lost nearly $1 billion in 2021, and more than $500 million in 2022. In 2023’s first quarter, however, SpaceX flipped to a $55 million profit’.

        https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/27/despite-rare-profit-spacex-still-mostly-loses-cash/#:~:text=SpaceX%20lost%20nearly%20%241%20billion,to%20a%20%2455%20million%20profit.

        Musk is using Starlink as a mantle to (try to) mask the structural losses from launch operations.

        Ariane 6 is designed for single use because the projected number of launches per year is not considered enough to justify a re-usable design.

        China is doing 100 launches this year — with single-use launchers:

        https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yp47prg7jo

        • Musk said he wouldnt patent his space launcher inventions as thats just a path to someone copying – without a license.
          China has started to test a reusable rocket launcher….

          China did 67 launch ‘attempts’ last year , so maybe they could get to 100 if the party-state so decrees.
          [ but 56 in 2021, 64 in 2022]

          US did 98 .Other countries were:
          NZ 7, India 7, Japan 3, North Korea 3, Iran 2, Israel 1

        • Man, good thing the floor is carpeted or I would be hurting myself ROLFing.

          Space X does a 100 launches a year BECAUSE its reusable.

          Did Airbus make any money on the A380? Nope, they sold the early ones at huge discounts and the price never recovered. Its called a loss for a reason. Now, if like the A320, you make enough of them you can recover those costs and put your hand out for more Free Lunch Money.

          What China does not do is launches for others. Space X does, in fact they took the Arianne business away.

          LOL, so lets compete with a more costly single use launch system. Well when ego is invovled…………….. Be interesting to see where ILA goes or not.

          In theory Boeing Moon Launcher is an end to end machine – granted its even worse than their Spam in a Can for the ISS. Or as the USCG says, y0u gotta go out, you don’t have to come back!

          Space X will make money some day, but they are doing that weird huge rocket thing that has no home. So once Musk is gone they can settle in for the long run.

          NASA at one time was new and had ideas. Not they are a bogged down bureaucracy. Arianne is the same.

          Not sure there are any ideas beyond Space X but darn, that stuff works and it works well. It takes a visionary but visionaries are not good business people (unless they fall into something)

          Iridium was a good business but not the way it was run. The US dumped a load of money to keep it going, well worth it, pennies on the dollar.

          Duke has it right (or Musk does): Copyrights just lead to lawsuits and you still get ripped off. China being our current poster child.

          Now its hard to get stupider than using Russian rocket engines to launch your stuff but the US managed that (the same Congress that did EICAS and dropped the FAA oversight, something to thinks about)

        • “China is doing 100 launches this year — with single-use launchers:”
          Yeah, riiiight! They better get a move on it then because there are only two months to go and they are only at 52 so far, as of today. Chop, chop!
          On the other hand, as of today, SpaceX has conducted 105 Falcon 9/Heavy launches this year and 3 Starship launches. I estimate that SpaceX will get to 120 by the end of this year. China… perhaps 69.

          “Ariane 6 is designed for single use because the projected number of launches per year is not considered enough to justify a re-usable design.”
          No, it is expendable because Arianespace didn’t think reuseability was possible. They thought it was a dream, or at least Arianspace’s Richard Bowles did in 2013. It turns out his statements are laughably wrong.
          https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/some-european-launch-officials-still-have-their-heads-stuck-in-the-sand/
          Low launch volume is just Arianspace’s current excuse for why Ariane 6 is expendable.

          You’ve quoted this 2023 Motley Fool article before… or was it Bryce? I can’t seem to remember as I get you two mixed up all the time.😉
          Let’s use more up-to-date information, shall we.

          “How Much Money Will SpaceX Make in 2024? SpaceX appears to have generated sales of $8.7 billion in 2023, and earned a profit of $3 billion. In 2023, Payload Research estimates SpaceX will grow its sales more than 50%. If profits grow in tandem, SpaceX could earn more than $4.5 billion this year.”
          https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/03/17/how-much-money-will-spacex-make-in-2024/

          Pierre Lionnet of Eurospace estimates a $28M full cost for a Falcon 9 launch. SpaceX charges around $65M per launch for it’s commercial customers. So much for having to mask losses from launch operations. Pierre is complaining that SpaceX is gouging their customers by charing them way to much for launches.
          https://spacenews.com/spacex-and-the-categorical-imperative-to-achieve-low-launch-cost/

          • Hi Mike,

            Did you talk with anyone, in the industry who has an overall picture, about your numbers of SpaceX?? Your numbers are only good as (fairy) tales for kids, not for adults who know a thing or two. Dig deeper. Regards,

          • Pedro,

            The numbers aren’t mine, they are from the articles I cited with links so you can read them yourself. If you don’t agree with the numbers in those articles, don’t whine to me. Whine to the authors and analysts. Better yet, why don’t you share some data or links to support your deeper view. I’ll wait but my expectations for you are not high.

          • “Pierre Lionnet of Eurospace estimates a $28M full cost for a Falcon 9 launch. SpaceX charges around $65M per launch for it’s commercial customers. So much for having to mask losses from launch operations.”

            Great — so we have a guesstimate of unit launch costs.
            Now, what about all the other costs that a company has to deduct? Personnel, rent, utilities, insurance, R&D, tooling, depreciation and amortization, unrecoverable losses (failed launches), loan interest, etc?

            On that note:
            “Musk’s SpaceX is quick to build in Texas, slow to pay its bills”

            https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/musks-spacex-is-quick-build-texas-slow-pay-its-bills-2024-05-13/

            That’s more than $2.5B owed to contractors in Texas.

            If one were only to consider *unit* manufacturing costs at BA, the company would be swimming in profit 🤭

          • People in the know would hesitate to quote unreliable source(s), which reflect poorly of them. Regards,

          • Oh dear, be humble if you request free research assistance.

            Quote:
            SpaceX is on track to register earnings, *excluding some items*, of more than $3 billion, some of the people said. The Information previously reported on the *projected operating profits*.

            As good as BCA’s program accounting I guess. Regards,

          • Abalone,

            In the SpaceNews article I linked, Pierre Lionnet made it clear the $28M per launch estimate includes everything but the payload. If you would’ve read the article you would’ve known this.
            “…many analysts believe that the possibility that the full cost of each Falcon 9 launch —– including workforce for transport, refurbishment, assembly and operations, depreciation and amortization on facilities (launch sites, factories, test benches) and reusable items (fairings and boosters) — is currently positioned below $30 million.”

            As far as insurance and unrecoverable losses go, Falcon is the most reliable orbital rocket in history with a 99.0% success rate. SpaceX just doesn’t lose that many payloads. They did lose one payload this year, which was worth a whoppin $18M.

            Also, it’s $2.5M not $2.5B. Somehow you managed to be off by a factor of 1000.

          • Pedro,

            I see that your “in the know” free research resulted in an article that is just as unreliable as what I linked.

            You should really consider how this reflects on you, since you’re the one claiming to be “in the know”.

          • Strange definition of “everything but the payload”.

            I still don’t see cost items such as salaries for general personnel, amortization of development costs, loan interest, general plant costs, utilities, rent, etc.
            And hefty insurance premiums have to be paid when you’re setting fire to tons of explosives under multi-million-dollar payloads…regardless of whether the launch is successful or not.

            From another source:
            “In 2022, SpaceX spent $3.1 billion on a group of costs that included employee salaries, materials and spacecraft depreciation. That was up from $1.6 billion in 2021, the documents show. The company reported $1.3 billion on research and development expenses for 2022, an increase of 11% year over year.”

            There were 60 Falcon launches in 2022, giving us total costs of $73M per launch.

            Costs at SpaceX are going up — not down.

            Maybe your “analyst” has a vested interest that we don’t know about — after all, everything in the Musk omniverse revolves around hype…

          • TIL: “Unreliable” because it doesn’t fit your narrative
            Have a nice day

          • Pedro,

            “Unreliable” because it doesn’t fit your narrative

            Funny. I was thinking the same about you.

            At least I don’t claim to be “in the know” without being able to back it up.

          • What da irony! “Unreliable”! Must be you have a different definition of “profit”! Or simply a comprehension issue??

            “appears* to have generated sales of $8.7 billion in 2023, and earned a profit of …”

            A single word does all the heavy lifting, but that’s the source you are so proud to quote but dismiss others’ as “unreliable”. Good reflection of you I believe.

          • Abalone,

            Your other source quote is from an Aug. 2023 WSJ article.
            https://www.collegesidekick.com/study-docs/1536998
            This is a link to a copy of the full article.

            I question why you didn’t post the link. Perhaps it is because the article doesn’t fit your narrative when taken in it’s entirety. Part of the subtitle is: “costs increased but revenues rose faster”, which seems to sum up the SpaceX situation quite nicely.

            Your $73M cost per Falcon launch is bogus. Falcon is a mature launch system requiring very little if any R&D, and the section of the article you quoted was talking about Starlink.

            So, total 2022 expenses of $5.2B (from the WSJ article) minus $3.1B for Starlink salaries, materials, and spacecraft depreciation, minus another $1.3B for Starlink R&D leaves $800M.

            Divide that by 61 launches gives $13M per Falcon launch.
            Do the same thing for the previous year (2021) and you get $17M per launch.

            Pierre Lionnet is more your analyst than mine. He works for Eurospace, a trade association of the European Space Industry, fostering the development of space activities in Europe and promoting a better understanding of space industry related issues and problems. It is unlikely that he has any pro-Musk vested interest.

          • Pedro,

            You are aware, aren’t you, that the Motley Fool article that I quoted is partially based on the Bloomberg article that you quoted from? This link contains a copy of your Bloomberg article.
            https://finance.yahoo.com/news/spacex-eyes-15-billion-2024-232612737.html

            Remember that you were the first to call the Motley Fool article unreliable. You are also aware, aren’t you, that both your Bloomberg article and my Motley Fool article are clear about the 2023 and 2024 SpaceX revenue and profits being projections?

            Now, if my source is partially based on your source, and they both say similar things about SpaceX’s revenue and profits, and you deem my source to be unreliable, then it is reasonable for me to deem your source unreliable. You can whine as much as you want, but you opened the door.

            If you think SpaceX’s revenue and profits for this year and last are actually much lower than analysts project, then feel free to tell us all why and back up your opinions with numbers.

          • “.. on track to register earnings, excluding some items”

            Read the above again, slowly. Did Bloomberg report that SpaceX made a $3 b “profit” as you claimed?? You’re funny. 🤣

            The problem clearly is someone here is desperate to find whatever they can to fit their narrative, without reading what’s said/reported. 😁

            P.S. BTW where did you mention the profit is “projected” previously? Do you know what exactly that word means?? So did SpaceX even make a profit? Where’s your *proof*? I’ll wait. 😉

          • Pedro,

            I’ve said this to you before and I’ll say it to you again because apparently you don’t get it.

            The numbers aren’t mine, they are from the articles I cited with links so you can read them yourself. If you don’t agree with the numbers in those articles, don’t whine to me. Whine to the authors and analysts. Better yet, why don’t you share some data or links to support your deeper view. I’ll wait but my expectations for you are not high.

            I made zero claims about SpaceX revenue or profit. I just cited an article from the same source as Abalone to demonstrate that he was using old info and cherry picking quotes to fit his narrative.

            When you attacked the reliability of the Motley Fool article, I pointed out that your source, the Bloomberg article, wasn’t any more reliable.

            So, I think the analysts are right about SpaceX’s financials, and that the company is growing like crazy and will be around for the long haul. They are kicking Europe’s a$$ in space, and you and Abalone can’t stand it.

            What do you think about SpaceX’s financials? You’ve pretty much met my expectations of you so far. I wonder if you will surprise me.

          • Funny. Do you know what “profit” is? Can you explain what “earnings before certain items” exactly are? Are they equivalent to “profits” in general understanding? Why would anyone quote such gibberish meaningless word salad?

            Why would anyone knowingly quote some smoke and mirror “projected” numbers “before certain items” other than to mislead??

            The alternative is that person had no idea what they quoted or didn’t understand what they read. Which one is closer to the truth??

          • Abalone,

            There’s a very simple consideration here: if SpaceX were making a profit, Musk would be trumpeting it as loudly as he could.
            He’s not.

            So I see that your view of SpaceX financials are based on your feelings. How Gen Z of you. I’ll go with the analysts.

            From your futurism link:
            “On the upside, Starlink reported marginal profits for the first three months of 2022, the WSJ reported.”
            This was with only 1 million subscribers. Now Starlink has over 4 million subscribers and here is a list of all the Airlines that offer, or will offer Starlink as their inflight WiFi service:
            Air France
            United Airlines
            Air New Zealand
            Qatar Airways
            Hawaiian Airlines
            AirBaltic
            ZIPAIR
            JSX

            Here’s a list of cruise lines that use Starlink:
            AIDA Cruises
            Carnival Cruise Line
            Celebrity Cruises
            Cunard
            Explora Journeys
            Holland America Line
            MSC Cruises
            Norwegian Cruise Line
            Oceania Cruises
            Princess Cruises
            Regent Seven Seas Cruises
            Royal Caribbean
            Seabourn
            Silversea Cruises
            Windstar Cruises

            I think the Starlink is going to do just fine.

          • Don’t forget once BA “projected” to have $10 billion FCF, how close do they achieve within the time frame they provided?

          • Haha the list you provided is no different than a list of defense contracts BDS won. Let me ask you, is BDS making $$$ in last couple of years? Oops!

          • Pedro,

            Funny. Do you know what “profit” is? Can you explain what “earnings before certain items” exactly are? Are they equivalent to “profits” in general understanding? Why would anyone quote such gibberish meaningless word salad?

            Assume for the sake of argument that I don’t. Please explain it to us, oh in-the-know one. And, if you look at this thread, it looks like you dominated the word salad stat.

            Why would anyone knowingly quote some smoke and mirror “projected” numbers “before certain items” other than to mislead??

            Oh, I’m misleading. You should look in the mirror and also give your buddy Abalone a talking to about this. Why would you two mislead? Because you can’t stand that SpaceX has been wildly successful so far technically, and their financials are good enough that it looks like they will be around for the long haul.

          • Pedro,

            Haha the list you provided is no different than a list of defense contracts BDS won.

            You think BDS got defense contracts with cruise lines???? Bwaahhaahhaahhaa!

            Don’t forget once BA “projected” to have $10 billion FCF, how close do they achieve within the time frame they provided?

            SpaceX didn’t make those projections, your sources did.

          • Have two points to respond:

            * Doesn’t matter who the customers are. My statement is whether rhe contractor can make $$ from the contracts. BDS proved you cannot make such an assumption.

            * “SpaceX didn’t make those projections, your sources did.”
            Nope. Dead wrong. Didn’t you read the Bloomberg article? 🤔 Or read my quote, I think it’s pretty clear to readers whom made the projection. Why would you think a reporter or an agency would make such an *earnings* (before certain items) projection?? Incredible.

          • Pedro,

            Nope. Dead wrong. Didn’t you read the Bloomberg article? 🤔 Or read my quote, I think it’s pretty clear to readers whom made the projection. Why would you think a reporter or an agency would make such an *earnings* (before certain items) projection?? Incredible.

            Did you even read the Bloomberg article, your own source?? It is clear that a confidential source made the projection.
            “SpaceX is on track to book revenues of about $9 billion this year across its rocket launch and Starlink businesses, according to people familiar with the matter…”
            And
            SpaceX is on track to register earnings, excluding some items, of more than $3 billion, some of the people said.

            So, a confidential source cited in a news article, your source, made the projections. Why would SpaceX do that if they don’t need to. I think you’re getting mixed up here.

          • After you finally read the Bloomberg article, at least you confirmed you were dead wrong:

            “SpaceX didn’t make those projections, your sources did.”

            Thx.

            For your questions, have you considered to consider to ask Elon or Bloomberg directly to clarify?? Hope this helps. 🙂

          • Pedro,

            I see that you finally admitted that the source you quoted made the profit projections. I guess you’re not as in-the-know as you crowed that you are. You’re just some anonymous dude on the internet that does google searches to find quotes with a few words to fit a narrative you want to push.

          • Sorry. Can’t help you since you insisted on missing the point.

          • Pedro,

            Sorry. Can’t help you since you insisted on missing the point.

            Your point was never clear, because you were never trying to help. Instead, you were condescendingly pushing a narrative because you hate SpaceX. You seemed to think I was just going to let you get away with it.
            Well, no.

          • Concede you’re dead wrong. An average person who read the Bloomberg article knows.

      • Uwe,
        Not only was/is EU space too slow to react, their reaction was with more of the same old stuff, another expendable launcher. Ariane 6 will never be able to compete with Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy on price. Heck, Ariane 6 is going to have trouble competing with Vulcan/Centaur (another expendable system) on price, let alone Starship (stupid name) when it comes on line.

        Starliner (another stupid name) is much more complicated than you describe. It’s a full on, human rated, spacecraft with all the associated power systems, control systems, and life support systems that need to be able to function for extended periods in orbit. It also has the ability to survive reentry and bring people and payload back to the ground. It is much, much more than just an upper stage.

        Ariane 6 is just a launcher.

        • LEO or low earth orbit makes it much easier and with lower payloads- Falcon 9 is 10 tons to LEO – is there a ULEO ?

          “Satellite company SpaceX has received permission to halve the altitude at which its low earth orbit satellites float.”
          https://www.telecoms.com/satellite/spacex-gets-approval-to-lower-its-leo

          Ariadne is a full spectrum orbital launch rocket
          Ariane 62 can launch payloads of approximately 4.5 tonnes into geostationary transfer orbit or 10.3 tonnes into low Earth orbit.

          Ariane 64 can launch payloads of approximately 11.5 tonnes into geostationary transfer orbit and 21.6 tonnes into low Earth orbit.

          • Duke,
            Where are you getting your info? Falcon 9 is a full spectrum orbital launcher, and it is human rated. Yes, it is mostly used for LEO and ISS, but it has launched regularly to GTO. Starlink altitude has to do with latency and sustainability, and nothing to do with Falcon 9 capability. The capabilities are listed below.

            Falcon 9 payload to LEO:
            17.5 tonnes (return to drone ship)
            22.8 tonnes (expended)

            Falcon 9 payload to GTO
            3.5 tonnes (return to launch site)
            5.5 tonnes (return to drone ship)
            8.3 tonnes (expended)

            Then there is Falcon Heavy, essentially three Falcon 9’s strapped together, like the Delta IV Heavy is three common cores strapped together. Falcon Heavy is currently the most powerful launch system in operation. Last year Falcon Heavy launched the largest and heaviest geostationary communications satellite ever to GTO.

            Falcon Heavy payload to LEO:
            >50 tonnes (core and boosters landed)
            57 tonnes (boosters landed, core expended)
            63.8 tonnes (boosters and core expended)

            Falcon Heavy payload to GTO:
            26.7 tonnes

          • Thanks for that. Its just important to compare the capability’s of the standard Space X Falcon to the standard Ariadne

            Mini satellites in ULEO are ideal for Space X and it is its own biggest customer with Starlink ( 23 per launch) , but in $ terms thats Uncle Sam

            *$260 million per mission for three manned Commercial Crew launches to the International Space Station (ISS) for NASA.

            *$145 million per flight for three Commercial Resupply launches — also to ISS, and also for NASA.

            *$150 million per flight for three U.S. government Falcon Heavy launches.

            *$130 million per flight for two Falcon Heavy launches for commercial customers.

            *$100 million per flight for six government Falcon 9 missions.

            *$67 million per flight for each of a dozen commercial Falcon 9 flights.

            $45 million per Falcon 9 flight that SpaceX advertises as a “Transporter” mission (bundling large numbers of small satellites, for multiple customers, on individual rocket launches).

            And… $0 per flight across 63 separate launches of Starlink satellites that SpaceX flew for itself.
            Some higher level guess work here but its a start

          • Duke,

            Based on your 2023 Falcon launch numbers, including the 4 Transporter launches, total estimated SpaceX launch revenue is $3.509B.

            $2.265B of that was Gov. business, and $1.244B of that was commercial business.

            Payload estimates 2023 total Starlink revenue was $4.178B, and “Other” revenue was $1.034B, for a total estimated SpaceX 2023 revenue of $8.721B.

    • Well, its something more than planes that is missing at Boeing. That is the underlying cause of the missing planes.

      What did the one article say, something like 64 billion in share buy back and you get 20 billion back now?

      Of course you can keep selling more and more shares, who cares how much you dilute the stock (well the one guy who bought low and will see his stock go lower still and you now see why Boeing can sell stock, PT Barnum strikes again)

      And now its Soap Dispensers. Thank god its not toilet seats this time.

        • Wake up! Wake up!!
          APPL is one of a handful of companies that have AAA credit rating!
          Let me ask you, what’s the credit rating of BA? “Sophisticated investors”?? 🤣

          • Boeing hasnt done a big buyback for some years, as its management blunders have tanked the stock price and its credit rating

            AI says
            2022: $1.35 million on September 30, $1.90 million on June 30, and $32.69 million on March 31
            2021: $7.05 million on September 30, $2.17 million on June 30, and $38.22 million on March 31
            2020: $4.80 million on December 31 and $162.40 million on March 31
            2019: $6.91 million on December 31 and $3.32 million on September 30

          • Are you serious?? BA repurchased their shares as late as 1Q19!! They didn’t continue because they had no choice but to cut back production after the MAX was grounded, and their artificially inflated FCF went up in smoke as soon as delayed payment to suppliers came due! Where were you the last five years? Under a rock??

        • IMU:
          dividends are taxable.
          share value increase by way of reducing the volume of public shares is up front not taxable. ( it is when you sell though.)

          Apple as well as Nestle have money coming out of their ears
          well beyond any useful investments.
          OK.

          Boeing has refrained from investing sensibly and instead sucked up their own shares.
          BAD.

        • Duke:

          That is what dividends are for. You are not supposed to dump all the money into Investors you keep enough for the company to come out with new product and weather bad times.

          That is a direct way to Jack up your own ill gotten gains as its in stocks. Jack em up and you get more money you can never spend. Pure greed.

          One of the financial experts needs to weigh in on tax aspects, I assume that its a way not to pay taxes as well.

  5. On the first page of search result looking up “Boeing program accounting”:

    CPA Journal:
    A Case Study on the Effects of Program Accounting Boeing vs. Airbus

    https://www.cpajournal.com/2016/11/23/case-study-effects-program-accounting/

    HBS: Accounting Turbulence at Boeing
    “By 2016, Boeing had deferred about $27 billion in production costs related to its 787 program. If Boeing had been forced to expense these costs, it would have shown profits of $1.4 billion between 2012 and 2016 instead of $25.2 billion, raising questions about Boeing’s true profitability.”

    Airplanes and Accounting Games: The Coming Boeing Collapse?
    (Ignore the hyperbole)
    “… Even before the 737 Max, the company was bleeding cost overruns. As Maureen Tkacik wrote in the New Republic, the 787 Dreamliner, was budgeted to cost $7 billion for development, but ultimately cost between $30-50 billion (which was both development and manufacturing). That’s a lot of money! Where are the losses?

    One hint comes in this headline of a Wall Street Journal story from 2016, before the 737 Max scandals started: “Boeing’s Unique Accounting Method Helps Improve Profit Picture.” Unique is doing a LOT of rhetorical work in this headline.. ”

    https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/boeing-could-be-going-back-to-work/?_thumbnail_id=18118

  6. So much for “resetting relations”.
    Seattle Times:

    “New Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg this week intervened directly in the negotiations with the Machinists and personally delivered a tough message: If striking union members on Monday reject the company’s latest offer, the next contract proposal will be less generous, with potentially serious consequences for the future.”

    So, what happens if the new proposal is accepted by a low margin, e.g. 51%?
    Workers will go back to work, but a large portion of them will still be unmotivated. That doesn’t bode well for manufacturing quality…

  7. “Spirit Belfast deal ‘to complete by year end’”

    “Airbus says it expects its takeover of part of the Spirit AeroSystems operation in Belfast to be completed by the end of the year.”

    “”Airbus is taking control of the part of the Belfast operation which makes wings and fuselage for its A220 jet.

    “The company’s chief financial officer, Thomas Toepfer, expects the deal to be finalised soon.

    “”We have signed a binding term sheet and a quite detailed binding term sheet with Spirit,” he told industry analysts this week.

    “”Nevertheless, we have to get to a formal signing of a contract and that is where we currently are. We’re expecting that to happen before the end of the year.””

    “Aside from the Belfast operation Airbus will also take control of two Spirit factories in the US, one in France and one in Morocco.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ymg5plxyro

  8. “Congress protests ‘revolving door’ to Boeing while rushing through it”

    “The revolving door swings when congressional staffers – and occasionally elected officials – move into industries they regulated while in government. The practice, long identified as a source of deference to corporate titans, saw dozens of congressional workers move to Boeing. But as regulators’ treatment of the company drew condemnation on Capitol Hill, Congress has kept the door spinning.

    “Even members of Congress with strong voting records on revolving-door restrictions for staff at federal agencies, including members of the Washington state delegation, aren’t immune from contributing to the flow. While congressional staffers must wait one year before representing a new employer on government business, they commonly swing through the revolving door.”

    “Boeing alone has hired 315 people formerly employed by Congress since 2000, primarily into lobbying roles, a Seattle Times review of federal data showed.

    “The list includes 21 staffers from Washington’s congressional delegation, including past employees of Sen. Patty Murray (8), Rep. Adam Smith (5), Sen. Maria Cantwell (4), Rep. Rick Larsen (2), former Rep. Jennifer Dunn (2) and former Sen. Slade Gorton (2). Former Rep. George Nethercutt, former Sen. Warren G. Magnuson, former Rep. Brian Baird, former Rep. Doc Hastings, former Rep. Dave Reichert and former Rep. Jim McDermott each had one.”

    https://www.postguam.com/business/congress-protests-revolving-door-to-boeing-while-rushing-through-it/article_93977b9e-98a9-11ef-84b8-03277809964a.html

  9. Oops. BDS’s big bets appear to be misplaced. The captive customer now has second thoughts.

    “New: The saga continues.

    USAF boss says the ongoing look at NGAD, the next-gen tanker and the next CCA increment shows the plans are unaffordable, no matter the combo, because of other priorities unless the Air Force gets more resources.”
    https://x.com/beverstine/status/1852423299134787715

  10. This is interesting:
    “Air India Might Operate Tata-Made New Airbus C295 Civilian Aircraft”

    “GURUGRAM- Tata Group-owned Tata Advance Systems Limited (TIAL) recently inaugurated the final assembly line (FAL) facility for Airbus C295 transport aircraft and is planning to make a civilian aircraft, which might be ordered by its carrier, Air India (AI).”

    “So if the reports shared by IDRW are true then it will be the first time that C295 aircraft will be used for civilian transport purposes.

    “Currently, ATR and Bombardier rule the Indian skies in the turboprop market segment and ATR is leading as it is also the largest regional aircraft manufacturer. However, Air India doesn’t have any of these in its fleet.”

    https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2024/11/03/air-india-eyes-tata-made-airbus-c295-civilian-aircraft/

    https://idrw.org/tata-eyes-civilian-variant-of-c-295-could-air-india-be-the-first-customer/

    • Sure is interesting how Corporate Mgmt and Union “Leadership” end up (?) aligned against the
      rank-and-file membership.

      Over and over and over this pattern occurs. Mmm.

      • I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that IAM leadership recommendation makes it “aligned” “against” the membership. Will there be opposition? You bet. But that doesn’t mean the majority won’t approve it. We’ll find out tomorrow.

        • Fair enough, and I think it’ll pass tomorrow, FWIW.
          Mr. Ortberg’s recent words do rankle a bit, though.

  11. Interesting to see on LNA’s new article this morning that AB is (more) seriously considering introduction of an A220-500 variant.
    One wonders what engine will be offered on this model: it would be logical for AB to try providing an alternative to the hapless PW GTF.

    • And, on the subject of engines, the Chinese CJ-1000A turbofan was (when flight tests began in 2023) slated for certification “by 2025”. That (nominally) leaves 2 months for an announcement.

      Perhaps no coincidence that COMAC opened two customer support offices for the C919 last week — one in Singapore and one in Hong Kong.

      Once the CJ-1000A is certified, C919 production is planned to climb to 150 per year.

      Interesting year ahead, in that regard.

      • The term “game-changer” is grossly overused, but cert of the Chinese engine would truly be that.

    • Airbus position was “no longer A220 version before production issues in general and financial compaction for the type are achieved”.
      Not “if” but “when” ..

      GTF is the path to go.
      I expect that any remaining issues will get a fix.

  12. An A220-500 stretch would be smaller and less capable than an A320NEO. It misses payload-range, capacity (many A320 have180 seats these days), AKH options, Airbus cockpit commonality, to name a few aspects.

    https://07185918574543712684.googlegroups.com/attach/58e8ea931803c/Flies%20scrapbook%20NB%201.5.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrFD_qDOI48TteyllZXPLprcHDeLF8ceDSSB1O9LTr47zRBo9GWVKcuS-y46VlLHmjqQ49FjGPRj15SYe_GK6njUx5OWvRB-Vqmjasg7Gh1g_0B7T6E

    If Airbus takes over Spirit A220 production in Dublin, it will likely become part of the Canadian/ US based Airbus operations.

    But Spirit is also seriously involved in A350 fuselage production and A320 subassemblies..

    • The Spirit A220 facilities in Belfast (not Dublin) are for wing. It would make more sense to become part of the Airbus UK activities. Even if it was in Dublin it wouldn’t make sense to part of US/Canada if it was in EU.

  13. Ryanair profits plunge amid lower fares and Boeing delays

    “Ryanair’s profits have dropped by nearly a fifth, as lower peak-season fares met higher costs that the airline blamed partly on problems at Boeing.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/04/ryanair-profits-lower-and-boeing-737-michael-oleary

    Ryanair Cuts Passenger Growth Target Amid Boeing Jet Delays

    👇🙄
    “The airline is still set to receive Boeing’s Max 10 aircraft in the first half of 2027 as certification timelines for the Max 7 and Max 10 remain on track, he said.”

    https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/11/04/ryanair-cuts-passenger-growth-target-amid-boeing-aircraft-delays/

    • “The airline is still set to receive Boeing’s Max 10 aircraft in the first half of 2027 as certification timelines for the Max 7 and Max 10 remain on track, he said.”

      ROFL 😂

      The date creep is amazing. Wasn’t cert supposed to be coming in H2 2025? And now, all of a sudden, 2027 is being mentioned for delivery.

      #AnyDayNow
      #WillNeverBeCertified

      • My thoughts exactly. They’re *talking* 2027 now? Just the other day it was “late 2025”.

        heh-

        • The MAX-10 was launched in June, 2017 — a relatively straightforward stretch, with modified landing gear.

          More than 7 years further at this stage, and still no cert.

          And now: planned delivery to Ryanair almost 10 years after intro?

          #AnyDayNow

        • Ryanair is not the launch customer.

          But, who knows when the MAX 10 is certified.

          • Yes, Ryanair is not the launch customer — but it is an important customer.

            What I find interesting: the originally planned delivery period for Ryanair’s MAX-10s started in 2027 (see link below). In the meantime, cert has been pushed back by at least a year (nacelle heating screw-up). Moreover, it will possibly be another 5 years before BA gets up to rate 50 on the MAX (see recent LNA article). Nevertheless, Ryanair is still clinging to that 2027 date.
            Bit odd, isn’t it?

            https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/ryanair-orders-300-boeing-737-max-10-aircraft-worth-40bn/

  14. Oh-oh:

    “Inside Singapore Airlines’ $835M Plan To Transform A350s With New First & Business Class Thanks To Boeing Delays”

    “Singapore Airlines won’t wait for the Boeing 777-9 to be introduced any longer to start flying a new business and first class. They’re spending $835 million to retrofit 41 Airbus A350s, including adding first class to the ultra-long haul variant of the jet.”

    https://viewfromthewing.com/inside-singapore-airlines-835m-plan-to-transform-a350s-with-new-first-business-class-thanks-to-boeing-delays/

    https://onemileatatime.com/news/singapore-airlines-new-first-business-class-a350-retrofit/

    #LosingFaith

  15. June 2023
    AW: Boeing ‘Has Tools To Compete’ With Stretched Airbus A220

    Who would take BA/BCA’s word seriously??

    • @Pedro

      I will repeat my standard response wrt single aisle. Boeing needs two new aircraft not one. You do not cover 130 – 230 seats with one aircraft.

      The only Boeing variant that is competitive is the Max8. A good deal of the Max backlog is simply a function of insufficient supply at Airbus.

    • SQ considering A350-1000’s is logical. Probably internally steps have already been taken, despite it’s strong strategic preference for dual source.

Leave a Reply

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