Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- How good is the COMAC C919? March 20, 2025
- Boeing CFO Brian West: OK on tariffs for now, backlogs and inventories help March 20, 2025
- Pontifications: Southwest’s core problems are not solved by business model changes-yet March 19, 2025
- Boeing 2024 Proxy Statement: Executive Compensation includes retirement gifts for Calhoun, Deal; housing support for Ortberg, Pope, and other stuff March 17, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 13. March 14, 2025
Airbus 2024 results: “A decent year in a challenging environment”.
By Bjorn Fehrm
February 20, 2025, © Leeham News in Toulouse: The headline uses the words of Airbus CEO Guillame Faury when he opened the presentation of Airbus 2024 results in Toulouse today. It was a session where Faury and the CFO Thomas Toepfer put in an effort to let all present international journalists and their online colleagues ask all questions and deliver honest answers.
On the business-as-usual side, the company delivered 766 aircraft, which was within the guidance, after a deep grab effort in 4Q, leading to low deliveries for 1Q2025. EBIT at €5.4bn and Free Cash Flow at €4.5bn were also within guidance.
In general, the Commercial airplane side was fighting specific supply problems during 2024, which might limit the ramp-up of A350s and A220s going forward, more of which below. Helicopters have now recovered from challenging times and delivered a solid result. Defense and Space are strong in Air Power (fighters, etc.), given the tense European situation, with Space going through restructuring, which might include mergers with other European space players.
The real news was the reasons for pausing the CityAirbus eVTOL program, according to Faury, “not only because batteries were not where they should have been but also due to the lack of a market for this type of transportation.” As the world’s largest supplier of helicopters, Airbus is a credible source for such a lack of market statement.
Faury also detailed what is happening on the Hydrogen side. Due to slower-than-expected progress in Green Hydrogen production build-up, deployment of preparatory Ground Support Equipment (GSE), and Transportation using hydrogen at the airports in their H2 partner network, Airbus has decided to push out the entry into service of a “commercially viable hydrogen aircraft” by five to ten years.
However, said Faury, it has made progress. “We have reached TRL 3 for the tecnobricks, which has enabled us to select the Fuel Cell path as the preferred way forward. This means these activities are continued at the present level or even intensified, but it also means other paths (read Hydrogen burn) are ramped down. Overall, it means a decrease in R&D spending for Hydrogen activities in the coming years.”
Group-level results
Revenue for 2024 was €69.2bn (€65.4bn 2023), and EBIT Adjusted (mapping operational achievements) was €5.3bn (€5.8bn 2023). This includes a €1.3bn charge for the Space side.
The free cash flow for 2024 was €4.3bn, the same as for 2023. The net cash position at the end of 2024 was €11.8bn, with total liquidity at €35bn, Figure 1.
Figure 1. Airbus’ cash position by the end of 2024. Source: Airbus.
Guidance for 2025 was:
- Airbus targets 820 commercial aircraft deliveries.
- Airbus expects an EBIT Adjusted of €7.0bn.
- Free Cash Flow of €4.5bn.
Commercial aircraft
Market demand continues to be strong, with net orders of 826 aircraft (2023 2094) and a backlog of 8,658 aircraft.
Of the 766 (735) delivered aircraft, 602 were A321/A320 (whereof 2/3rds A321), 75 A220, 57 A350, and 32 A330.
The monthly delivery rate for the A320 family is now targeted at 75 by 2027. The first half of 2025 deliveries will be impacted by CFM’s problems with depleting its delivery capacity to help Airbus with 4Q deliveries and a component factory in Florida being hit by an autumn hurricane, making LEAP deliveries only catch up to rate by mid-year.
The ramp-up in the A350 rate is threatened by the problems at Spirit Aerosystrems (which has agreed to a bailout from bankruptcy by a Boeing takeover concurrent with a carveout of Airbus activities). Currently, Spirit Aerosystrems is limiting the A350 rate to 6/month by throttling deliveries of Section 15 at that rate.
Airbus counts on closing the carveout of its activities at Spirit by summer, after which it will invest in the carveout to increase the rate. In total, the investments and agreed carveout compensations will be neutral for 2025 with negative influences on EBIT and FCF for 2026 and 2027 in the order of 100s of millions of dollars. Airbus maintains a target of 12 A350 deliveries per month by 2028.
The A220 is also affected by the Spirit problems as the main carbon wingbox is manufactured by Spirit in Belfast. The issues there are similar, with the wingbox deliveries presently slowing the ramp of the A220. The target delivery rate of the A220 is maintained at 14 per month by next year. Given the present rate of about six per month and the problems in Belfast, this is not realistic.
The A330neo is now the problem-free line at a steady rate of four per month.
Helicopters
The Airbus helicopter had a good 2024, with deliveries of 450 helicopters versus 393 in 2023. Revenue increased by 8.2% to €7.9bn (€7.3bn), and EBIT by 10% to €0.8bn (€0.7bn).
Defense and Space
Defense and Space had a good year for Air Power (fighters), whereas the Space segment is going through a restructuring, including discussions with Thales and Leonardo of a merger to increase scale. Division revenues increased by 5% to €12.1bn (€11.5bn). EBIT was negative because of the €1.3bn charges for Space at -€0.7bn (€0.2bn). Seven A440M were delivered in 2024.
I think Airbus is in a very strong position ATM. Faury staying low, is because he is reducing fte’s in some places and doesn’t wants to provide European unions with ammo.
Space is an issue though, the unplanned capacity drop because of Arianne 6 and Vega-C big delays, “destroyed” the strong market position build with the A4 and A5. With russian capacity falling away US new comers benefitted greatly.
Airbus helicopters are market leaders for years now, Leonardo as a strong second. The Racer project will probably become the base for a new defense program.
A400M should win some additional orders because of the political situation & no direct competition >25t.
Agreed – Airbus is in excellent shape. One illustration of the shape they’re in is the length of the A320neo family backlog, which is 7,207 aircraft. That’s 306.8km of A320neo family, nose to tail, or very nearly Paris to London.
I think if the order book is – quite literally – as long as one of the journeys the aircraft is meant to fly, one has a healthy order book.
Ariane 6 has – kinda – recovered the market built up by Ariane 5 and 4, because Bezos has bought up so many launches to get Kuiper into orbit. That’s not the same as “missions flown, money in the bank” market recovery, but it’s a start.
It’ll be interesting to see how Ariane 6 does. Using SRBs as it does makes it a bit more challenging for customer payloads to survive the launch. I’m wondering if that would skew market preferences towards the US launchers.
Not sure SRB’s are that much of a market discriminator.
The Falcon rocket family has the best reliability, lowest launch cost of it’s class, and highest launch cadence of it’s class in the history of rockets. That is what makes it preferred.
The billion dollar question is why Bezos avoided the only orbital launcher that has the operational volume to deploy Kuiper by it’s deadline.
The SRBs give a rougher ride. The payload has to be built to survive the launch (and are tested for it), and the payload engineering is a bit more expensive.
It may not be a very big deal in itself, but it’s just another little thing. SpaceX has made things very simple in otherways – the contracting process, the launch rate, etc. It all adds up.
True, but Ariane 5 used SRB’s, so Ariane’s historical customers should be used to them.
As for US launchers, Atlas and Vulcan still use them, Falcon and New Glenn don’t.
The only US rocket company that has really benefited from the political demise of Russian rockets is SpaceX. Blue Origin and ULA stumbled through their own “big delays”, so weren’t really able to grab Arianespace (includes commercial Soyuz-2 launches) market share. The much smaller Electron did probably benefit from Vega-C delays.
Falcon 9’s success forced both ArianeGroup and ULA to develop updated launchers that could better compete on price. SpaceX’s rise “destroyed” Arianespace’s market position, not the other way around.
Remember when ArianeGroup was talking trash about SpaceX and how reusable rockets were not a good idea……………..Until it was.
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-europe-screwed-up-its-rocket-program/
Multiple approaches:
“Maia is Europe’s first reusable and eco-responsible mini-launcher. It is being developed by MaiaSpace, an ArianeGroup subsidiary. Incorporating vertical landing on an offshore barge, Maia offers competitive, responsive space mobility solutions, and is developing reuse technologies in Europe. Based on an Agile® approach, combining flexibility, responsibility and sustainability, the reusable Maia version is capable of placing up to 500 kg in orbit. Operations are scheduled to begin in 2026.”
https://ariane.group/en/space-transportation/
Multiple approaches? What are you talking about? Maia uses the same approach as the Falcon 9, just on a much smaller scale, and 16+ years later.
They’ll be lucky if they can achieve the first launch by 2026, let alone reach operational status. At least CNES awarded Maiaspace the ELS pad at the Guiana Space Center, so that’s something.
The orbital launch industry is littered with upstarts that talked big plans. Very few have actually achieved orbit.
Billy,
Yeah I do. Back in 2013 an Arianespace guy, Richard Bowles, made some remarks revealing the condescending attitude that the European space industry had toward upstart SpaceX.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/some-european-launch-officials-still-have-their-heads-stuck-in-the-sand/
SpaceX did indeed respond via actions.
I have a longish list on “remembering trash talk re $project”.
( and a select national public being rather wordy and emotional at it 😉
Musk bested market participants via vision, decision speed, spending clout. ( we have to return project MoO into that direction in general.
State institution based actors are a PITA at a snails pace.
This is valid for EU and US! )
+1
Airbus looking good but not showing off about it. I wonder when (if?) they’ll go up on A330 production.
Why would they ? The order book does not justify it. They need to keep this line alive for military contracts and continuing to apply price pressure on 787s. Going through the order books as quick as possible to close the shop makes no sense.
A stable slow but optimized cadence delivers both on micro- (unit costs, quality) and macro-objectives (maintain a 787 competitor and low unit costs for MRTT applications).
Also a freighter could be added, though I would not hold on too much on that one. There is a ripe inventory of old 777s that are waiting for enough deliveries of 777x, 350s and 787s to be offered for conversion and dry up the market.
The question of the 767 replacement remains. The 330’s wingspan is too wide to make the freighters happy. If folding wingtips become the norm, a 330neo with a new wing could be interesting but the investment cost vs a whole new frame to address the infamous middle of market is not attractive I think.
Thanks for this informative comment.
@Barbarella: The 777P2F market is dead. https://leehamnews.com/2025/01/27/777-p2f-market-grinds-to-a-halt-lack-of-feedstock-boeing-war-money-to-blame/
@Barbarella
Also believe that 777C aircraft are part of the ICAO 2027 rule…so if anyone was going to do a P2F there is a very short window before the deadline. Ironically, if any freighter operator really wanted a 777P2F you would think they would be willing to pay a small premium to secure assets before the conversion window closes. Oddly, Boeing may almost be incentivized to drive the market to new aircraft orders by dragging their feet on certification long enough.
Also going to point out Boeing would otherwise be gapped out new freighter production if the -8F slips beyond 2027.
Reuters
Airbus to sign deal with Spirit Aero in weeks: CFO
“Airbus expects to firm up a deal to take over some of Spirit AeroSystems European operations in the next few weeks, the planemaker’s CFO said on Thursday, as part of a transatlantic breakup of the aerostructures manufacturer.”
Any such deal still needs to be green-lighted by (foreign) regulators…
Yea you keep saying that. the only legal power they have is in their own country (China obviously in this case). j
So let them eat cake! You need airplanes, you don’t want Boeing, now what?
There’s still no clarity on what’s happening to the Belfast factories.
Airbus are definitely taking over the A220 wing factory but there are other factories there that do work for Bombardier and Rolls Royce. There was an article in the Northern Irish press recently saying Airbus may have to buy the lot, but there’s an article today saying Bombardier are also interested in getting their bit back. Today’s article also has the union position which is they don’t want the sites split between multiple buyers citing job security.
The good news is that the Belfast sites are employing more people. They’ve employed 500 aircraft fitters in the past two years and are looking to add another 100 now (although the article doesn’t state how many have left in that timeframe). I assume this has the blessing of Airbus for their proposed ramp up of the A220.
Spirit Systems: AI must assume its decision to choose a US supplier for the central section of the A350 at the launch of the project to favor dollar content. On previous aircraft (A320, A330) this section was carried out in Europe and carbon technologies were already available on the old continent. Now we will have to invest in US factories to increase production rates. Trump will be happy.
A400M: still a charge of €100 million in 2024, this military program is in fact subsidized by civil programs. With a rate of 7 aircraft per year it seems difficult to project a profit even in the long term. Seville has its price and the German unions are starting to demand a transfer to Bremen.
A330 neo in the last performance version : an efficient aircraft for flight around 11 hours because capital cost is lower than A350. AI puts a lot of commercial efforts on this program. Will see if 4 per month is enough. Will depend on 787 production cost decrease and Boeing margin.
Given current WH policies, it’s likely that Airbus will want to decrease any dependency on US suppliers, where possible…
By the time you can make a change Trump is gone.
He clearly is failing mentally, it could be sooner than latter or he could blow a cerebral gasket and stork out.
He is a walking health time bomb.
The Spirit factory that product the A350 center wing box is Based in France near Nantes.
My understanding is
A350 center wing box is built by Airbus Atlantic (100% owned by Airbus) based in Nantes. Central fuselage section is build in US. Integration of both is done by Spirit in a dedicated unit close to Airbus Atlantic unit.
Some of us are old enough to have seen where Airbus started from. It is impressive where it is today, very impressive. Congratulations to Airbus on the financial results.
Somewhere in France or on a beach, Leahy has a well-deserved smile.
You think Leahy is the main reason why Airbus is where it is today?
You don’t think that the products themselves, and the corporate mentality, were/are a primary driving factor?
BA had a great sales team — filled up the order books for the 787 and the MAX. But the company is still a trainwreck.
So, it seems that sales aren’t everything after all.
Yes, that American Leahy and his vision are a BIG part of where Airbus is today. I don’t need to Google it or read Scott’s brilliant book, I was around. Leahy’s sales team overcame a lot of adversity. Didn’t help to have a then-new A320 showing off FBW tech crash at an airshow. Imagine that happening in today’s social media world LOL. That same plane family is the #1 selling NB. He flipped many Boeing-only customers, of course, Boeing’s arrogance helped too. He pushed for the A350XWB, and those last three letters are important, if you don’t know, Google it. He was smart to reposition the A350 from an A330NEO to a direct competitor of the 777-200.
If you want to thank the Airbus janitor or assembly line worker then make a post about it. As a former Boeing stockholder, I am talking about Leahy and I tip my hat to Leahy and Airbus. Scoreboard, you are winning.
A great sales team will make sure they get the best possible price. By the rate at which the sales team got the orders for the 787 one might wonder if they were selling them too cheaply.
Of course in retrospect that was certainly true, but didn’t the ease of getting orders never give the team a pause for thought?
Apologies if this is leading off topic, but it is a question I have wondered for a long time.
Of course they were selling 787s too cheaply: the program as a whole has never made a cent profit, and never will.
And many/most MAXs were also sold too cheaply — otherwise, we’d be seeing (more) positive EBIT each quarter.
Evidently, the credo was: scrape out a margin by reducing costs. Problem is: costs were reduced below a safe level, resulting in junk quality.
—
AB has a margin issue with the A220, but it’s only a relatively minor product in the portfolio, and isn’t dragging down the company as a whole.
And he is off to the self created conclusion races!
The reality is the 787 was self created disaster. Much like the Titanic, going 20 knots through an ice field.
Airbus sold the A380 for a song to salt the market (to keep with the Titanic metaphor). SOP, nothing new per the 787.
The financial horror of the 787 was how they went about it with the we can get something for nothing. Airbus did not make that mistake though the A380/340 and A400 are examples of failure in assessing the market (the A400 should have been a jet, ak Embraer C390.
Its interesting that Airbus took a huge loss on the A380 (less so the A340) but maintained it finances. Boeing management was bleeding the company which lead to the 787 decisions.
Both the A380/787 were tech successes, the A380 was a financial fialure and cost serious bucks. The 787 is a sales success (north of 1500) and in high demand, its failed on the financial burden it was put under by management. Well and the assembly disaster of scattering build all over the globe (hmm, A300/220 anyone?)
Airbus has hit a nice niche with the A330NEO and can do an F as well as a MRT off that hull.
The A350 is doing well though the 1000 engines are ?????
The difference is maintaining more discipline by Airbus and Boeing throwing its future away by bit coil mining of the company.
The MAX was ambushed by the same stupid business faults that hit the 787.
For the near and mid term Boeing has a nice future if they can manage to clean up their act. Long term is an issue with no new product.
None of Airbus early success was about price.
It was getting a chance to show that its products and its support was competitive.
In an odd twist of irony, I flew an early Airbus (300 at a guess) over in Asia. It was not selling anywhere else but the over water rules were looser (forget if self imposed or ?) Upshot was I was not the least bit keen on going Taiwan to Philippines on a French twin. Whole trip was forced on me.
While I was not happy with it being a twin I was impressed with how solid it was and how well it flew (era of the DC-10, ungh).
I latter got to fly a 767, my view was they were very comparable (as a passenger). Nice solid, flew well unlike a DC-10 that was a rattle trap.
I continue to believe it was Leahy and his deals into the US Market that pushed Airbus into consideration and the rest is history.
Boeing gave Airbus an opening, Leahy found a hole and drove the bus through it.
That does not mean that there were not a major number of people behind the A300/320 that made them the machines that worked and worked very well.
Who knows what the progression would be sans Leahy?
I never cared for his abrasive in your face personality (from my end). But that also was what it took to kick down the door.
I am trying to be complimentary of Airbus, and you bring in the 787. I will keep it short. It sold on the specs, 20% lower costs, and a new Carbon Fibre exterior that reduced the downtown for maintenance. That was the sales pitch; it was going against the A350, the first one, which was a warmed-over A330. Even Leahy could see the writing on the wall, and Airbus changed course after hearing it from the airlines. Got Airbus to change the A350 specs and went after the then old 777. The airlines are not idiots. Boeing gave them a plane they had been asking for.
The implementation of building the 787 is a disaster, and a course of how NOT to build a plane. But here we are.
Why not bring up the 787?
The discussion was about sales. The 787 shows how great sales don’t necessarily make a company.
It is legitimate to ask why the 787 was sold at too low a price relative to its costs.
Only you would make that sort of false comparison.
All early aircraft are sold at massive losses.
Now you are telling us that Boeing knew the 787 would be a financial disaster and forecast that they had to sell it for 500 million a copy?
Really being silly there.
People in Boeing in good faith did the math and the usual numbers. They had no way of knowing the train wreck coming (not saying the managers but the people that do the work of those numbers based on the info they are given)
So now you have all those contract Boeing can’t go back on. Ok.
Now you are going to try to compete with Airbus on new contracts and Airbus sells the A330 for say 100 million and you are going to charge 500 million as you realize its the only way to mathematically get your investment back. Right.
the reality is you have a cost base now, you know what it cost to build and what Airbus will or will not price something at.
I still remember the hollering when Boeing took the Hawaii contract away from them. Any profit is better than no profit and any aircraft built, even at break even spreads the costs out to the others.
1500 sold is not a failure. At some point, Boeing make enough to pay for it, looses some or a lot of money.
Airbus will never recoup the A380 costs either. they never broke even let alone returned any money. and that is on top of a Free Handout they never have to repay.
The 787 issues are not and never were about pricing. they are all about failure to manage a new system and the absurdity that there is a free lunch. Now the CEO and uppers knew that, but the goal was to keep Boeing limping along so they could collect their golden parachutes.
Someone a lot smarter than me on financials would have to work out how many 787s Boeing has to sell to break even (on the costs not the aircraft, it is breaking even+)
2500? its not going away as there is nothing in Airbus or anyone else to replace it (or even could)
Do a NEO off a GTF be it PW or RR and you have just gained another 10%.
Its got another 20 years in it. Maybe like the 737 40 or 50 years.
TW:”Only you would make that sort of false comparison.”
Look in a mirror!
You are (again) creating fantastic timelines that have sparse relation to reality.
The “Dreamliner” environment of overstated product and “how we go there” PR, overstated technical prowess, the cargo cultish “snap together in days” and lastly blissful lack of partner oversight DEMANDED that this would show up as a train wreck. The sales success turned this into a fantastic train wreck.
@TW
https://leehamnews.com/2025/02/04/boeing-deferred-production-costs-39bn-since-2019-max-grounding-22bn-for-737/
1,150 built and delivered.
$10.3bn written off on THOSE deliveries, so far. $9m loss, per aircraft.
A further $14.5billion already spent in DPC’s (capitalized expenses), stockpiled in Inventory – with what to show for it?
Then how much was spent in R&D to make the darn thing?
But you make this brilliant observation:
“People in Boeing in good faith did the math and the usual numbers. ”
Which people is that? Did you really use the words “Boeing” and “good faith” in the same sentence?
“Someone a lot smarter than me on financials would have to work out how many 787s Boeing has to sell to break even (on the costs not the aircraft, it is breaking even+)”
I’ve tried to walk you through this, time and time again. Leeham has articles up, discussing this.
Boeing has sold a lot of a particular product, at a loss. It has cornered the market, by doing so. Not a sound business strategy.
You can do the numbers – how many aircraft do they have to sell, to cover $25bn in expenses, already spent? Call it a $10m profit on every plane.
Now you can tell me when they get to making that margin, on every delivery.
Scott is more eloquent than I am.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/28/leahy-reflects-33-years-airbus/
Scott, why did you leave off the USA Airways deal? That shocker (remember reading about it in the WSJ) is what led to the Boeing-only deals.
If I was an Eskimo, I would buy ice from Leahy. He was that good.
Not exactly the personality you wanted to be sitting in the cold and dark in the Igloo!
The ugly American………..LOL
Yea, that is true.
Once Airbus got to 40% market, you did not need those shock tactics and a lot of people don’t like the in your face stuff.
His time had come and gone
How long did Leahy sell ice cream to Eskimos?
Buyers remorse never seems to have been a visible detractor to his sales.
i.e.:
I’d tag him “honest salesman”.
No disagreement he had great product to sell.
Shoot, Alaska has the highest per capita consumption of ice cream of the US (probably the world)
That said, airlines are hide bound traditionalist (SouthWest anyone?). To break down the Boeing wall, he had to be aggressive and was.
Aggressive has a mixed bag. You get some peoples attention and you tick some people off.
He was what Airbus needed at the time but he also was shelf limited.
Hehehe, if you got the deals he offered, I would not complain either. It was a win win for both sides.
@TW
Shoot, Alaska has the highest per capita consumption of ice cream of the US (probably the world)
https://www.finedininglovers.com/explore/articles/who-eats-most-ice-cream-america
DC
RI
WIS
MASS
TEX
CON
DEL
UT
NH
KAN
Nope – no Alaska in the top 10.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you just ‘feel the force’?
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-obtains-easa-certification-of-pandw-powered-a321xlr-following-engine-approval/161920.article
“Niche aircraft”
;))))
So, despite the fact that the A321XLR was launched two years after the launch of the MAX-10 (2019 vs 2017), we now have two variants of the XLR certified…versus not even a prognosis of when the MAX-10 will be certified.
Also, note that we were kept informed of the exact cause of the delay in XLR cert (fuel tank lining), with regular progress updates…versus sound of crickets regarding whatever is holding up the MAX-10.
#any-day-now
And Airbus was up front publicly about the A350 coating and the engines on the 1000 (and the Trent 900 issues on the A380)
Boeing does not owe you an explanation so you best get used to it. T
‘Boeing does not owe you an explanation so you best get used to it. ‘
Actually, they do.
BA is a publicly traded company, thus they must disclose any information which materially would impact results, so that investors can make informed decisions.
Which is why timelines from program launch to certification are included in their financials.
‘In the US, public companies are required to file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including detailed financial statements, management discussion and analysis (MD&A), information about material events, and other key business details, primarily through forms like the annual “Form 10-K” and quarterly “Form 10-Q” filings, providing transparency to investors about their financial health and operations. ‘
Where do you come up with these positions of yours?
There was a concept in my world called Preventative Maintenance.
It was not what it sounded like. If it was a $100 bearing, not an issue.
If it was a $40,000 boiler, the tune changed. Can’t we patch it?
I called it Reality Based Maint.
Boeing does not have to tell anyone anything and do not. All they have to say is, we are not sure. That is the reality.
“Trump tariffs may push Airbus to prioritise non-US clients”
“Airbus could prioritise deliveries to non-U.S. customers if tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump were to disrupt the company’s imports in the country, CEO Guillaume Faury said in an interview with CNBC on Thursday.”
““We have a large demand from the rest of the world, so if we face very significant difficulties to deliver to the US, we can also adapt by bringing forward deliveries to other customers which are very eager to get planes”, Faury said.””
https://www.gulftoday.ae/business/2025/02/22/trump-tariffs-may-push-airbus-to-prioritise-non-us-clients
US carriers will be delighted by this news, no doubt.
This essentially a threat to American airlines: Trump’s tariff is your problem, if you are not ready for it, tell us, we will move your slots and let other get the airplanes before you.
Elon can just use an AI bot to reciprocally re-assign BA orders from foreign airlines to US carriers, thus solving the problem (in his eyes).
Issues such as fleet commonality and pilot-retraining are irrelevant, of course: in the MAGA universe, all US carriers should be “proudly all-Boeing”, regardless of what inconvenience that may cause.
Sorry to break the news but its not inconvenient. Its a disaster for any US Airline awaiting an order being filled.
Boeing can’t deliver any faster than they are. Ergo, no aircraft.
I wonder how leasing and tariffs work? Leave that to the financial types.
And while I hate to bust some Airbus MPA bubbles, this is what it takes to just upgrade a P-8, not the base project.
https://archive.ph/8cnUB
Its really a new baseline build that other upgrades will be put into the system with as t he new baseline as the foundation. Its not the end but another beginning of Spiral upgrades.
Not a benchmark: BA can’t do *anything* without years of delay.
The 777X, MAX-7, MAX-10 and AF1 are ongoing examples of that.
We’ll see how quickly AB gets the new A321 MPA out — no comparison with the dysfunction over at the competitor.
Most amazing, Osrtich with its head in the Sand.
The Wildly popular and high return on the A400 not withstanding.
It has nothing to do with the aircraft and all to do with the systems and the integration.
The USN wisely (rare move) choose spiral development and its worked a treat). Boeing’s team on that project has stayed together and put the ball in the net at each and every stage.
Something to keep in mind, those are built to hunt Russian and Chineese subs. Those MRT tankers are just idling in place waiting to enter a conflict with those countries as well.
French company Thales is being employed to do the systems — has decades of experience in that area.
Also did/does the systems on the C295 MPA and AEWC.
You’ve heard of Thales, haven’t you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_Group
—
*Yawn*
Hopefully Scott does not take this as going into the weeds and it is a fair question as I am indeed baffled by what appears to be a logic bust by Abalone.
He clearly thinks China is something special and I get the sense that Russia is considered in the same boat context.
So, if those powers are not serious adversaries, then why do we need MPA or the A330MRT? (keeping it on the commercial aviation context)
As for Thales, yea, I do know of them and their programs on the light MPA types.
Integrating a P-8A like capability into an A321 is a whole different level, otherwise the C295 would fit the bill would it not?
Its not the airframe, its the systems in the airframe and do they both work and integrate corrector?
Australia spent about the same time (Five years) on the Wedgetail (E-7) as they did on the A330MRT sorting out the problems.
The A330MRT was not even a KC-46A class spec aircraft, simply a refueler. Airbus is no offering packages that are at least an attempt or do fill in the gap (or the ability to do things a pure tanker does not)
Anyone can build a tanker, its been done privately on a number of airframes. Its the systems that make a full up KC-46A what it is.
The KC-135 was never intended as anything but a tanker. That era is long gone as being a com node, part of a sensor network and passing sensor information onto other systems is a critical aspect.
The P-3 was never intended as anything other than a Sub Hunter. But they found that the equipment to do that with its links into the fleet assets allowed it to act as a mini AWACs director type as well as intelligence gathering.
It had nothing to do with the Airframe (which in fact ultimately was a limitation size wise) as it was systems and those system not only have to do their own function, they have to work in harmony with other systems so you don’t step on yourself.
Its a shame Scott can’t hold bets, I would put $1000 into no sooner than 15 year timeline for an Airbus MPA getting operational.
France operates 18. Germany is buying the P-8. Netherlands moved to the P-3 (note the P-3 systems were the basis for the P-8)
The rest have moved onto other platforms.
So a market of 18? Hmmm. Germany took a look at the French program and it was, we will never get what we need now, so they bought the P-8.
Airbus proposed an A320-based MPA maybe 20 years ago. Never happened.
@ Mr Hamilton
A lot has changed in the past 20 years. Even more pertinently, a lot has changed in the past 20 days.
Autonomy is now seen as being of critical importance, seeing as old allies are now cozying up to old enemies.
Airbus, Boeing & Embraer Share 77 Aircraft Order From ANA
“This includes 27 Airbus A321neo (including three A321XLR), 12 Boeing 737 MAX 8. 18 787-9, and 20 Embraer E190-E2 aircraft.”
“The Japanese airline only disclosed that Embraer should begin E190-E2 deliveries in FY2028”
no widebodies for Airbus!
ANA already has a fleet of 85 787s…not very likely that it would want to diversify at this stage.
That having been said, it’s interesting that the airline is going for a very mixed bag as regards its NB fleet.
Now that is a statement I can agree with.
The E2 may make sense, its what South West should have done.
With lots of water around you the A321 makes sense but then why not mesh with the A320?
Curious which engines they have on the A321. The E2 will come with GTF.
The 787 has sure been a huge success with JAL and ANA.
Leap1A on the Airbus order.
Believe the existing A321’s are Pratt powered.
That makes for some odd decisions then engine mix wise
Clearly the GTF is acceptable per the E2.
This post is about Airbus right? Good, some interesting news regarding the pie in sky green technology and rationalization. The pullback is so the engineers can focus on the next generation of A320 family replacement.
Airbus pushes back ZEROe timeline and ditches A380 fuel cell flight-test plan
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-pushes-back-zeroe-timeline-and-ditches-a380-fuel-cell-flight-test-plan/161718.article
That LH2 “news” is 3 weeks old.
It also happens to be one of the subjects discussed in the LNA article above.
And it’s been discussed in 2 of Bjorn Fehrm’s articles here.
Re Hydrogen Aircraft: I have always been sceptical about hydrogen as an aircraft fuel. Synthetic hydrocarbons are the more likely solution for climate neutral air travel. So I think the 5-10 year delay will turn into a delay forever unless demand for lower sound emissions forces manufacturers to consider an alternative to turbine equipped aircraft.