Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Airbus forecasts that almost three times more aircraft needs to be produced by year 2044 June 12, 2025
- Paris Air Show preview: Don’t look for big news June 11, 2025
- P&W: the troubled GTF will be the best engine for the next single-aisle airplane June 11, 2025
- Boeing’s 737 North Line and the Everett factory: in transition now June 9, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 25. June 6, 2025
Boeing’s 737 North Line and the Everett factory: in transition now
Open to all Readers
By Scott Hamilton
Boeing 737-10 MAX. Credit: Boeing.
June 9, 2025, © Leeham News: Boeing announced the addition of a fourth 737 production line in 2023 as the last 747 rolled out of the Everett (WA) widebody factory where the Queen of the Skies was born.
To meet burgeoning demand, Boeing said it would assemble the 737 in Everett. Plans were put on hold a year later when the Alaska Airlines flight 1262 experienced a full cabin depressurization on a new 737-9 MAX minutes after take off from Portland (OR). A failure by Boeing during the assembly to resecure a door plug led to a 60-lb piece blowing out of the fuselage.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) froze Boeing’s plans for the Everett 737 production on what’s called the North Line.
Boeing’s CEO Kelly Ortberg reaffirmed plans to establish the North Line. Doing so requires FAA approval. The North Line will be exclusively for the 737-10 MAX, which has yet to be certified by the FAA.
Boeing has quietly been laying the groundwork for the new line in the intervening year. Tooling, floor plans and other elements necessary to establish the line continued at a low pace. The company recently leased about 250,000 of space in a nearby industrial park to serve as a staging area for 737 kits.
The North Line will supplement the main 737 factor in Renton (WA), which is slowly returning to higher rates from a complete production suspension in 2019 following the grounding of the 737 after two fatal accidents of the MAX five months apart. The root cause of both accidents was a design flaw in the flight control system.
Boeing quietly returned to a 737 production rate of 38 a month on May 30, keeping a low profile in deference to the FAA, reported The Air Current on June 2.
Capping Renton at 47
Hitting rate 38 is a significant milestone. Boeing’s been struggling for years to return to this rate. The last time the rate was this low was in 2012. Boeing hopes to achieve rate 42 by the end of this year. The last time Boeing was at this rate was in 2014. Ortberg hopes to achieve rate 47 next year. The last time the steady rate was at this level was in 2018.
According to sources, Boeing’s Renton plant may be capped by the FAA at rate 47. The production rate was 52/mo on March 13, 2019, when the MAX was grounded. Boeing planned to boost the rate to 57/mo by the end of 2019 and was studying further increasing it to 63/mo after that. This is the maximum throughput possible at Renton under Boeing’s previous processes.
The lower production rate of 47/mo is designed to maintain improved safety and quality control protocols at Renton that have been implemented as a result of the original MAX crisis and another one prompted by the Alaska accident.
The North Line was intended to be reserved for the special requirements of the MAX 10 and the high-density MAX 8200. The former model may be configured with lie flat business class seats and other upscale layouts not included in the MAX 7/8 and -9. The high-density MAX 8200 has an extra emergency exit and is wall-to-wall seating with minimal galley and lavatory space.
The 8200 currently is being produced in Renton, leaving the yet-to-be-certified MAX 10 for the North Line.
Preparing the North Line
Boeing hasn’t said what the capacity of the North Line will be. If Boeing produces 47 737s a month in Renton on three lines, the rate there would be an average of 15.6 per line. If the North Line has this same capacity, this would equal the 63/mo Boeing was considering for Renton before the grounding. On a public tour of the Everett factory, one guide told one of the tourists–a former Boeing employee–that this time next year, there may be as many as 15 airplanes in the building. The other tour guide said that right now, all they’re waiting for is the formal go-ahead and staffing. He added that seems to be hanging up with the FAA.
Two 737-8 fuselages that had pre-delivery damage to Boeing are in the Everett line being used for testing, the tourist observed. “I saw a fuselage dock with a fuselage in it. I saw no wings. All of the tooling that would normally push up to the side of the airplane laid out going down what the assembly line positioning would be,” he told LNA. “It’s all there and it looks like one line is complete to go almost as soon as you got the approval by the feds to use it. The office space has been built into the building above the cafeteria and runs almost the length of the building.”
Credit: Seattle Times.
Airbus plans to take its A320neo family production to 75/mo in 2027, a figure some considering challenging. Assuming Boeing and Airbus hit these targets, this leaves Airbus with a 54.4% production share to Boeing’s 45.6% share.
If Boeing wants production parity with Airbus, a fifth line—a second one at Everett—would be needed.
Boeing hasn’t said what is needed to install the North Line or when it will be operational. However, LNA is told that the new single line in Everett is planned for some time in 2Q2026. Certification of the 737-10 is anticipated in late 2025. An airline fleet planner and customer for the MAX 10 last week told LNA he doesn’t see certification of the plane until the first quarter of next year.
Boeing is working the readiness for required offices, barges, cranes, and floor layouts. Tooling is being ordered, which includes all the specialized production tooling.
There are more than 150 policies and processes that require reviews and possible amendments. Most of these will need FAA approvals.
Safety, training and FAA approval
The Quality Management System (QMS) is being revised, which also requires FAA approvals.
Boeing is still studying how the wings will be shipped from the Renton factory, where they are made today. If Boeing uses rail lines, this is going to require new tooling and processes. Coordination with Spirit AeroSystems, which builds the 737 fuselage in Wichita (KS), is required to get to rates. Spirit has had its own QC and safety protocol issues, and is being acquired by Boeing this year. Spirit ships the fuselages to Renton. Getting the MAX 10 fuselages from Renton to Everett is a challenge. The Everett rail line spur is on a 5.7% grade, a challenge to overcome, but not impossible.
Boeing is exploring reactivating a rail spur near Fredrickson, a suburb south of Seattle, to ship wing spar and milled skins to Everett, instead by the long trucks used today. Boeing
will still ship via truck to Renton.
The Composite Wing Center (CWC) Boeing built for the 777X program has loads of excess space. But producing a metal wing in the same factory as composite wings is problematic, LNA is told. Metal wings produce metal particles and oily air and can’t be allowed to mix with the sterile environment composite production requires.
Production Rates
The North Line production rate will start very slow, probably about 1-2/mo until the FAA is satisfied. Only then will the FAA grant approval for the final certification for PC700 737 Everett.
Personnel already are located in Everett who will be used for starting up production. Training and certification required for the 737 is described as enormous and time consuming. Trained managers and Material Review Board engineers are another separate hurdle.
Management expects it will take at least a year for to have all the bugs and quality issues resolved and be satisfactory functional.
Everything hinges on FAA approval.
Boeing must sustain rate 38 for an unspecified period to satisfy the FAA that it can produce at this rate without compromising quality control and safety protocols. Ortberg previously expressed a plan to boost production in increments of five (though the first would be in four) every six months.
Thus, increasing the production rate would look like this if all goes well and the FAA approves of each rate increase. There are three production lines in Renton.
| Rate | Inferred production per line | Estimated Rate Break Timeframe |
| 38 | 12.6 | May 30 |
| 42 | 14 | Nov 2025 |
| 47 | 15.6 | May 2026 |
| 52 | 17.3 | Nov 2026 |
| 57 | 19 | May 2027 |
Parity with Airbus
Airbus has eight A320 production lines (four in Hamburg, two in Toulouse, one in Tianjin, and one in Mobile (AL)). A second US FAL and a second China FAL will make it 10 in 2026. All will contribute to the rate 75 objective in 2027. Airbus declined comment on the current production rate. But it delivered 602 A320 family members last year. This averaged a production rate of 6.27 airplane per line across the eight lines based on a full 12 month year, or 6.54/mo on an 11.5 month year allowing for a standard two week holiday shut down. A rate of 75/mo across 10 lines is an average rate of 7.5/mo per line.
Either Boeing will be pushing it at the inferred rates outlined above or Airbus isn’t as efficient as conventional wisdom assumes.
Parenthetically, Airbus continues to have traveled work and quality control issues on these lower-rate production lines, according to customers LNA has talked to.
The North Line will be located in the former 787 assembly floor area. There is enough space here for a second North Line.
Unfilled MAX 10 orders
There are 1,196 MAX 10 orders in Boeing’s backlog through April, the most recent data available on Boeing’s website. All 737 positions are sold out through the end of this decade.
Although Boeing hasn’t received FAA authorization to expand to the North Line, work and planning has been underway.
777X work
Boeing has about 30 777-9s in inventory at Paine Field. Some of these have been stored since 2019. Rework, formally called Change Incorporation, is required for all the changes that must be made as a result of six years of FAA oversight and reviewing production work done during the delay in certification of the 777X.
The 777-9 was supposed to be delivered to its first customer in January 2020. Initially, delays in flight testing occurred when the giant GE9X engines developed technical issues. Engines on the four flight test airplanes were removed and shipped back to GE for fixes. By the time these were redelivered, the 777X program was caught as collateral damage in the MAX-FAA certification crisis.
Boeing now hopes the 777X will be certified later this year and first deliveries in 2026. But all the Xs that have been built and stored must go through Change Incorporation to whatever new standards the FAA requires for certification; and upgrades that happen in the normal course of elapsed time. The airplanes also must be pulled out of long-term storage, all systems tested, and if necessary repaired or replaced.
LNA is told covering the 30 aircraft will take between 12 and 18 months. Boeing’s Evertt plant has space previously occupied by the 747 and rework on the 787s available for the 777X rework.
Overhead cost allocation
On a more esoteric level, establishing the first and a possible second 737 line at the Everett factory will contribute to covering the overhead cost allocation of the giant building. With the last 747 completed in 2023 and the original 787 production line terminated and consolidated in Charleston (SC), where the second 787 assembly line was established, the cost of the giant building, which covers 98 acres and is large enough for 75 American football fields.
The low-rate production of the 777 freighter and 777X, the 767-300ER/KC-46A and 787 rework (now completed) have had to absorb the operating cost of the huge facility. Boeing said in various filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that as the 787 moved to Charleston and the 747 production ended, the remaining programs would be pushed into a loss position.
Sounds like quite a bit happening at Boeing and this dedicated line for the MAX-10. Curious to see if that plane gets certified
this year, as Boeing has repeatedly claimed. One would think
the simpler MAX-7 would come first..
The -7 has a limited take up. In theory the -10 has a wide open future.
As Boeing was going to go to rate 63 in Renton, the -7 works in there just fine.
Unproven but the -10 being longer and a bit odd would make sense for a stand alone line for that.
A bit puzzled they have to rent warehouse space for storing parts when they still have free space in the main building.
BA seems to be quite confident that the MAX-10 is going to be certified soon because it has re-commenced production of the sub-type!
The most recent frame to undergo a first flight was LN 8698, which had its first flight on April 17. At least 9 later frames are being built, and haven’t yet flown. And then there are 4 older frames out in the parking lot, the oldest of which is 2.6 years old.
All said frames are for United.
https://www.planespotters.net/aircraft/production/boeing-737-max-10
Hey, they can always store ’em (like the thirty 777Xs); maybe have a Swap Meet out there..
Making a second attempt:
“Boeing plane lands back in China for delivery as tariff war eases”
“The plane, painted in the livery of Xiamen Airlines, landed at Boeing’s Zhoushan completion centre near China’s commercial hub of Shanghai, after leaving Seattle on Saturday, and halting to refuel in Hawaii and Guam as it crossed the Pacific.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-plane-lands-back-china-040156404.html
The aircraft N230BE was flown across the Pacific in March and then flown back to the US in April..
> In April, Boeing said it had planned for 50 jets to go to Chinese carriers during the rest of the year, with 41 in production or pre-built.
Anything over 35 per month and things start to fall apart in Renton.
And only a fool doesn’t consider wings structures, wing systems installation, and fuselage systems installation as part of the nominal production rate, as if final assembly was all that counted.
Wings is probably the most important area, at least in terms of bottlenecks, and problems of every sort, and is massively subject to problems in quality, safety, and schedule performance.
Now Orteberg thinks it can all be done with increasing numbers of inexperienced and undertrained employees.
Note this: A certified employee is one that only knows how to perform certain specific tasks to specifications. It DOES NOT mean they know how to work and entire work package nor anything close to it. And once they get moved to a different work package, the process, however long it takes, starts all over again.
Mmhh…regarding 737 wings, the Air Current had an interesting article in March this year:
“Wing production bedevils ‘fragile’ Boeing 737 Max ramp-up progress”
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-production/wing-production-737-max-ramp-up/
Good article, thanks.
Nothing in this article is remotely true! Kelly is clueless! He ran
In said I will save a bunch of money got rid of the older higher paid workforce that knew anything! He didn’t have many of those people left and he wiped out at least another 3/4 of them! I know I’m one of them! I get hits from head hunters on LinkedIn every day for contract Boeing jobs. I just got one Friday for the job they laid me off from! 30 years Of experience and knowledge and Kelly Os answer was we don’t need them they make too much. Well Kelly you are paying for 30 years experience and knowledge! I loved the company I hired in at and it provided my family a good life when I wasn’t on strike or laid off and starting my retirement all over ever 5-10 years! My severance package was good so I can’t complain there but I guess it’s just a drop in the bucket for starting over every few years. I wish the best for the company but I’m glad to be gone because I can’t sit and watch it anymore. Say hi to me the next time you’re at Walmart I found steady work in a yellow vest!
Thanks for this comment.
Wings are critical of course but so is the fuselage. Fuselage has more systems in it at a guess.
They are also right next door.
What I would caution on its not what Ortberg thinks, its what the FAA thinks.
They would not let Boeing go to 38 if the quality was not there and airlines are reporting getting good birds as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand the issues. I certainly have seen my share of that arena. Frankly its mind boggling that they can build one a month.
No question that someone trained for one task is not qualified for another. But then that has always been true. In my world the term Master Mechanic was someone who knew the entire spectrum of vehicle systems.
I can also say even the most experienced person can run into a, I don’t get this. Some I went onto solve, sometimes a phone call sorted it out, some they never got an explanation for.
The more experience someone has the better they are able to move over to other jobs or shift around.
I never was suited to management, even a foreman level was more than I wanted to deal with though I did it a few times. Happy to get the one job done and happy when I was removed. Politics but that was fine.
We’ll be able to finally find out who is responsible, at Boeing, for the missing bolts on the Boeing 737,
that could have cost the lives of over 100 passengers, when the door plug blew out.
And, we’ll be able to find out who is responsible for not properly documenting, the removal of the door plug, on the Boeing assembly line.
All in a live streaming NTSB public meeting on June 24th. Mark your calendars.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/MA20250603.aspx
This will prove to be pivotal event for the public regaining trust in Boeing.
I hope you’re right, but would not expect it. More chaff expected.
Spirit builds the fuselage
And the door mods were performed at a Boeing facility — under Boeing’s presumed supervision and responsibility.
Nothing presumed about it. Boeing workers moved the door blank open and Boeing workers shoved it closed again.
What was not done was note the process of a door being opened and bolts had to be replaced.
Here we go again:
“Boeing Requests 2-Year FAA Exemption Extension For 737 MAX 7 Amid Delays”
“Boeing has requested a two-year extension of an exemption that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had granted for the 737 MAX 7 in 2023. The exemption, related to the Flap-Slat Electronics Unit (FSEU), will expire on March 1, 2027, with the plane maker requesting another two-year extension since it cannot meet the deadlines due to certification delays of the 737 MAX 7 and 737 MAX 10.”
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-faa-737-max-exemption-request/
Old habits die hard.
Why do the work when you can request exemptions one after another.
Airbus does the same thing.
Looks as if the only commercial aircraft that BA will have on display at the upcoming Paris Airshow will be a Qatar 777-300ER with a special livery.
So: no 777X, no 787, no MAXs.
As regards military kit, BA is bringing:
F-15 Eagle, CH-47 Chinook, KC-46 Pegasus and P-8 Poseidon.
Pretty clear in what sector the company is trying to garner new sales.
I doubt there’ll be much interest, in view of recent developments in relationships with (ex-)allies, but we’ll see.
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2025-06-09-Boeing-to-Focus-on-Customers,-Innovation-and-Partnership-at-Paris-Air-Show-2025
“Boeing said in various filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that as the 787 moved to Charleston and the 747 production ended, the remaining programs would be pushed into a loss position.”
Production of the 767F ends in 2027.
@Scott:
Very good compilation of the data and the charts flow into it beautifully. Leeham has done a fantastic job here. One of the best if not the best of its type I have ever seen.
I remember when Boeing was shooting for that high rate (had forgot what it was, so thank you, we got that number again).
I always wondered about Airbus, with 8 x A320/21 production lines to Boeing 3. Airbus keeps trying but getting up to Rate 75 keeps moving to the right. US and China lines that bad, but that is only 2 lines.
Good question is if that number of lines is what is needed to sustain quality production. But with reports of travel work, hmmm. And as Scott noted, not the uber efficient machine they would like to convey.
More Boeing stuffing too much in Renton it seemed. Keeping in mind there is also the mix of NG in there for the E-7 and P-8.
KC-46A production likely to continue until the KC-135Rs replaced. USAF says they never have enough tankers and they do have extension programs for the KC-135R.
First time I have seen the location of the 777X wing assembly building. For some reason I thought it was a lot more remoted from Paine let alone right next to the plant.
Great overview of the operation. Much appreciated
I am truly fascinated by the fact that Boeing was getting 52 x 737 out of Renton a month on the 3 lines and Airbus is no where near that efficient (granted it may not have been the quality they were supposed to have but no issues that seem related to any incidents with NG either).
In Mobile it was 4 and working up to maybe 20 a month of A320/21 build. So the other sites would have to be higher (or Europe anyway) to make up for that.
But then you have the wings shipped across the pond and that seems like a bottleneck when you could build them in Mobile.
Have to amend Airbus. Alabama has two lines and adding a 2nd one in China so it would be 10 lines in total.
AB’s frames weren’t falling out of the sky and/or losing doors midflight.
Also, they didn’t need to be grounded for years to undergo software rewrites, cockpit mods and rewiring.
Shortcuts make long delays.
Another factor: AB’s production is heavily skewed toward A321s. Larger frame = longer production time…particularly when kitted out with bigger business/first class cabins.
And another factor: factory workers in Europe get (at least) 25 vacation days per year — and they actually use them. They also get generous pregnancy leave and sick leave, for example. US-ians love to quib that “Europe shuts down” in summer — but better quality of life tends to produce better quality of output 😉
What’s really fascinating? Even with the higher costs associated with having more lines, AB still manages to make a healthy profit per frame…unlike its main competitor…
I know its just to knock Boeing some more, but its interesting never the less.
You should note that I specifically noted that keeping build quality may mean lower line rates (and Scott noted issues with traveled Airbus work).
No disagreement on better European work conditions. Do the US Workers get the same and do the China workers? But then Airbus has said production costs in the US are lower.
You think Airbus is immune to software problems and they are not. None were as well publicized as the MCAS crashes, they have happened. MCAS 1.0 was horrid. But having your AOA/Pioto freeze up is a single point of failure and 3 does not change that.
Airbus has suffered many issues with software and its been changed. And then the change caused a gap that was opened up. You can’t write logic that applies in all situations.
It affects Embraer, Boeing and Airbus. More so the newer birds but MCAS and things like speed trim are a fact of Boeing as well as the others.
There is a famous A320 Crash in (Sao Paula I believe) where the logic of the spoilers and thrust reverse got messed up. It went off a raised runway section killing all on board. There was a signfiant re-write of all that logic. At times you do want spoilers and thrust reverse while in the air.
I used to have to program fan systems and for something as simple as a fan the complexity of the decision trees got mind boggling.
If there is a gap in the logic someone will drive an airplane through it.
Haha you guys have never heard of where to find Europeans in August?
In Paris, they spent less than a half (IIRC) of what they spent in America for a metro station, no wonder they have a lower GDP!
I wonder how hard it is to have millions and millions Americans “screwing in little screws” to make phones? How come Tim Apple doesn’t move production to America? Apple is one of the very profitable companies, shouldn’t it afford to pay American living wage to make their phones?
Last but not the least, pay attention! According to Faury, AB has built-in excess capacity in their plan, so a slow down caused by the supply chain in one location can be compensated by higher production rate at other locations.
Before you start your mindless bashing, learn more.
Well flipping this upside down, so having lots of inefficient (if they are) is a creature not a bug?
All plants are on the same supply chain. So how can one be immune when others are not? Makes zero sense.
Its an interesting discussion item as Scott referenced.
As for Apple, same as Nike. Lower cost = more money for Apple, shrug, I have no say in any of it.
Granted I would rather dig ditches than put millions of little screws into an Iphone. But then I have fat fingers not suited to fine motion control stuff.
No idea what the Subway thing is all about.
Does it ever cross your mind that Boeing 737 assembly in Washington relies on complete fuselages from Spirit in Wichita? Yeah it’s like you consider only half of the work done.
Oh didn’t you read that the MAX 10 may be configured with “lie flat business class seats and other upscale layouts not included in the MAX 7/8 and -9”, like what many airlines are putting in their A321XLR? It takes more time and adds complexity, don’t you agree?
Furthermore it has little to do with the number of lines, that’s a diversion only, the key is the number of workers there.
Well darn it. I had not idea Spirit made fuselages for Boeing. What will they think of (or do) next?
Another puzzler. As Renton made 52 a month at one time, I am not all that convinced that the -10 needs to be assembled in Everett.
You gotta haul them wings North as well as those pesky out of State fuselages.
Now I have always been baffled why Boeing did not just make the whole 737 in Kansas. They had a big presence there (well will again when they shift Spirit over to their ownership)
But yea, lines have bearing. You can only stuff so much down a line.
Boeing maybe recognized that, they have been working on the Everett line for some time.
I guess Boeing missed the memo that opening up Charleston was going to created excess capacity.
Still have to keep in mind that Boeing had 777-ER/F line buzzing along at rate 8 I believe it was.
I got to see the factory back when they were moving to faster 777 production. Pretty neat the U turn line.
Both Airbus and Boeing have my admiration as getting all that to work is mind boggling.
“.. keep in mind that Boeing had 777-ER/F line buzzing along at rate 8”
What the hack are you talking about?? You overestimated the production rate by at least like 200% 😭
Production of the 777 passenger aircraft has ended for years.
@ TransWorld
It is inefficient, and its why Airbus had been chasing Boeing in efficiency for years. But when your competitor shoots itself in the foot and you have the hottest NB to sell, it masks a lot of those inefficiencies. But lets not kid our selves, the Europeans are just as greedy as the Americans when it comes to financials, and there is nothing wrong with that.
“its why Airbus had been chasing Boeing in efficiency for years”
Fact check:
BCA on a unit-cost basis, suffered a loss of like $3b in Q1.
Is that what the “gold standard” of efficiency looks like in your mind?
New definitions of “efficiency”:
(1) Delivering more than a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of aircraft in a 5-year period, without making a single penny of profit.
(2) Having multiple parking lots and boneyards full of corroding aircraft, and spending a fortune patching them up so as to eventually sell them at a loss.
(3) Taking on so much debt that — even if the entire order book were to be delivered — it wouldn’t generate enough EBIT to reduce the debt to zero.
Yes, Boeing “efficiency” is the envy of the world 🙈
I’m truly fascinated by the fact Boeing once was able to achieve the run rate of 52/mth with three FALs but now will need another line to reach the same rate. 😳 What happened??
Just to state the obvious, the number of lines you need for a specific rate of production depends on the rate at which products come off the line.
Given a relatively constant length of the products being produced, a higher line rate means that the products must spend more time being moved and less time being worked on. It also means that you can do less at each station.
That might give you a trade off between having operators that only need to know a very narrow range of operations or having more flexible workers.
Regardless there is probably no virtue in any particular rate, it depends more on how you decide to organize the work, and how flexible you want your operators to be
There is going to be a realistic limit. 52 seems nuts.
52 a month off the Renton lines was amazing. Now door blank blowouts!
I think the middle line was kept NG for the P-8/E-7.
The P8 is done next door in the sawtooth building.
@Scott:
I thought I remembered the middle line was where they inserted the NGs.
Good to get that corrected.
I assume E-7 the same if its new build?
This is exactly why the Renton Line(s) were converted to moving lines Yeats ago. Eliminate position change time loss.
Good to have someone who knows comment on that.
I thought it was moving line but could not point to something definitive.
Boeing starts with ready made fuselages ( done out of house )
sticking some wings and 2 engines on those … 🙂
inline or in parallel assembly is method not efficiency.
snitches on a single line have more impact than in a parallel arrangement.
Being brought in house even as we type
1) Still hasn’t been finalized, don’t you know?
2) In a different state, like thousands of miles away!
How come you didn’t include that into your consideration above?
Boeing Starliner’s next flight delayed again — now until early 2026 (at least).
🙈
https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/06/07/further-delays-of-starliners-next-flight-mark-anniversary-of-its-first-crewed-space-station-docking/
Shrug
SMH
and for now, happy Boeing.
https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-makes-first-delivery-to-china-since-tariff-clash/
And China workers in the completion center get work.
Remains to see how the talk goes. There’s more to come. 🎆
Indeed.
The US side was expecting “a short meeting followed by a strong handshake”…but that’s not how things panned out.
The Chinese delegation has reserved a full week in London…
Burn the midnight oil!
> Lutnick: “We’ve got more to do. we’re coming back at 8 o’clock”
> Members of the Chinese delegation were seen leaving Lancaster House for a break just before 5:30 p.m. The two sides are expected to resume talks around 8 p.m., according to a person familiar with the matter.
https://x.com/DanielPFlatley/status/1932497462930903274
The London talks have ended, with only a “framework” announced — no meat on the bone.
The muted market reaction is quite telling: bond yields up again.
The “framework” now gets presented to Xi and Trump: it will probably go too far for the latter, and not far enough for the former.
> The lack of details may suggest the US side will need Trump’s approval to undo some of the export controls Beijing asked for.
@ Pedro
Market reaction on the (lack of a) “deal”:
“‘Tiny’ but ‘at least relations may not worsen’: The market reactions to latest US-China framework”
“A variety of market observers quickly weighed in hours after Tuesday evening’s unveiling to suggest that the deal may not have a lot of meat on the bones, but at least relations are no longer moving in the wrong direction.”
“The talks perhaps underscored how unlikely a comprehensive trade deal is anytime soon, noted AGF Investments’ Greg Valliere, “but at least relations may not worsen as talks continue throughout the summer.”
“Both sides promised additional talks in the weeks or months ahead, but none have yet been scheduled.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tiny-but-at-least-relations-may-not-worsen-the-market-reactions-to-latest-us-china-framework-115012943.html
***
Meanwhile, Lutnick said today that tariffs on China won’t be changing again. The current level of ca. 30% is enough to severely curtail China-US trade.
@Abalone
US negotiators agreed to relax some recent restrictions on the sale to China of products…
How long did it last? A week? Or less?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtLOVi3XQAATkMi?format=jpg&name=large
More are seeing the light!
> US-export-restrictions-as-Chinese-industrial-policy is a funny way to speedrun the Chinese Century. Typically you see advanced countries trying to make less developed countries *more* dependent on industrial imports, not force them to move *up* the value chain.
Economic Times (India) is reporting:
“Embraer is looking to increase production rate of its commercial planes to 120 a year from 73 now”.
There has been recent talk of Embraer opening a FAL in India, if it gets an order of at least 200 aircraft from Indian customers.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/final-assembly-line-possible-in-india-embraer/articleshow/121580396.cms
Strange FAA limits on Everett, seems to be the best quality BCA site and they have been fixing S.C. built 787’s for a good while and by now should be able to sniff out any deviation. So building 737-10’s there and avoiding the moving lines should give the best quality 737’s out of Boeing.
I think its two things.
Abundance of caution in having Boeing prove they have it working correctly and the process per Certificate is being adhered to.
The other is Everett has never done a 737 of any type or era. Workers from the 787 will be well tuned with composites but not Aluminum.
Probably transfers from MAX and you have the core of 767 and 777-ER workers if they move any of those over but they have to learn to work as a team.
Trans wrote……
“The other is Everett has never done a 737 of any type or era. Workers from the 787 will be well tuned with composites but not Aluminum. Probably transfers from MAX and you have the core of 767 and 777-ER workers if they move any of those over but they have to learn to work as a team.”
Well allow me to chime in here a bit…
At the present time, there is no 787 dedicated workforce in Everett, they were all transitioned to other jobs. The 787 shim rework force was primarily Boeing AOG crews and 737 mechanics available from Renton to retain them with useful work. The 777 and 767 lines weren’t disrupted. The immediate future for Everett staffing is to put on some added resources for the 777X Change Incorp process for the 30 ish airplanes needing updates to currency then the TC is granted. Those bodies then become available as the 777x rate go’s up. The staffing of the North Line would be a mix of new hires and relocations from Renton. The fact that Everett hasn’t done 737s isn’t as daunting as one thinks. The mating of the 737 wings uses the same side of body rib/splice plate common to the 787, so the Everett people know the methods. The rest of the assembly of the 737 is conceptually identical to the 767 once you get the wings on the tube. The 100 series control codes should be really close in content between the 737 and 767 lines because besides scale, they are quite similar. The bolting of the empennage, surfaces and all the mechanical flight controls is just smaller than the 767. I expect the Everett people to be able to do this with less strain than an ab-initio workforce in a greenfield site. Interestingly enough, there is an automated seat loader in Everett for getting seats out of the seat vans that will be taken from Everett and merged into the 737 lines in Everett to speed interior loading. All of this could happen in fairly short order. They even have the North Line Cafe signage up on the cafeteria spaces. Im feeling pretty good about what’s happening there.
Will they have a moving line FAL or work similar to the 767 FAL? There is increased risk with a moving line as much harder to stop for stressed bonus hungry manager (unless you are Toyota). With very carful receiving inspection of all bits the FAL line should work smoothly with 99.998% compliant parts and only a few tool problems should cause rework.
Claes wrote….
“Will they have a moving line FAL or work similar to the 767 FAL?”
Lets peel this onion because the question is more complicated than it seems on the surface….
Casual observation of the Everett 737 line installation shows it to be identical to the existing Renton lines. This is the preferred method to increase line rate, create additional units of the existing ASSEMBLY tooling. This means that there will be no new assembly tooling designed, no new assembly tooling incorporation risk. The manufacturing planning will be identical in that the existing Renton model planning packages can be incorporated without changes. Boeing says Everett will be starting with the -10 . This planning package has already proven to build -10s today in Renton can be relocated without change to the new line. This de-risks the stand up process. We also need to keep it in the back of our mind that the tooling is not constrained to build ONLY -10s. The back shops and supply chain will need no changes of consequence other than an address change to route their output to either the Renton Kitting or new Everett kitting locations. This runs back shops at rates higher than local line rates and as we all know, efficiencies improve as line rate accelerates.
While there is no wing assembly tooling in view in the 40-27 building today, there absence does make sense. It better to transport wings from Renton instead of building additional units of wing tools. That way, the wing line rate will then always be higher than the site line rate, and this De-Risks the wing assembly process by using the existing workforce to use proven tooling and concentrate expertise in one location. It also simplifies the supply chain by not having to duplicate any of the inventory/kitting/storage facilities associated with the wings in Everett. Wing tooling maintenance is simplified as you only need to locate the wing tooling support staff in 1 location. This also means that when you lose a wing tool slot for whatever reason, the work around will always be less disruptive to the assembly process than would be found in a distributed tooling model. And as is found in the back shops, the Wing Line rate running in excess of either site line rate accrues the benefits to margin of the higher actual production rate in its work center.
Theres lots of good stuff to see here and this line is positioned to be stood up at any time, and they have the benefit of slowly trickling work to it as the workforce is exposed to the new work packages.
Well put PNWgeek:
I know this is a repeat, but on those 3 lines in Renton they hit rate 52.
There were not issues with the aircraft. No bolts left out of door blanks.
So its a finely honed system. Holding at rate 48 and shifting to Everett seems like a good decision.
Despite the management sending Boeing down the river, there was still momentum of the prior culture.
People forget that the 787 despite the millstone management put on its neck, is outstandingly successful. Yes some issues but any worse than wiring and wing problems on the A380? I don’t think so.
The 787 was a leap ahead and all by itself was going to take full on and then some. But management also saddled it with spreading it all over the world and then not managing that spread. 90% of the problems were a result of that. So yes, the 10% was the wing join (weight loss issue) the batteries (insane setup scattered all over the world) and an CB protection system failure.
The two issues of peril (not caught in testing) was the battery system and the CB protection. Neither was a Boeing build, both were outsourced.
The Battery was the worst as it went into service and there could have been crash or crashes.
The CB protection is unknown to most people. Massive short in a Main Power panel that the CBs did not isolate the way intended.
They believe a wrench was left in that panel and went across the hot busses. While the odds of that happening are close to zero, if it did in the wrong place (over oceans) then a ditching.
The composites worked. The Electronics worked. The more electric system worked.
What did not work was assembly, fastener shortage and hoarding and zero coordination from Boeing management.
What got it back on track was Tiger teams of all disciplines that could tackle any holdup issue.
Boeing had a system and people in place, those systems are still good. Management execution was not.
Fortunately in the last incident no one died and Boeing can start working its way back to that culture that put out 52 x 737 a month and an amazing 8.3 777. Which happened under bad management at the top.
@Tw
“There were not issues with the aircraft.”
LMAO I’m old enough to remember what happened in 2018 vividly. Is it possible that your eschewal of anything bad about BA distorts your mind? : p
Reuters:
> The snarl at its plant in Renton, Washington, triggered by shortages of engines and fuselages as Boeing sped production to record levels in June, is likely to hurt third-quarter results and threatens its goal to boost build rates again in 2019
> Investors will get a peek on Tuesday at how far behind Boeing is when it releases its order and delivery tallies for August, a month after *deliveries fell to the lowest level in years*.
> About 50 semi-finished 737s were scattered around the Renton plant last week, analysts said, several times the number of semi-finished aircraft Reuters reported in July.
LNA report:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/09/06/boeing-confident-of-737-recovery-by-year-end-some-analysts-express-doubt/
Also see comment below
Interesting possible migration of interest to smaller narrowbodies.
Embraer is fishing for orders in India and Ethopia — and planning to increase line rates by 80% — and then there’s this:
“AirAsia close to buying at least 100 Airbus jets in shift to A220”
“PARIS (Reuters) -AirAsia is in advanced discussions to place an order for at least 100 Airbus jets at next week’s Paris Airshow, a deal likely to mark the introduction to its fleet of the planemaker’s smallest jet, the A220, industry sources said.
“Malaysia-based low-cost carrier AirAsia operates an all-Airbus fleet and has previously said it was looking to add smaller planes to its fleet for regional routes.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airasia-close-buying-least-100-065045298.html
Yea I remember Air Asia ordering 150 A330, then A330NEO, then A350 and then back to many fewer A330NEO.
Leeham has noted they are a problem customer.
You’re confusing Air Asia (narrowbody, shorthaul) and Air Asia X (widebody, longhaul).
Up to recently, they were separate companies. They started merging last year.
🙈
Do you know if Boeing is ready to deliver their 787 to Emirates or if Emirates is ready to take delivery? It’s been strangely quiet from TC, you know.
Emirates appears to have lost interest in its 787 order…
“However, it’s on the 787 Dreamliners that Clark appears more pessimistic. He expressed his doubts about taking the thirty 787s Emirates has on order due to the program’s extended production halt.
“He said that he wouldn’t be surprised if the airline dropped the 787s out of the mix completely.”
https://simpleflying.com/tim-clark-emirates-boeing-787-order-questioned/
Time to write-off BA’s F/A-XX investment?
Nikkei reports:
> China’s critical mineral curbs shake AI data center suppliers
Vital bismuth inventories running low, warn suppliers to Nvidia and others
> Depleted German rare-earth and magnet importers await China moves
Beijing flags plan to loosen curbs, but European tech export rules stand in way
“Southwest Airlines Explores Selling Incoming Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft”
“According to Jordan, Southwest Airlines has a “very, very attractive order book of a lot of aircraft at very attractive pricing.” Combined with the fact that, in the next few years, the carrier is planning only incremental capacity growth of between 1% and 2%, the company could explore the sale of aircraft that it does not intend to use for its own operations.”
““And if we don’t take all those aircraft for our own uses, then we will monetize those into the market. Our pricing compared to what the market is pricing in […] is very strong. And whether we take the aircraft or we decide to sell the aircraft into the market, we’re going to monetize every dime of value that we have in the Boeing order book.””
https://simpleflying.com/southwest-selling-incoming-boeing-737-maxs/
***
Glossary:
Very attractive pricing = sold at a loss
Sounds like asset stripping to me .
Sad end to a company that I came to ‘love’
“US defence secretary casts further doubt on E-7 acquisition plan”
“The USA’s top defence official has given the clearest evidence yet that the Pentagon under the Trump Administration has soured on plans to acquire Boeing’s 737-based E-7 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform.
“Speaking before a congressional committee on 10 June, secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said observations of China’s military build-up and the now three-year-plus war in Ukraine are driving changes to the Pentagon’s equipment strategy.
““If we have systems and platforms that are not survivable in the modern battlefield, or they don’t give us an advantage in a future fight, we have to make the tough decisions right now,” Hegseth says. “The E-7 is an example of that.””
“While unverified reports in recent weeks had indicated that political appointees at the Pentagon were looking to axe the plan, Hegseth’s public remarks are the first clear indicator provided by a senior official.
“While the defence chief did not rule out an E-7 acquisition, he expressed scepticism about the future survivability and utility of aerial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms.
““We believe most of the ISR, or a great deal of the ISR in the future, will be space-based,” Hegseth says”
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-defence-secretary-casts-further-doubt-on-e-7-acquisition-plan/163315.article
They are penny-pinching. How can you make a cake when the cupboard is bare?
It’s good news for other OEMs though, isn’t it?
With the projected main buyer gone, the E-7 will become a dead-duck program. That creates opportunities for Embraer’s C390 AEWC, Airbus’ C295 AEWC, and Saab’s S340 AEWC.
Airbus may even decide to offer an A321 AEWC, as a sister to the A321MPA currently being developed.
Meanwhile, the Aussies, Brits, Koreans and Turks are stuck with a dinosaur.
Only 14 have been built.
Abalone wrote…..
It’s good news for other OEMs though, isn’t it?
With the projected main buyer gone, the E-7 will become a dead-duck program.
The Wedgetail program was initially a foreign program for countries not wanting to join or extend the AWACS program. The USAF was never envisioned to be its largest purchases. It is only the Aussie experience with the aircraft that led the USAF to examine it as a successor platform to AWACS. If Hegseth is correct, and if the E-7 cannot survive in contested airspace, none of the other platforms would benefit because the USAF wouldnt purchase them either. Hegseth is probably correct given the vastly increased airspace lethality shown in Ukraine and the losses sustained ny the IAF at the hands of the Pakistani’s in their recent BVR slugfest.
“…none of the other platforms would benefit because the USAF wouldnt purchase them either.”
The USAF is not the only procurer of military aircraft on the planet: Europe, SE Asia and the Middle East are in the process of vastly expanding their military kit — plenty of potential interest there.
Extending your reasoning: Hegseth should also pull the plug on aerial tankers, bombers and MPAs.
Of note: satellites can be jammed…all the more easily because they have predictable orbits.
And the Russians have developed a satellite-killing satellite.
So, choose your poison.
PNW Geek has nailed it.
The only reason to drop the E-7 is its not survivable. Good Old Pete talks big about space based systems, they DO NOT exist. Nor are they safe.
Pakistan used a SAAB prop job for their mini AWACs (no reports of getting shot down).
So if the E-7 is a dog then the rest of them are dogs because the E-7 has been kept up to date and uses a larger AESA system. It also has other systems besides that (P-8 has all sorts of extra stuff as well).
So your argument just wound up failing due to Illogic of it.
Pete may try to dump E-7, stupid decisions are his MO, its what you expect from an Alcoholic.
So it’s true??
Hegseth in 2024: “In the past 10, 12, 15 years, the Pentagon has a perfect record of all its war games against China, we lose every time.”
That line from the DoD is just the perpetual bid from the MIC for Yet More Money (already over $1,000,000,000,000 P.A. now, if you include the nukes).
It’s never going to be enough, at a time when LM is able to deliver F-35 suitable for training only.
Abalone
June 11, 2025
“…none of the other platforms would benefit because the USAF wouldnt purchase them either.”
The USAF is not the only procurer of military aircraft on the planet: Europe, SE Asia and the Middle East are in the process of vastly expanding their military kit — plenty of potential interest there.
Why not the GlobalEye? A proven success! Wink wink.
Because its not nearly as capable as an E-7.
Its a good piece of work. Its not an E-7.
Putting it in a Bomadier airframe only makes it faster.
@TW
Sorry, EriEye.
May be around the world, many countries know what is good value — not many can afford to pay Boeing 8000% markup for a soap dispenser, or like $90k for a bag of bushing.
Forgive the laptop dying….
Abalone
June 11, 2025
It’s good news for other OEMs though, isn’t it?
With the projected main buyer gone, the E-7 will become a dead-duck program. That creates opportunities for Embraer’s C390 AEWC, Airbus’ C295 AEWC, and Saab’s S340 AEWC.
This doesn’t make sense. When the free worlds largest purchaser for this type of aircraft drops it from consideration, the potential sales to the USAF for all the other OEMs for their offerings also evaporates. I fail to see how there is any benefit to the other OEMS when the free market estimate of future need is severely truncated. I’m not seeing how a shrinking world market for an aircraft such as the E-7 is a benefit to anyone. This is a survivability call. If the warspace has changed as much as Ukraine and Pakistan have shown us, airborne control aircraft may not be able to get close enough to be effective. The PAF was killing Rafales at 130 miles, far beyond the IAFs Chinese missile range estimates. We also need to look at what happened to the A-10 and the SU-25 which are proven to take large casualties in todays manpad filed world. Betting on Space systems is a crap shoot and I suspect we will see the cat and mouse of ground based radars using AI controlled frequency skipping with multiple site short burst emissions become the norm. That said, manned aircraft and tankers still play a role where the war is actually won, logistics. I believe we are seeing the acceleration of asymmetric warfare, and this will be standing current thinking on its head.
But back to Abalones comments about the E-7 potential cutbacks being a Euro benefit. Nope.
Well, “the free worlds largest purchaser for this type of aircraft” didn’t go for any of the A330 MRTT, A400M, Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale…and, yet, all those programs are doing just fine 👍
Survivability of any platform also depends on not underestimating your adversary — a mistake made by the Indians and Russians…but also by the US, on many occasions. Partial loss doesn’t necessarily mean that the platform is defunct. The Viet Cong shot down multiple B52s during the Tet offensive — but the US kept using them for decades after that.
European defense companies are currently humming — with or without orders from the US.
Hegseth is an idiot and even if he prevails, assuming we are still a somewhat free nation, as soon as the OA is gone, he is gone.
They got nothing to replace AWACs.
The E-7 is an outstanding system that outperforms the so called rivals. Those are good fillers for places like Pakistan.
Kind of like the P-8 that Airbus is trying to emulate.
AWACS, now that is a dinosaur.
FG: Faury says the issues at Spirit have led to a year’s delay for the A350 production trajectory to 2028
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/fully-focused-faury-airbus-chief-on-a320-successor-hopes-for-hydrogen-and-defence-consolidation/163307.article
Also from FG:
The cost of Canada’s stealth fighter acquisition is soaring, years before the first jets are even delivered.
> A report from the office of the Canadian Auditor General finds the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) will ultimately pay nearly twice the 2022 estimate of C$19 billion ($13.8 billion) to field 88 Lockheed Martin F-35As.
> Notably, that projection does not include an additional C$5.5 billion in spending on munitions and infrastructure upgrades that will be required to reach full operational capability on the F-35 fleet.
> … former Canadian air force chief Lieutenant General Yvon Blondin has urged caution, describing the current F-35-only solution to fighter modernisation as “irresponsible” and likening it to “hoping for the best”.
“The reality is that, without US consent, no country can hope to operate the F-35 for long: the US controls its operating software, updates, upgrades, maintenance, parts and armament,” Blondin said in a LinkedIn post.
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/audit-projects-canadian-f-35-acquisition-costs-will-nearly-double/163296.article
…I sense F35 cancellations coming…
🙈
Of tangential interest:
“Cenovus CEO Says U.S. Still Relies Heavily on Canadian Oil”
“Despite political tensions and tariff threats, the United States remains heavily dependent on Canadian oil, Cenovus Energy CEO Jon McKenzie said Tuesday at an energy conference in Calgary.
“Nearly 4 million barrels per day of Canadian crude are exported to the U.S., making Canada its largest foreign oil supplier. McKenzie emphasized that the energy systems of the two countries are deeply interconnected, regardless of President Trump’s claims that the U.S. doesn’t need Canadian oil.”
https://oilprice.com/Company-News/Cenovus-CEO-Says-US-Still-Relies-Heavily-on-Canadian-Oil.html
“Five nations and EU urge Trump not to impose new airplane tariffs”
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Five nations and the European Union, as well as airlines and aerospace firms worldwide, urged the Trump administration not to impose new national security tariffs on imported commercial planes and parts, documents released on Tuesday showed.
“Airlines and planemakers have been lobbying President Donald Trump to restore the tariff-free regime under the 1979 Civil Aircraft Agreement that has yielded an annual trade surplus of $75 billion for the U.S. industry.”
“The documents made public by the U.S. Commerce Department bared concerns over the fallout of possible new tariffs expressed by companies as well as nations such as Canada, China, Japan, Mexico and Switzerland, besides the European Union.
“”As reliable trading partners, the European Union and United States should strengthen their trade regarding aircraft and aircraft parts, rather than hinder it by imposing trade restrictions,” the EU wrote.
“It would consider its options “to ensure a level playing field,” it added.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-mexico-eu-japan-canada-025105628.html
CNBC: JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon warns U.S. economy could soon ‘deteriorate’
Stating the obvious.
A report published by the ECB today indicates that the USD now only constitutes 47% of global central bank reserves…at the expense of an increase in gold and non-USD/EUR currencies.
Concurrently:
“Dollar divorce? Asia’s shift away from the U.S. dollar is picking up pace”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/11/de-dollarization-in-asia-is-picking-up-speed.html
***
Can’t help but think that US carriers are soon going to be hit by a sharp downturn in demand.
Spirit and Southwest (see above) have already indicated that they essentially have too many aircraft on order.
Also: what happens when an increasing portion of the materials and parts imported by BA are priced/settled in currencies other than USD?
BCA’s hubris — is history about to repeat itself?
> Woodard believed Boeing had an “enormous industrial might” and Europe didn’t, allowing Boeing to go into the market and cut prices (“which he was doing in 1995”), based on high volume, lower production costs and the ability to pass through lower prices.
“He also offered very early delivery slots,” Leahy recalled. Woodard offered airplanes the next year or in 18 months. “He knew we couldn’t.”
The result was a disaster for Boeing. Leahy said Boeing could have sustained the low pricing, and it did. But as Woodard upped production of the 737, everything fell apart. The supply chain couldn’t keep up with a dramatic increase in the production rate (from 21 737s a month to 27, at the time an unprecedented rate). Production lines fell behind, quality control suffered and deliveries were late. Boeing took the unprecedented step of shutting down the 737 line for 30 days to catch up. Boeing reported its first loss in 40 years. Woodard lost his job over the snafu.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/14/top-airbus-officials-scoffed-leahys-50-market-share-goal/
Are you ready for this? Some hash criticism.
> The Ethane Export Control Fiasco
“These controls, ..but they exemplify how not to deploy tools of economic statecraft. […]
The new licensing requirements have effectively blocked what were previously unrestricted commodity shipments, forcing major U.S. energy companies to halt billions of dollars in planned exports while loaded tankers sit idle off the coast of Houston, Texas.
The ethane controls illustrate significant challenges in recent U.S. trade policy: They inflict more damage on U.S. companies than Chinese competitors and undermine confidence in American supply reliability among allies. Rather than demonstrating U.S. resolve, these poorly conceived controls reveal a troubling pattern of assumption-based policymaking, seemingly devoid of rigorous analysis. These controls fail to clear even the lowest bar for an economic weapon. Beyond contradicting the administration’s own energy dominance agenda, they signal to allies that the United States cannot be trusted even in supposedly apolitical commodity markets.[…]
https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-china-trade-talks-london-ethane-export-controls-and-need-better-economic-statecraft
So much for the Paris Air Show. Macron is not going to be happy!
Nope, its the Abalone and Pedro version of Motley Fool.
You’re confusing articles: the Paris Airshow is covered in the more recent LNA piece. 🙈
This article is about BA output — which is affected by the ongoing trade war. In particular, BA deliveries to China still hang by a silk thread.
So I’m not the only one sensing some useful ambiguity in China taking a bare trickle of
Boeing product..
Who needs whom here, exactly?
China hasn’t even taken the product — the product has only been flown to BA’s completion center in China.
No actual handover to a Chinese airline has taken place…
https://www.jalopnik.com/1882758/boeing-starts-flying-new-planes-into-china/
In reply to your question:
– China losing US trade = inconvenience.
– US losing China trade = emergency.
The Econonist: The latest talks are the second time in two months that the world’s pre-eminent superpower has come asking for help.
Abalone said…
This article is about BA output — which is affected by the ongoing trade war. In particular, BA deliveries to China still hang by a silk thread.
Funny. The title is about the 737 North Line. The content spoke to the factory layout, the sequencing of the line into the 737 production plan, but wasn’t about Boeing output. Boeing output incorporates so many programs other than the 737. Also, it said nothing of Chinese delivery’s. Perhaps you were reading another publication….
“…but wasn’t about Boeing output.”
That’s strange: I see a table of planned MAX outputs in the article, with an extensive accompanying discussion…
The article also has a specific paragraph relating to the 777X. And it alludes to various other models:
“The low-rate production of the 777 freighter and 777X, the 767-300ER/KC-46A and 787 rework (now completed) have had to absorb the operating cost of the huge facility.”
China doesn’t have to be specfically mentioned: it’s a huge market, and necessarily affects output planning.