Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Airbus books 142 firm orders as Boeing retracts from the Paris Air Show
By Bjorn Fehrm
June 19, 2025, © Leeham News at Paris Air Show: Boeing chose to scale down its participation at this week’s Paris Air Show out of respect for the victims of the Air India crash last week. This left Airbus and Embraer to announce new orders, with a total of 142 firm orders for Airbus and 60 for Embraer.
Outside the order activity for the three large airliner OEMs, it was a relatively quiet show, with few noteworthy announcements of advancements in areas such as Sustainable Aviation.
Figure 1. Airbus orders and commitments at the Paris Air Show. Source: Airbus.
Boeing’s problems
Boeing, which had started to make real progress on its way back from the 737 MAX crisis, 777X delays, and strikes, was hit by a very unfortunate first crash of the 787 family the week before the show. More than 280 people died in the aircraft and on the ground as the Air India Flight 171 787-8 went down shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad Airport last week.
There has been no further information as to the cause of the crash at the Air Show. There are speculations and theories about what could have happened, but experts agree that we have no firm clues or understanding of what happened. Both data and voice recorders have been found, so India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) should issue a preliminary statement about the crash in the near future.
Boeing has announced no orders at the show, but it had a blockbuster May when Donald Trump toured the Middle East, with 130 787s and 30 777Xs ordered by Qatar Airways, and 20 737 Max ordered by Avilease (WestJet of Canada also ordered a net of five 737 Max in May).
Airbus announcement and orders
Airbus held a technical briefing in Toulouse before the Air Show, followed by several announcements of orders during the event. In total, 142 firm orders and 103 letters of intent or memoranda of understanding were announced, Figure 1.
For the A350 family, the uptick in A350-1000 orders shows that the time has now arrived for this larger variant of the A350. It was outselling the -900 by a six-to-one margin at the show. If we were to include the A350-1000-based freighter A350F, it would be close to eight-to-one.
The A350’s engines, the Trent XWB, will undergo improvements, including a 1% decrease in fuel consumption for the XWB 84 this year, as well as enhanced durability. Additionally, the XWB 97 will receive durability improvements from 2028, resulting in a doubled time on wing.
The A330neo has received no new orders at the show as of Wednesday, but has secured 10 additional orders since the start of the new year. The A330neo continues its development with enhanced field performance introduced this year (through shorter gear retraction times and improved flap settings), followed by enhanced durability of the Trent 7000 engines in 2026 and an increase in the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) to 253 tonnes in 2028. It will give the A330neo an additional 150 nautical miles (nm) of range.
The A320neo and A321neo are the top sellers with 57 firm orders and 100 letters of intent from Vietjet. On the technical side, the changes from the A321neo and LR to the A321XLR were detailed at the Toulouse briefing before the show.
To handle the increase in MTOW from 97t for the A321neo/LR to 101t for the XLR, Airbus has strengthened the wing and modified the inboard flap for additional lift, as well as reinforced the fuselage and landing gear of the XLR. The wing will be introduced into the A321neo/LR, as the weight increase is minimal, and the takeoff performance improvement and commonality are valuable. However, the fuselage changes add too much weight for it to be common between the XLR and neo/LR. The XLR fuselage, with its integrated Rear Center Tank (RCT), will be unique for the XLR.
The A220 won a large order from LOT Polish Airlines. The A220 has seen continuous increases in MTOW recently, with the range now advertised as 3,600nm, using Airbus rules. The work to certify a 160-seat high-density version has also started. The rumored A220-500 seems to have slipped into the 2030s, however, with Airbus emphasizing its focus on increasing production of the current versions.
Embraer
Embraer announced an order for 60 E175s for WestJet at the show. The somewhat surprising order of 40 Airbus A220s from LOT Polish Airlines, one of the largest operators of Embraer E-Jets, was explained as a political decision. As Putin’s Russia threatens Europe, the EU states have closed ranks, which favors a European order for the replacement of the present E-Jets.
The Brazilian manufacturer achieved yet another success with its KC-390 military transport aircraft, with Lithuania announcing an order for three multi-role KC-390s. The aircraft is gradually wrapping up the C-130 Hercules replacement market.
Airbus could name the Qantas long range A350-1000 version as the A350-1000ER and refine it. This for all airlines wanting to fly non-stop bypassing the ME3 airports to Asia and from Asia to North America non stop routes where it is not possible with a full load today. To avoid a 2-3 hrs extra time and a full T-O cycle on the engines, still you need to carry the last gallons of fuel all they way limiting payload, this making engine fuel consumption extremely important. So for each TSFC % improvement and increase in engine LLP’s replacement shop visits cost the market for these aircrafts grow.
“Airbus Plans A350 Stretch Version, To Compete With Boeing 777X”
“While it sounds like this is still a long ways off from becoming a reality, Faury suggested that Airbus’ plan is to simply “stretch” the existing A350, rather than pursuing a clean sheet design for a new jet.
“As he explained, “if our production capacities are limited, it would be counterproductive to create even more product diversity.” He suggested that competing with the 777-9 would “probably be a natural evolution of the product line – from the A350-900 to the -1000 and then to something that is a bit longer, bigger and more capable.””
https://onemileatatime.com/news/airbus-a350-stretch-version/
Reality is that they can fly that route now with what they have.
But, you have to leave passengers behind. Singapore does or did it with the Singapore NY route, something around 170 passengers.
But it has to be lucrative enough to pay for it.
I have a hard time with saving a few hours on a fuel stop and using all that fuel.
Location, location, location!!
Broken record strikes again. Airlines fly a route only if they believe it’s profitable. They’re not leaving passengers behind, those passengers pick a less pricey, one-stop flight. This demonstrates clearly how much your understanding of the business is.
Who Knew?
You forget the Singapore NY flight though I think its just you trying to be superior.
So, that flight is 161 passengers in AN A350!!!!!! In a mixed configuration it seats 369.
They are all up-class seats, so they pay for the flight with selling upscale seating. Obviously they can do it, but when it comes to environmental impact, its irresponsible.
So yea I know a bit about the business.
@TW
What have you done recently? Why don’t get out of Alaska?
> The ‘Top 0.1%’ are responsible for 3x more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire bottom 50% of the world’s population.
> The top 0.1% of US households emit 62 times higher than the emissions of a typical US household
Should “inefficient” RJ be banned? Turboprop is more environmentally friendly, don’t you know TW?
Why don’t you tell those billionaires stop flying around in their private jets? The US should ban them or at least heavily tax them! Or increase fuel taxes! 😅
Which current crop commercial airplane is environmentally friendly? Lmao. There should be carbon tax, plain and simple if you want to do your part! 🤣
* Why don’t you* get out of Alaska *to save the environment*?
* more environment friendly
TW
It never crossed your mind that AAL happens to have A321 with 102 seats (30 are lie-flat seats — TW head explodes) for premium transcontinental service? Yeah, exactly — by “leaving passengers behind” and “irresponsible” to the environment!!!
LNA: “The A350-1000 has a clear payload-range advantage over the standard 777-9.”
Adding more range to the A350-1000 “Stretch” would preempt BA’s next move. 😅
The A350K has had so many refinements over the last decade….to catch up with the B777W. That’s 14 tonnes more gross weight and an interior width stretch to allow 10 across in economy.
It will be absolutely certain the loooong certification period has allowed Boeing to announce at certification an increased gross weight , which will chuck the out of date LNA analysis in the bin
It’s the way it works.
Payload range is always a moving target. One plane has wrung all it’s advantages out over dozen years while another hasn’t even started
“It will be absolutely certain..”
From the same poster who, not that long ago, claimed the MAX 10 is as good as the A321!
I have to join Duke in the moving target aspect.
Some have gone with the A350-1000 and some the 777-9.
Not going to argue with an airline buying what suits it, they like or do not like.
Has Boeing been successful to raise the performance of the MAX 9?? 🙄
Why not? How hard is it?
“to catch up with the B777W ..”
you are regurgitating Boeing’s Sales Guy Randy:
NEO just catching up to the NG 🙂
777X will be a 2018 spec plane with a 2030 EIS.
Boeing’s effort in respect to the 777X appears to be solely centered around fixing design and certification issues.
( that seems to apply to GE and the 777X engine too? )
No way they will release a well ripened Uber Plane into the wild ( and to their pining customers. )
Is there demand from customers like Qantas for a bigger A350 variant?
“Embraer announced an order for 60 E175s for *SkyWest* at the show.”
Yup.
@phoenic00:
That is an old engine that has been improved but not updated on the E1-175.
Lot of questions if they can continue to make it post 2027.
Will that finally cause a scope-clause update? When the US regionals don’t have anything to fly?
Good question and of course no answer.
As the CF-34 has not been through a major upgrade, I think its a gonner. It goes back to 1982.
Its all about what the unions will or will not discuss and I have no clue as to which way they would jump.
I see no reason they would not waiver for the E2-175, its not like its got more capability, just heavier. Restrict the seating like they did with the CRJ?
> Embraer sees ‘continuous’ demand for E175s in USA
What happens to the 50 seat RJs like CRJ-200 in the future? When will UA start to look at its replacement? When will the oldest start to retire?
“Lithuania announcing an order for three multi-role KC-390s. The aircraft is gradually wrapping up the C-130 Hercules replacement market.”
It became clear the KC-390 carries a competent specification more than 15 years ago. A bit more capable, faster, spacier, cheaper and much more modern than the Hercules.
I’m a bit supersized by the denial on the LM side over the years. It seems like no initiative, developments, upgrade to protect their marketshare.
There were some ideas 20 years ago, when the Hercules turned 50 years, but little since then. You can’t count on congress forever adding them to budget…
Agreed.
LM evidently assumed that the mere mention of its brand would be enough to attract orders for a patched-up dinosaur. Looks like the market wasn’t impressed.
“Embraer’s customer list for the C/KC-390 already included Austria, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Korea, Sweden and an undisclosed buyer, with Slovakia also having detailed a plan to acquire the type.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/lithuania-picks-embraers-c-390-for-three-aircraft-acquisition/163493.article
***
And probably lots more orders to come.
The WS disease infects most American big corporations, valuing return to shareholders over R&D and/or investments.
@Keesje:
Lockheed has modernized the C-130, its no up to the J version so has been updated over the years.
If you are an Air Force that conducts its ops differently, then the Herc may not be for you. 4 engines vs 2. Noisier.
No question the C-390 has made inroads and Lockheed is going to have to sharpen their pencils. No longer the only game in town.
But then Airbus went the Prop route on the A400.
Talk of putting the C-17 back into production though I find it implausible.
Some variants of A320 also have the V2500 engine. They are by far more quiet than the props on a C-130.
Yep. Not sure why they choose that engine, have to wonder if they will move to a GTF down the road.
CFM would seem to have been the logical choice for its higher install rate on MAX and A320 series (and the KC-135R).
Width seems to be the determining aspect and I don’t know enough about jet engines that a narrower engine could be competitive with a wider one.
A C390 does not need the DOC benefits of a GTF. Not with a low utilization
The V2500 will be a commercially viable engine for another 25 years
I would go along with that with reservations.
I always think you should have the latest current engine to avoid a fall off.
767 is in a box now due to lack of a modern engine.
If they had worked on an NEO, they would have a nice filler below the 787-8.
@TW
“If they had worked on an [767]NEO, they would have a nice filler below the 787-8.”
The 787 was necessary because the A330 outperformed the 767. A330neo vs 767neo would be the same result. A330neo still performs well against 787. On a financial base A330neo killed 787’s profits. Maybe US taxpayers will finance a 767neo via KC-46neo.
“I always think you should have the latest current engine to avoid a fall off.”
OMG how about the KC-46A??
“Lockheed has modernized the C-130”
Putting a thin layer of modern varnish on a dinosaur didn’t impress the market.
“its no up”
oh.
Got to be down! Oh.
“Putting a thin layer of modern varnish on a dinosaur didn’t impress the market.”
Classic Bryce statement. Unfortunately there are readers here that don’t have a foundation of knowledge, aka casual aviation interest and nothing wrong with that, they may not know he is using red meat phrases vs a good tech description.
Some of the market continues to buy C-130J and some are going for the C-390.
The C-130 has had its entire frame work upgraded a number of times. Like all aircraft, they found weaknesses over time, addressed that as well as the rest of the fuselage. Not all models were full go through s but its in its TENTH variation.
The last one was a hull upgrade, engines upgrade, props and importantly, glass cockpit and modern systems (probably even has Bryces beloved EICAS!)
If I was working combat and rugged bad fields, it would be the C-130.
An unknown aspect of the C-130 is the engines are set really high power wise all the time.
They use the prop pitch for speed control. Ergo, they have almost instant power on tap. Its not economical, its combat effective.
Loss of one engine is less of an event as you still have 75% power.
Loss of a C-390 engine is going to be an iffy event. And yes it has the power to overcome that but its marginal al until you get the gear and flaps up (if speed allows flap raising).
On the other hand the C-390 is faster, quieter, has good rough field performance. How long the engines would last in a lot of rough field aka dirt, ??????
Bryce conveniently forget the A400 went with props. Airbus thought that they had a combat advantage. C-17 went with 4 jet engines. It serves a combination strategic airlift and rougher fields.
Personally I think Embraer did the jet powered C-390 right. C-130 has that size 4 engine slot filled, the C-390 with Jet engines offers aspects the C-130 does not and there are Air Forces that it suits nicely. It has good performance in rough fields if needed.
But no, the C-130J is not just a warmed over C-130A. Its a full on modernized for its type.
The US tends to post them in theater and use locally. C-390 can fly reasonably fast to the theater and then deliver if needed.
There must be a kool-aid fountain somewhere nearby…
After arguing against EICAS for years, finally one have to accept the reality??
How many C-130 operators the C-390 have successfully flipped?
May be situational awareness is not your strong suit.
Well then there is this
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-expands-c-130j-wing-lifespan-by-40-with-new-test-campaign/163526.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/powdered-metal-component-issue-affects-757-and-c-17-pw2000-turbofans-faa/163175.article
“C-130 is the best money can buy”?? Whoops.
> Meanwhile, Lockheed is in the process of reducing annual output of the C-130J from 24 to 20 units
Modern military vehicles get wider and higher.
A C-130K even at 80 m length won’t fit in most equipment.
Remember: C-130 is for battle field use. So no time for adding on more armour a Stryker later.
Width and height for cargo:
C-130: 3.1 m x 2.7 m
KC-390: 3.4 m x 3.0 m
A400M: 4.0 m x 4.0 m
C-17: 5.5 m x 3.8 m
While vehicles re transported the bread and butter is supplies and troops.
Keep in mind you can drop something off but if no ammo or fuel, its worthless.
For sustained ops you need shipping (and then a road network)
WWII was amazing on the US part not because of its brilliant generals, but the logistics.
TM
The A400M is able to perform “precision landings on short, unprepared runways”. Do facts matter while all you did is little more than flag waving?
So can the C-17. Its a question of risk vs need.
Haha, that proves my point.
Facts:
A400M can take-off from a runway like 60% shorter than what the C-17 requires;
landing on a runway like 16% shorter.
The A400M’s design, including its 12-wheel main landing gear, allows it to land on surfaces like grass and gravel, which are inaccessible to many other transport aircraft.
So, all of 16% shorter? Wew baby. You need to land don’t you? Yep
So takeoff in this case is zero aspect.
C-17 can land in those places and drop load it can take off as well (which an A400 or a C-130 or a C-390 would also do if needed.
C-17 can carry over twice what a A-400 can.
As I recall the C-390 is weight limited compared to a C-130 and distance.
Factoring in is in theater use and the C-390 flys between areas if needed a lot faster and quiet.
@TW
More fact-free posting: the limiting factor is the length required for take-off — 60% shorter for the A400M than the C-17!!
Hey why don’t you look up the facts before you press “post”?
The C-17 can’t land on soft airfields. USAF performed some flights from rough strips in Afghanistan but these were hard and dry soil.
The runway requirements for a C-17 are about of an A330.
Search for “ACN/ACR Calculator”. Loads for A400M are just a third compared to C-17.
1) ” The rumored A220-500 seems to have slipped into the 2030s, however, with Airbus emphasizing its focus on increasing production of the current versions.”
Moving 320 size prod to 225 first makes sense when AB can produce the A22 in high enough numbers, eg as high as the 320.
2) “The A330neo has received no new orders at the show as of Wednesday, but has secured 10 additional orders since the start of the new year.”
There has always been a midsized factory freighter, but AB got it wrong the first time. Still, AMZ will grow to 200 planes, mostly volume. UPS too. Could be time for a 330neo freighter, to create cash from the FAL with the shortest backlog, eg 2028, from a growing segment. Use succes of 350F & call AMZ & UPS. Much engineering is done in MRTT+, neo, ceo F.
Could be streched to further help volume shippers in the midsized segment.
3) On the A225, it does not use cargo pallets, so coming from the 320 which does. Unless they can do some magic there, and either make pallets for it, or make it have room for an existing type.
Some use the cans and some do not.
The cans use up weight so its not a no cost aspect as well as less volume.
MAX does not use it either but freight is not the money maker in that market. I know Alaska Airlines does some freight aka what they call Gold Streak, but that is an Alaska State need due to the distance from Seattle and something broken down needing to get back into service fast.
That is likeley also true for Canada, where the A22 was meant to serve.
But taking over for the 320, who offer the possibility….
An A225 does not yield more deliveries.
Airbus is unable to produce the backlog it already has. They are however working the high density version. That might satisfy a measure of the market demand
Of note, requiring a new engine is a whole different level of product investment
Agreed on the engine and why not likely due to the costs. GTF looks to have solved its issues.
Agreed on the deliveries, they are not remotely caught up with what they have.
Its more they could seal a direct more economical competitor to the MAX-8.
Read this. Free. They have gotten to the bottom of it, on all lines it seems.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/airbus-claims-supply-chain-reset-paying
Interesting but Airbus is still lagging badly in their target deliveries.
I am seeing 51 last month, with Boeing at 45.
Interesting Boeing out produced Wide Body deliveries in 13 vs 6 for Airbus.
The MAX was 32 so the expected ups and downs while they settle in at rate 38.
You apparently failed to take into account of those deliveries from FAL vs. from inventory!
See my post below.
From inventory is still a delivery is it not?
Airbus has a few dozen completed jets waiting for CFM engines to show up, they’ll be delivered this year.
Alaska (Hawaiian) is still missing their 787-9 as stipulated in the contract. Delta is able to be on the offensive in Sea-tac while Alaska is on its back foot.
Nice and steady at Airbus, it seems. Good job.
Not sure nice and steady, they have the supplier issues, but overall I fully agree. Just the usual aspects of Aerospace after a huge problem.
War is peace. Lies are truth. The KC-46 is the best you can buy!
Smooth sailing for the 777X?
Air Lease said it doesn’t have any orders for the 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 because it doesn’t see a big enough customer base? Whoa.
For their customers that would be true.
We all know the -7 is both a heavy for the job and SW only.
-10 is a different story. Plenty of orders for it.
How does it compare with orders of the A321neo family?? 🤷♂️
Qatar ditched their order! Explains all!
You know that, I know that.
What I know was Quatar wanted the A321 all along and it was coatings on the A350 that started the tiff that lead to the -10 orders.
The -10 is not an A321. It fills the lower end of that with full passengers and the range to do most of the job.
And obviously its no where near the A321 orders. Its the best Boeing could do with the corner they painted themselves into and it has nice numbers.
A321 is taking over the Airbus lineup, over 50% are A321 now.
That is why the A220-500 comes up, it would replace the A320 with a more economical choice.
Airbus could stretch the A320 to a -9 type though the customers seem happy enough to go to the A321.
For how long BCA had stuck their collective heads in the sand, calling the A321 a niche model while claiming their MAX are able to cover the core of the market??
Nothing changed, not even wiling to face the reality: BCA left a gigantic hole in their lineup without the MOM aircraft.
“The best” one could do is a fig leave too small to cover the strategic error! Time to wake up.
Qatar is a bad example. That was a tiny order. Some airlines do not need the A321 range. They just want a bigger tube. Delta is a good example of an airline that keeps ringing the bell for more A321 because the Max10 is so late
Also funny as that quote on A321 is two CEO ago?
Ortberg is a realist.
Boeing has sold far more MAX than they can make
Delta is interesting, I wonder if they want to keep their Repair Ops in on the LEAP engines?
Delta now has over 420 Boeing NB in its fleet, but only 100 on order. Their CEO talked about political risks of not having any BA order before the MAX 10 deal. They looked for political cover. Doesn’t look good on BA. The so called capitalist world. 😅 However delivery has been delayed repeatedly.
@tw
Two ceo ago?? Has BA taken any action to correct the blunder? Zero, zip, zilch, nada.
Pingback: What are the prospects of a further A350 stretch? – EPSILON AVIATION
A couple of reports out of India that the AI FDR and CVR are being sent to the US.
No idea if its the truth but you would expect a lot of damage and the NTSB is setup for that. If so it is more delay. This one is a mix of conjecture on the chain of evidence and then clears up its the NTSB and not Boeing or GE in the US. The one caveat is the NTSB will not release what they found, India has to do that. We have never heard what happened to the 737-800 crash by pilot in China.
https://www.opindia.com/2025/06/air-india-crash-boeing-787-black-box-to-be-sent-to-the-us-for-analysis-read-why/
What NTSB does if its an aircraft systems issue, not sure. They can issue a dissenting report.
The one I know of was the Egypt Air 767 and Egypt handed it off to the US so NTSB could do the full release. Egypt did not like it and refuted NTSB. Egypt will not release findings that assign the loss to their pilots. China is not in that camp as well.
“Ahmedabad plane crash: Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau yet to decide where black box data will be decoded”
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/aaib-yet-to-decide-where-black-box-data-will-be-decoded/article69714613.ece
I am seeing that as well.
So much for recover the Black boxes and we will have answers soon.
While investigation can be complex, this is nuts. If its a Boeing system issue, people need to know it now not 3 months from now after another crash (and I am desperately hoping that does not happen).
If any doubt, send the boxes to the NTSB, its not that hard.
This is well written
https://news.sky.com/story/how-are-investigators-looking-into-the-air-india-crash-and-how-long-could-they-take-13386263
“So much for recover the Black boxes and we will have answers soon.”
That’s the line repeated by only one here.
Interesting information on the Black Boxes in a 787.
Each one records both the FDR and CVR data.
So you have two records. If one is damaged you can read an area you have a chance to read it off the other Black Box.
Great idea. I always go with the FDR data being the most important one.
One report also said Video option on Air India 787 but I don’t know if that is true and where that is recorded and or stored.
And in C-390 arena, this would be great to see back in production
https://armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2025/exclusive-boeing-ready-to-restart-u-s-c-17-military-transport-aircraft-production-following-japan-interest
There has been chatter of a new engine retrofit to the F117 (PW2000) on the existing fleet as well as. There were roughly 1000 C17s made. 4000 engine market plus spares. That begs another question. No new commercial engine in that thrust since the 80s
@Casey:
Correction on the C-17 production. I believe its 279.
That engine also powered the 757, I don’t know how many of those they powered.
I have seen the stray remarks but its not like the old tube JT-6? on the KC-135 or DC-8s, the PW2000 is a pretty modern engine that has had a lot of upgrades inserted.
Not sure what you would replace it with.
I don’t think there is a modern engine in that class.
Its verging on 767 power plants.
Thanks for the correction. 1000 engines not planes.
This is a 40k thrust class engine. B767 is around 60k.
There has even been talk about USAF funding a new “commercial” engine for a retrofit.
When? 2030? 2035? If you have good memory, there was similar rumor last year. Almost like sightings of the elusive “big foot” or UAP. 🙂
What BA said last year: “There are discussions periodically about could you restart the line, where would you restart the line, what would it cost. We go through those reviews, but restarting a production line that has been dormant for quite some time is extremely expensive.” Are there anyone, other than BA, willing to foot the bill?
BDS is desperate for more firm commitments: BDS executive ‘… believes the company’s P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft will be “the next C-17”, with the risk of potential customers missing out when production of the 737NG-based model comes to an end.’ Last chance! Clearance! Buy now before production shutdown!
What if the line was mothballed, not dismantled? 😂
Such talk can be a ruse to complicate the future of the BWB transport/tanker.
I believe the figure below can easily balloon three to four times since then.
> in 2013, the RAND Corporation conducted a detailed analysis of what it might cost to reboot C-17 production after a multi-year pause. The figure was close to $8 billion to support the production of up to 150…
===============
Dysfunction of the US system:
> The department has not requested C-17s, built by Boeing, since the fiscal 2007 budget, yet Congress has added them every year since, spending about $1.25 billion on C-17s “that we don’t want or need.”
> Any additional appropriation for C-17s will have to be offset by retiring some of the military’s older, but still viable, transport planes
> “.. It’s the gift that keeps on giving, because if you give it to us, we’ll maintain it.”
> “because you would cut from our budget about $300 million for every C-17 added.”
> And, adding force structure such as aircraft always entails additional costs in training, maintenance, and infrastructure, such as new hangars, bases and tooling, defense officials said. The department spends about $50,000 per aircraft per year to store aircraft where spare parts are available. [Prices over a decade ago]
And then there’s this:
“Boeing Must Face Southwest Pilot Wage Claims Over Max Grounding”
“Boeing Co. must face lost wage claims from 8,000 Southwest Airlines pilots who couldn’t work during a mass shutdown of the 737 MAX airliner, a majority of justices on the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.
Boeing had argued the claims are barred under the federal Railway Labor Act because the pilots’ union employment agreement is with Southwest, not Boeing.
“But that argument fails because the pilots’ claims don’t “substantially depend upon interpretation of the parties’” agreement, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.”
“Ultimately, what won the day for the 220 in Breeze’s operation was that we wanted the extra range,” said Neeleman, noting his preference over Embraer E-Jets.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/boeing-must-face-southwest-pilot-wage-claims-over-max-grounding
“Breeze Airways CEO favours Airbus A220-500 for fleet renewal”
“U.S. budget carrier Breeze Airways is eyeing the Airbus A220-500 for future fleet renewal, if the stretched version of the Canada-based aircraft comes to pass.
“Breeze favours the A220-500 over the larger A320, said CEO and co-founder David Neeleman, who also helped launch WestJet.
““There’s no doubt with this newer technology, that will be the replacement airplane,” said Neeleman in an Q&A on LinkedIn.
““Just better fuel burn, better technology, lighter, structure, and 2/3 seating as [opposed] to 3/3 seating. I think that’airplane would be the replacement.”
“Breeze is the third-largest A220 customer in the world, with firm orders for 90 A220-300s. The airline operates its Dash 300s in a 137-passenger configuration, leveraging the larger of two available variants in the program previously known as Bombardier’s C Series.
“A stretched version of the A220, with capacity for around 180 passengers, is reportedly under study, but with no clear indication of when it might hit the market.”
https://skiesmag.com/news/breeze-airways-ceo-favours-airbus-a220-500-for-fleet-renewal/
“Airbus A220 Stretch To Enter Service In Early 2030s”
“The head of Airbus’ Canadian operations has estimated that a stretched A220, informally known as the A220-500, could enter commercial service in the early next decade. The executive said that the European planemaker should have its conclusions about the aircraft’s potential by the end of 2025.”
“Several airlines have already expressed interest in the higher-capacity version of the A220, which was developed by Bombardier as the CSeries. Another engine manufacturer could also potentially enter the fray for airlines to explore fitting another powerplant other than the Pratt & Whitney PW1500G on their A220 aircraft.”
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a220-stretch-enter-service-2030/
“..another engine manufacturer..”
Mmm, interesting. Must be some stuff going on behind the scenes.
And I imagine they’re looking for a purely European option, as discussed previously.
A variant of the RR Pearl…or, even better, something solely from Safran (outside of CFM).
The market is big enough for new players: we already have new engines from Russia and China, and there’s room for more.
The last part of that is irrelevant as both China and Russia cost is no issue and its for their domestic product, no one else is going to buy them.
We are talking about a 30,000 lb Thurs capability (28 or so)
So missing is the dual engine Airbus goal (they had no say in the A220 or course)
Safran is tied to GE (CFM) with agreements on single aisle and that class engine. I don’t see Safran doing anything as GE extended the LEAP range to ensure CFM was the supplier.
That really leaves the various jet engine mfg in France and the UK/German/Spanish group, those are all military engines or course.
Anyone has to take a look at the market, does PW have a candidate and if its two suppliers, then you get the issue of split and your build cut in half (or worse).
RR could take a stab at it, they have a demonstrator engine they are working on. So you would have a proven competitor been through all the trials and pain vs RR that would have problems like all engine mfgs do with new engines.
Pearl is dated and is not in the thrust class needed. Works fine for a B-52 with 8 engines but…..
+1, Abalone.
-1 Bryce!
MTU is possible but they are deep in with P&W on V2500 and the PW1000
What other mfgs have a civilian thrust range needed?
Euro Jet is tied up with RR and dated, the Snecma is a Safran entity tied up with CFM. They failed badly with their Silvercrest.
-2 TW 😂
“… no one else is going to buy them.”
Clearly Airbus doesn’t see the same.
In the next two decades, I believe the above is the worst take possible.
And I use the 7 of Spades!
There are only two engines to pick from. CFM or PW. Nobody is designing a 27k thrust engine for one aircraft variant…especially when those exact engines already exist.
The neo engines slot perfectly into what a nominal thrust would take. The PW15 is 24k thrust. A320 takeoff is nominally 27k.
Airbus will put commercial best efforts into maintaining propulsion commonality across variants.
Reading deeper they are pinging the large operators on the desired performance parameters. If long range is not a concern, then the existing engines might work.
“There are only two engines to pick from. CFM or PW. Nobody is designing a 27k thrust engine for one aircraft variant…”
There are *currently* only two *western* engines to pick from.
In the era of the Great Decoupling, companies will do whatever it takes to purge their supply chains of components that are subject to geopolitical adventurism. It’s just responsible and logical risk management.
It may cost money in the short run, but it saves money in the long run.
RR (with Ultrafan) is entering the NB market, so it evidently sees potential.
RR has already announced an Ultrafan version for single aisle
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/aircraft-propulsion/rolls-royce-launches-single-aisle-ultrafan-demonstrator-design
If there is new engine being developed then it’s with an eye towards an A320 or B737 replacement and a solid 5 year lead time. 2030 is plausible…if launched today.
MTU and Safran would be competing with themselves in order to land boutique orders.
Breeze has a vested interest in an A225 as does air Baltic since neither operates an A320. Unless you are already “exclusively” flying an A220 I’m not sure why you wouldn’t just order an A320 if that’s the size you really want.
Thank you Mr. Dukeofurl!
It’s so tiring reading all the fluff about GE and or PW being the only competent engine manufacturers in the world. Mr. TW should knock off his constant misinformation on RR and their engines.
RR announced their 30k lb class ultra demonstrator a couple of months ago and we have people in the forum going on about RR past failures and current problems with the Trent range of engines while down playing the current failures of PW (GTF) and GE (LEAP and GEnX) and more importantly the slow rate at which they are going about solving the known problems (compared to the speed with which RR acknowledged and the went about tackling its T1000 problem and now enhancing the performance issues associated with the Trent line up including the XWB).
Can we have less jingoism and flag waving in the forum and more informed opinions please. I am American like many here in the forum but please let us acknowledge what is clearly factual. The USA commercial aerospace industry is in trouble because the “sole champion” Boeing is in a mess of its own management making going back two decades due to greed on the part of managers with the connivance of the owners (Wall Street) and regulators (US government particularly the Congressional part of government). Without acknowledging this and the industry focusing on building better and competitive new products, the USA industry is in danger of being overtaken by new industry entrants like China and looming in the distance are alliance competitors from the global South Countries (Brazil, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Chile etc.). Two decades ago I am sure most people did not think of China as become a serious competitor in this arena, so let’s not disparage nations who at this stage show little or no signs of being technologically capable, because their future engineering leaders in aerospace are probably currently topping their classes at Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Oxford, Cambridge etc., or honing their skills as apprentices and entry level managers at Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, BAE, RTX etc.
@ Branaboy
Mr. TW, as you call him, tends to get into a temper when certain “hobby projects” of his are questioned…or when he misconstrues general criticism to be anti-US sentiment.
Best to just ignore it — same as traffic noise.
***
Don’t overestimate universities in the US or UK — there are lots of excellent universities in other countries. The EU, Asia, and Australia have plenty of them. A university not far from me has a huge aeronautics faculty…
@Branboy:
I call them the way I see them. You disagree obviously, I think my information is correct.
You should not that I did list RR as doing a Demonstrator engine in the Single Aisle class.
P&W has had its own serious issues, which I have also listed.
I am not a Trent 1000 Fan (pun) because its failed to the point it was replaced by the Trent TEN. You can argue its an upgrade but when you have 75% new parts, that is not what is defined as an upgrade.
The Big XWB on the -1000 had serious wear issues. The Trent 7000 has had premature wear issues. All kept quiet as the airlines that buy those are stuck with them.
The Trent 700 was highly successful and went on to power the latter A330CEO by a significant majority.
RR clearly is starting to sort out its problems, but it has problems in all its engines (the -900 has not been reported)
GE has come through pretty clean though the 777X engine had some development issues, caught though.
One of the things I dislike is when a mfg claims its superior when its not. Cat does that a lot. They claimed their stuff was worth a premium. Its not and most of the mfgs make good diesels.
Technically I found the demise of the 3 spool interest as it was touted as superior until GE proved otherwise with the two spool.
Where they last have gone head to head GE is winning soundly on the 787. Not sure anyone will order a 787 with a Trent TEN again.
I also keep in mind the Trent TEN was the lead in engine for the A330NEO and the 7000. That does justify the investment to at least some degree though the cost in the 1000/TEN/7000 is horribly steep to get there.
I am interested in how their Demonstrator single aisle engine does and am impressed they are doing it.
My annoyance with RR has its origins in the P-51 Merlin build. Yes it was a great combination. Allison had the better engine and the AAC tied their hand behind their backs in super charger development. So then the AAC picks the Merlin that RR had the vision to use dual stage dual speed super chargers on. So yea that is a personal issue but I have to admit, I enjoyed RR getting smacked on the jet engines. As long as no one looses their life its fun competition.
So yea, our team against theirs sort of thing.
“GE has come through pretty clean”
Thats is just not so. The GEnx had had to have a major redesign- and replacement of some modules of in service fleet.
Leap has had a number flight restrictions because of reliability issues . I called out the LNA story earlier this year which somehow trumpeted these restrictions removal as an ‘advance’. Instead of saying up front that they were a fix of a problem
https://leehamnews.com/2024/12/10/cfm-gets-faa-and-easa-certification-for-a-more-robust-leap-1a-turbine/
More robust ??? LOL or as I said at the time
There was a snippet of the previous facts – but buried well into the story.
Theres nothing per say unsurprising about unreliability, except GE ‘owns’ the technical news , especially Bloomberg who gets exclusives for telling GEs side of every problem.
So No, GE hasn’t come through pretty clean.
Have you wondered why the ‘dogs werent barking ‘ in the words of Sherlock Holmes over the GE powered Air India 787 crash.
All the information isnt in, but ‘no power’ during takeoff does seem to point to ( unknown) issues with the GEnX engines.
If it was an RR powered plane , it would be full of noise blaming them already.
Mr. Dukeofurl:
Thank you once again for correcting Mr. TW on the misinformation he is communicating with regards to the GEnX. That really has been my problem with the PW and GE “always” have their problems resolved in Mr. TW’s narrative, and that is not the case. As we all know, currently the PW GTF has major problems and is in the middle of what is essentially a rebuild (just as the T1000 had to go through to come up with the 10 derivative), GE/SAFRAN Leap is also essentially going through a rebuild to sort out its problems. The GEnX as you pointed out has had a rebuild and still there are issues (Google search “GEnX engine problem” gives you a quick overview of the issues GE is addressing on this engine) and those problems are being looked at as a possible cause of the Air India crash (I have no information other than what is in the new reports such a Japan undertaken engine inspections on the GEnX, that the crashed aircraft had just received a new engine before the crash).
Mr. TW:
You may think you are listing facts, but as you yourself state, you are “calling it the way you see it” and that is not necessarily factual, and Mr. Dukeofurl has just pointed that out to you on your GEnX comment in reply to earlier my statement about you.
Some of your comments, for example, on the cause of the Air India crash has been informative and clearly stated by you as speculative so I don’t mind that. I learn a few things from you and others, but in your defense of the “home” team (USA aerospace corporations) you more often than not are being too jingoistic. I can understand your attempt to counter Mr. Abalone and others who you find too anti-Boeing but please stay away from putting out statements that are less than factual, especially when you do not qualify the statement as being “your opinion” as you have rightly been stating on your admirable contribution about the possible causes for the Air India crash.
@Branboy:
Duke has a bias and I am ok with that, but the true story is that GE over promised as did RR on the 787.
GE did two Pips and then quit saying they were Pips and quietly upgraded the engine. They are about 2% over their commitment now.
RR also did two Pips (maybe 3) and never did reach commitment, ergo the Trent TEN (also the lead into the 7000)
Trent 10 is 75% new which by definition is a new engine.
I believe it finally reached the RR commitment but has not caught up with the GenX improvements.
On the A330 RR did the better job and the shift percentage wise went to RR.
On the 787, I don’t know RR will ever sell an engine again. The 1000 is out of production, the TEN is the offering going forward.
Report is RR is asking for more money again.
Three significant airlines have shifted to GenX when they were RR adherents. NZ, ANA and BA. ANA and BA are huge and for a smaller operation like NZ to shift, that speaks volumes as to how they feel about RR on the 787s.
(I have no information other than what is in the new reports such a Japan undertaken engine inspections on the GEnX, that the crashed aircraft had just received a new engine before the crash).
Mr. TW:
You may think you are listing facts, but as you yourself state, you are “calling it the way you see it” and that is not necessarily factual, and Mr. Dukeofurl has just pointed that out to you on your GEnX comment in reply to earlier my statement about you.
“Some of your comments, for example, on the cause of the Air India crash has been informative and clearly stated by you as speculative so I don’t mind that. I learn a few things from you and others, but in your defense of the “home” team (USA aerospace corporations) you more often than not are being too jingoistic. I can understand your attempt to counter Mr. Abalone and others who you find too anti-Boeing but please stay away from putting out statements that are less than factual, especially when you do not qualify the statement as being “your opinion” as you have rightly been stating on your admirable contribution about the possible causes for the Air India crash.”
Thank you for the positive comments.
The problem with facts is you can interpret them or spin them.
I have stated GE had its issues on the GenX, two PIPs then improvements. They are getting 2% better than RR with their newer Trent TN.
Duke is shifting the ground or trying to. Neither GE nor RR met their specs but GE has 60+% of the market and going up.
ANA, NZ and BA all abandoned buying RR though all their earlier aircraft were RR (they had a bias to RR and I believe it was justified as it offered advantages that no longer exist.
Duke has stated A350 is the same build type as the 787
They are not. A 350 is a frame and panel build like an aluminum aircraft except they use lighter composites and did a bang up job. I did not think you could do that and match the 787, but they sure did. They put 7 panels on that frame (composite panels) instead a lot of aluminum.
The 787 on the other hand uses Spun fuselages that are weak in holding shape. They have reinforcement rings installed. It works and works well. But its not a frame and panel build.
Duke is a sharp guy but when he is wrong he will not admit it.
If I am wrong I am happy to have it pointed out where I am wrong.
I think my assessment of RR stands up.
I was surprised that a two spool could outdo a 3 spool. All the tech wisdom said no. Yea a 3 spool cost more, cost more overhaul but got a maint and SFC advantage. GE has overcome that and its engine are better in the one now direct competition with RR.
Behind the scenes you hear the bit XWB engine was wearing out fast, the Trent 7000 had issues as did the Trent 900.
RR has more issues than GE (PW is an oddity as they have solved the GTF issues that were not gearbox related, but its the new builds and there are a lot of engines in shop to upgrade though its getting better)
Whiz just went for more GTF. They have to feel its going to be a good engine in the new deliveries
Flies in the ointment.
TW’s reasoning for fact-free posting is because “facts can be spinned”. Can’t make this up!! No wonder that guy was elected, a reflection of the society.
All new engines have issues and need upgrades or fixes.
GE went through that with the GenX and not question. But it was not a major failing mechanically, it was a failure to meet SFC.
RR on the other hand had the same failure to meet SFC and they had major mechanical issues.
1. Corroded fan blades.
2. Cracking vanes and subsequent loss of engines, flights routed to within divert destinations and on through to the TEN before they figured out they had a harmonic.
Then a 75% new engine in the form of the Trent 1000 TEN (to give it its full tittle).
GE went through none of that. Probably the biggest issue was ice formation on the engine – not good but they had a quick fix and did a correction in a reasonable time period.
Arrival as early as 2031, per TAC.
Major customers like AC, AF & DL are eager for the stretch variant, despite our broken record’s dislike.
This may be helpful for those who want to understand the 787 fuel system.
https://gunvorgroup.com/glossary/vacuum-gas-oil/
With the bypass in theory you can’t starve the engines.
I have had valve seats get crud in them so we would be talking dual crud and a jammed valve which would indicate they would not have thrust from the start (takeoff thrust aka reduced for economy).
An interesting adder is the engine shutoffs are easily accessed right below the throttles. Not saying anything about deliberate, but having two critical controls in an area that has routine hand motions in the area as well as just exposed to anything moving below the throttles. Those shutoffs are large toggle type , not protected in any way .
Something odd like a falling object knocking both off (implausible yes but this is totally implausible event). But something occurring in proximity to closely spaced shutoffs…………… It would explain the RAT deployment as two engine shutdown in flight is one of the triggers
Have to find out if there is a Pull Up and then move stalks, that would make more sense.
The 330neo figures are not correct.
They are?
British F-35 stuck in Karela, India for six days and counting… emergency landing because of low fuel, now it can’t fly back. The mystery deepens.
How good the P&W engine is performing in hot and dusty environment?
> A leading issue for the tri-variant stealth fighter is its disappointing availability — measured by mission capable rates, meaning a jet could perform one of its assigned missions, or fully mission capable rates, meaning it can execute all of them — a critical issue for officials
The Israelis could tell us a thing or two about F-35 mission readiness: they only sent 20 frames to Iran yesterday, out of a nominal fleet of 45.
Range is proving to be a issue: they can’t get over to the eastern 65% of Iran. Payload is also an issue — just two missiles per frame per sortie.
Looks as if the Chinese may have flown in some air defense batteries last Sat, Sun and Mon, to supplement what’s still up and running around Tehran. No doubt the Chinese will relish the opportunity to test/hone their equipment against F35s. Fordow is still protected by S-300 batteries, and hasn’t yet been targeted.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/06/17/china-sends-mystery-transport-planes-into-iran/
The airspace in Iran isn’t quite as “open” as we’re being told.
Time for some education. If Scott cuts this off I will understand. Responding not introducing the subject.
Israel is using tankers to support their ops in Iran. Tankers in like an A330MRT? Well in their case no but that is what tankers do. Downside is they are now targets with long range AA or SAMs.
They knew going in what the range of the F-35 is and have been operating it in that nasty hot dirty Negev dessert for some time.
You can’t have RRS if you hang things outside, so the weapons bay is limited. Israel is being selective and using it where they think they need to. Nothing new in that.
One of the key impediments in the F-35 program was the fat fan the USMC insisted they had to have for a STOl version (which is stupid) . Compromised the air frame lines so you did not get a max efficient airflow design.
Missions available rates are low. Partly due to complexity and partly due to the lousy spare parts system. Now Lockheed has competition, see if they can up their game though it was setup with USAF agreement.
They replaced Lockheed maint system as it never worked.
Funny thing is people keep buying it (or did).
Now would India have lost between 4-6 fighters if they had been F-35?
.
I don’t track this on a daily basis. However, what should be more of note is how many total aircraft are going into Iran. If Israel has indeed established air superiority then they can fly in other aircraft that can carry more ordnance.
They do need tanker support if they are going to fly to the far side of the country especially. One of the chief complaints of F35 was lack of range
Well, the US has now bombed Fordow using “5-6 bunker busters”, and has bombed Isfahan and Natanz using naval cruise missiles.
The latter two sites are interesting: Israel had 8 days to neutralize them, but essentially only managed to inflict relatively minor damage. They didn’t have overly-deep infrastructure, so the task should have been achievable without US cruise missiles…
A lot of things don’t add up here: plenty of material for other F35 (prospective) operators to analyze.
Actually, Natanz has a newer complex (may not even be completed yet) that is estimated to be 80 m to 100 m deep. Isfahan also has associated tunnel complexes. Natanz got 2 MOP’s, whereas Fordow got the other 12. It looks like the Isfahan tunnel complexes were targeted as well.
Before you assume that the need for US Tomahawks is somehow an indictment of the F-35’s capability, consider the different terminal trajectory options that cruise missiles might provide relative to gravity bombs.
All sorts of factors as noted and locations if known of anti air systems, what route they are on and why waste an F-35 strike if a missile can take it out?
Stealth has its factors and carrying external stores messes with RCS. So, a weapons bay can only hold a few munitions. Just a fact of life unless you build a B-2 size bird.
Of course a B-2 cost a billion bucks US and an F-35A something around 70-80 million.
No one said it was perfect. All aircraft are compromises
The USAF has only 19 B-2. They used almost all of them, against Iran!! 😅
… why the US is able to fight Iran only.
Thats just a myth the forward fan compromises the shape. Its already a big plane
The internal weapons bays are needed which make the plane wider behind the air intakes.
This is a photo of a F-35B with its internal weapon bay doors open which prove the point. ( The F35A/C version have longer weapons bay on account of no front fan )
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/photos/usmc-f-35b-lightning-ii-stovl-joint-strike-fighter-weapons-bay-doors-open.49440/
It was a bad design compromise. If the had kept CTOL/CV common and design a separate STOVL aircraft would have definitely helped the CTOL.
This aircraft is also horribly overweight…and a big reason on the short range with payload
All this..
@Casey:
Spot on.
The weight and structure spent on the F-35B could have been used to make it longer and more aerodynamic.
And yes the range is compromised.
Monsoon conditions meant the plane couldnt land on its carrier, so a diversion to a airfield with better weather for landing
The carrier might have moved on too far to catch up – theres scheduled exercises in SE Asia.
The ME war prevents it returning to the closest RAF base which is in Cyprus
Not a Pratt engine problem
It doesn’t have to return specifically to an RAF base — the US has plenty of other bases in the area, and it could hop from one to another.
Sure it’s not an engine problem? 😉
LOL.
We ain’t got no bases in India!
You might check your facts.
There’s a difference between “in India” and “in the area”.
It’s 2400 km from Kerala to Oman — should be doable for an F35 with a single mid-air refuelling.
“You might check your facts” 🙈
“Monsoon conditions meant the plane couldnt land on its carrier,”
The weather? Doesn’t pass the smell test: the f-35 joined a naval exercise — I’m sure they have weather forecast ahead before the F-35 took off; the aircraft couldn’t land because of the monsoon? First reports are the aircraft had to land in India because of low fuel. Now the plot thickens. Where is the link to your source?
Did you read any report? India is *NOT* in SE Asia!! Not a Pratt problem? That’s what multiple sources said! Should I take your words at face value? Lmao.
> Fresh UK Crew To Arrive In Kerala With Spares To Inspect F-35B: Sources
A 30-plus team will arrive soon
“UK F-35 still in Kerala, may be put into hangar”
“THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Royal Navy F-35 fighter jet continues to be stranded at Thiruvananthapuram airport as engineers from its aircraft carrier have failed to repair a hydraulic snag. A team of engineers is staying at the airport and continuing repair works.
“There’s a move to shift the jet to the hangar as it may have to be here for a long time until a team from the UK and the US can check it. Sources said different teams of technicians keep checking the plane, but are not able to fix the snag.”
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uk-f-35-still-in-kerala-may-be-put-into-hangar/articleshow/121998443.cms
“F-35: The Part-Time Fighter Jet”
“The F-35 fleet can only perform the full range of its combat roles 30% of the time. This unreliability renders the entire program ineffective.”
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/f-35-the-part-time-fighter-jet
***
The last order for an F-35 from a new customer was in January 2023 (Canada)…
Yep, people keep buying a totally ineffective fighter.
The US has Gens 1/2/3/4 as well as all 3 variants.
I suspect the later revs are better.
But yea, its a hugely complex bird and its not got the mission rate anyone would want.
That said a lot has to do with the sucky parts procurement system (lack there of)
More like 48%.
From the very article you linked:
Even with a full load of fuel in a good day, the F-35 is not able to reach Cyprus without refueling! Have you checked the map??
I wonder the readiness of the Royal Navy’s F-35. Must be a valuable lesson — you don’t venture out of your territory without careful planning, and good support!
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/british-royal-navys-f-35b-fighter-jet-grounded-in-kerala-after-hydraulic-failure-may-be-flown-back-in-transport-aircraft-defence-officials/articleshow/121979495.cms
And now DJT what has he done??
Per the question in your final sentence:
DJT has just ensured that ME countries will be ordering a whole load of advanced fighter jets and other arms from China.
Pakistan and Egypt were already doing so. Iraq had already recently put in an order for air defense systems. Saudi Arabia was already purchasing Chinese missiles, and the Chinese even helped the Saudis set up their own missile production facilities.
A masterclass in how to herd an entire region into the arms of China in just 9 days…
Did I overthink? Russia is ready…?
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-858550
Doesn’t seem his action is friendly to the Guf states:
> British Airways pauses flights to Dubai and Doha
Negative returns from their massive orders. 😭
Qatar should have ordered from Airbus!
“And now DJT what has he done??”
He stopped the Iranian nuclear weapons program in its tracks.
“Doesn’t seem his action is friendly to the Guf states:”
Name one Gulf state not named Iran that wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Haha, fast forward 6, 12, 18 months down the road! 🤣
When will people like you start to learn?
I guess that means people like you, Pedro, are perfectly fine with Iran having nukes.
Reality check:
https://x.com/amanpour/status/1937229612850798750
For more than a decade, the fearmonger repeated the same message, Iran still hasn’t got a bomb, unlike that country. Iran was negotiating a deal when their negotiator was assassinated.
https://x.com/KathleenC1977/status/1936589321408262446
That’s what happened when the world is run by a handful who have never left school’s backyard. Mark my words.
There once was a JCPOA, abandoned by the same person who walked down the path off the cliff.
Similar “alarm” about little Kim and his button, now not even DJT cares to talk about anymore.
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/948355557022420992
Manufactured crisis®
Ahhh, the wonderfully perfect JCPOA. If only we all could’ve suspended our disbelief and convinced ourselves that Iran was trustworthy and wasn’t hellbent on destroying Israel.
Alas, reality woke at least some of us from that pipe dream.
Reality is too hard for you to grasp: if JCPOA was as bad as you claimed, Iran would had a bomb already, but it doesn’t. Circumstances change now, they’ll speedrun it. You enjoyed a reality show by a reality TV performer. Sit down, listen to teachers and start learning.
> tactically brilliant, but turns out to be strategic failures
Well, Iran’s acquisition of the bomb was imminent, which is why Israel, and the US, preemptively struck. As you admit, that shows the JCPOA was as bad as I said.
If Iran tries to speedrun it as you claim, they will get bombed again.
“The bomb was imminent” Lmao
Netanyahu has been saying same old same old for the last 13 years or so, at 60% it’s not imminent!! Physics is too hard? The US is going to pay the price for its stupidity. Let’s see: can you tell me, by counting your fingers, how many are left after 14 bombs are used.
Israel is days away from running out of interceptors.
You would treat this as a laughing matter.
“Israel is days away from running out of interceptors.”
If this were the case, Iran would be sustaining their large barrage attacks to completely deplete Israel’s ability to defend. However, notice how during the last week, Iran’s attacks have grown smaller and smaller, with barrages numbered in the single digits instead of 100’s like they did at the beginning. It’s Iran, not Israel, that is experiencing a severe degradation in it’s ability to fight.
I’m not to worried about Israel and the US running out of ammo because of this conflict.
If you understood anything about physics you would know that bomb physics is shockingly simple when U-235 is used. That is why the impediment to acquiring a U-235 bomb is all about enrichment. Enrichment is super difficult, time consuming, and energy intensive, but after you have sufficient material, things get relatively easy.
The IAEA said in 2023 that they found evidence that Iran had material in the mid 80% range.
““Israel is days away from running out of interceptors.”
If this were the case,…”
***
Here we go, from June 18:
“Israel running low on Arrow interceptors, US burning through its systems too – WSJ”
“US official says Israel could have to start rationing air defenses by later this week, and ‘the system is already overwhelmed'”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-running-low-on-arrow-interceptors-us-burning-through-its-systems-too-wsj/
***
“America Is Running Out of THAAD Ammunition for Israel”
“Between the ongoing Ukraine War and the post-October 7 Middle East crisis, American stockpiles of THAAD ammunition have been depleted faster than they can be replaced.”
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/america-is-running-out-of-thaad-ammunition-for-israel
It’s June 24 and Israel is still intercepting Iranian missiles. While Israel may be running out of Arrow and THAAD ammunition, how about Iron Dome and David’s Sling ammo?
What is obvious is that Iranian attacks have been petering out for the last week. I wonder who is running out of ammo faster?
@ Mike B:
“He stopped the Iranian nuclear weapons program in its tracks.”
We don’t know what he did. Set things back, yea. a Couple years?
I did not want N. Korea having an Atomic Bomb either, but they have it as does Pakistan and India.
I have no answers, just bragging and words like Obliterated are those of a clown.
There are claims that Iran moved their material and now its all going to be clandestine and we won’t know until they have it.
TransWorld,
Stopped in tracks, set back, delayed, obliterated, whatever. The point is that the momentum, that could’ve resulted in a bomb in a matter of weeks, has been drastically reduced and can no longer result in a bomb on that time frame.
The fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons is not at all a good reason to allow Iran to achieve that status in the middle east.
Don’t be fooled, Iran’s program is not all of a sudden going to go clandestine. It was clandestine before, with facilities such as Fordow not disclosed until it was discovered by outside intelligence orgs. They constantly “cheated”, avoiding the inspectors by playing shell games with material, people, technical info, and so on.
One of the differences now is that with the proliferation of LEO imaging satellites, it’s much more difficult to hide activities on the ground now that it was 20 years ago. It’s virtually impossible to schedule around a constellation of LEO birds. There are only so many places one can do that kind of work at an industrial scale.
@Mike B:
Word indention does matter. Obliterate has a meaning totally8 different than set back.
Yes Iran has tried pulling wool. Even 60% enrichment has no peaceful use.
If you are going to attack someone, it has to have a point. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
No, imaging does not tell all.
Who says it has to be Industrial. 1000 mom and pop locations with a Generator and a Centrifuges..
Nothing in the Bombing says they blow out the Uranioum, assuming it was not moved.
Do we bomb Iran any time we have a suspicion?
Uranium only or missile launchers?
Another forever war.
I believe the Animus in Iran against the US was pretty well gone (sans the fantastics)
Now? Would we forget Japan did a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor while negotiating? Then its, oh, no problem, lets talk peace.
If we had leverage its been thrown away.
The past agreement was far from perfect but it was keeping things at bay.
Now Iran has all the incentive they ever wanted to go underground (in both senses) and if you think we can monitor all of Iran, that is terribly wrong.
If North Korea can build a bomb Iran can.
Israel could not sustain the air campaign, other than suck the US in, it accomplished nothing permanent.
Israel next step is the most gruesome one.
Have you heard of game theory? How to drain your opponent? Use some old, outdated missiles! Look up when Iran started using their hypersonic missiles!
“It’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
CNN: We have breaking news into CNN. Three sources tell CNN that according to an early U.S. Intelligence assessment, the U.S. Military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back a few months.
> So, was Iran’s nuclear program stopped? Expert consensus is forming around “no”. The facilities were damaged but not fully destroyed. The US telegraphed its attacks early enough that Iran moved not just the uranium, but likely the centrifuges too.
Oops.
PS: Israel is under media black-out for anything they don’t want you to know. Have to wait weeks, if not longer, for proper damage assessments to come out.
“The US telegraphed its attacks early enough that Iran moved not just the uranium, but likely the centrifuges too.”
Yeah, they had time to move 10,000 centrifuges from multiple locations in that short amount of time an just stash them somewhere. This must be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted on this site. Congrats Pedro!
“I believe the Animus in Iran against the US was pretty well gone (sans the fantastics)”
It’s never been the average Iranian that hated Israel and the US. It’s always been the fanatics, the 20%. That hasn’t changed over the last 40 years. C’mon TW.
“The past agreement was far from perfect but it was keeping things at bay.”
Uhh, no it wasn’t.
The BDA will indeed take time. Until then I would hesitate to believe leaked classified info that likely represents a dissenting opinion.
@Mike B:
“It’s never been the average Iranian that hated Israel and the US. It’s always been the fanatics, the 20%. That hasn’t changed over the last 40 years. C’mon TW.”
The Shah was quite hated. As the US was his enabler, I don’t blame people for detesting us. But that was the facts back in the day. We had our fingers in Iraq support as well.
So no, I don’t think that is not reasonably accurate.
Syria was building a reactor while everyone was watching them a well.
I do not see any gain for the US and I do see negatives that come back to haunt us.
One of the all time was when the NEO Cons of the day forced Japan trade. We know how that worked out.
As for BDA, we cannot see underground. So its a guess and the OA spins it like a centrifuge.
TW,
What forever war are we in now exactly? And who was it that started the process of extracting us from the last forever war?
Also, 1000 mom and pop operations handling highly toxic and radioactive material. What could go wrong? Not just anyone can operate this kind of centrifuge. You’re reaching here.
“how about Iron Dome and David’s Sling ammo?”
Are you able to follow this conflict? How come it appears you’re badly informed? 😅
TBH I don’t. I came across information occasionally here and there.
> … the Iron Dome, effective against SRBMs and drones, less so against ballistic missiles; David’s Sling, which targets medium-range threats, including some ballistic missiles; and Arrow 2 and Arrow 3, designed for long-range ballistic missiles, with Arrow 3 being capable of ex-atmospheric interceptions.
“the Iron Dome, effective against SRBMs and drones, less so against ballistic missiles;”
An SRBM is a ballistic missile. More gibberish from Pedro.
Iron dome:
“The system is designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometres (2–43 mi) away”
David’s sling:
“…is designed to intercept enemy planes, drones, tactical ballistic missiles, medium to long-range rockets and cruise missiles, fired at ranges from 40 to 300 km (25 to 190 mi)”.
Arrow missile:
“…forms the long-range layer of Israel’s multi-tiered missile defence system”.
So, seeing as Iran is more than 300km from Israel, a shortage of Arrow missiles means more missiles from Iran impacting their targets. A shortage of THAADs exacerbates this problem.
😅
Thanks @Abalone.
Mike
I guess you have no idea how many of those smaller nations dotted around the Gulf depend on the Gulf for potable water and what happens if someone, I’m not going to name who, decides to take out Iranian nuclear power plants. It’d be death sentence to many of those countries, with (close to) immediate effect.
So Pedro, you criticize the fact the Israeli and US bombings failed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear material, but now you’re concerned about an ecological disaster on the gulf. Which is it?
Just because Iron Dome is optimized for shorter range threats, and David’s Sling is optimized for short to medium range threats doesn’t mean that they can’t be used to intercept long range threats. The whole concept of a layered air defense system means that the shorter range system is backing up both the intermediate and long range systems and the intermediate range system is backing up the long range system.
Now, running low on ammo is never a great position to be in, but assessing the Israeli air defense situation is a bit more nuanced than counting interceptors based on a news article.
Again, it’s all about which side runs out of ammo, and launchers, and radars first. Also, it’s about which side has a stable and protected logistics tail.
I’m critical because it’s a strategic failure.
How much you know about physics? You can at least seek an expert.
> “The Day a Nuclear Iran was Born.”
https://politicaexterior.com/el-dia-que-nacio-un-iran-nuclear/
Pedro,
A lot.
If I ever feel I need to seek an expert, I won’t be looking in your direction.
“.. optimized for short to medium range threats doesn’t mean that they can’t be used to intercept long range threats.”
A lot? It tells a lot about your unknown unknowns.
More gibberish from Pedro.
Watch this space… MSB refused to visit the US after 2018, turned down the invitation to the G7. Tip of an iceberg??
Watch less the US propaganda channel.
https://x.com/TheNationalNews/status/1938280491733450894
> Writing for The National, Prince Turki Al Faisal criticises the US strikes on Iran and accuses the West of applying double standards when it comes to nuclear weapons and regional conflicts
> He warns that military action will backfire just as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan and urges a return to diplomacy
> The former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassaor to Washington argues that if the rules-based order were truly impartial, American bombs would have also targeted Israel’s undeclared nuclear sites
Who on earth wants to be held hostage of the doomsday machine controlled by a mad man?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gue-kISagAAZc9T?format=jpg&name=900×900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuYnrmTXoAAeRcb?format=jpg&name=large
{SA commentary on “rules based order”}
unsurprising.
Western Politics and Media have ignored the China mediated detente between SA and Iran.
I guess it was conveniently ignored by the MSM, it’s quite embarrassing to the US.
AW:
> As Boeing’s 777-9 certification program moves through its final phases, flight tests are validating changes made to GE Aerospace GE9X engines that address issues flagged earlier in the prolonged development program.
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/air-india-warned-serious-violations-pilot-oversight-b2774382.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/21/business/air-india-crash-ceo-speech.html
FT: ‘Heart and soul of FedEx’ Fred Smith dies
There is no doubt both Boeing and Airbus are at critical crossroads, but for very different reasons. Boeing is still paying the price of having prioritized shareholder returns and financial engineering over engineering integrity — a shift that became painfully visible after the MAX crisis and continues to affect the 787 and 777X programs.
Airbus, on the other hand, made more conservative but safer bets — with the A350-1000 and A320neo family proving themselves as reliable workhorses, despite some engine durability concerns. They also had the wisdom not to follow Emirates into a capacity race that could have backfired, as seen with the 777X.
The future belongs to the manufacturer that can deliver quality, flexibility, and sustainability — not just size and promises. A successful 797, if launched, must learn from the past: don’t build for three mega-hubs; build for the world. And Airbus should avoid becoming complacent — innovation stagnation is as dangerous as overreach.
We are witnessing a rare moment where both giants must rethink their industrial philosophies, not just their products. The next decade will be shaped not only by aircraft but by mindset.”
“… successful 797, if launched…”
BA doesn’t have any funding for new projects.
Nor will it have a realistic chance of securing any such funding any time soon.
Transpacific spot rates rapidly slump back toward pre-tariff reprieve levels
> The predicted cargo transport boom following the pause in higher US tariff levels is quickly turning into a bust. Transpacific spot rates are in rapid retreat and the forward outlook is bearish.
https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1153938/Transpacific-spot-rates-rapidly-slump-back-toward-pre-tariff-reprieve-levels
Related:
“China tightens grip on rare earths as magnet exports drop 53% in May”
“Shipments dropped to just 1,238 metric tons, marking not only a month-on-month crash but also a 74 per cent slump compared to the same period last year. The data underscores the growing global impact of China’s stricter export curbs on these strategic materials.”
“Industry insiders told Reuters that Chinese customs officials have become increasingly cautious in approving outbound shipments, especially magnets, a product category that contains various chemical compositions but is grouped under a single export code. This ambiguity, combined with tighter screening, has created bottlenecks.”
“Between January and May 2025, China’s total exports of rare earth magnets dropped 14.5 per cent year-on-year to 19,132 tons, the lowest for the period since 2021, as per Reuters.”
https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/china-tightens-grip-on-rare-earths-as-magnet-exports-drop-53-in-may-1750411220141
CN producers nimbly retargeted their production apparently.
How does the supply situation develop in the US inside markets?
> Safran’s CTO and EVP of strategy said, “while RISE targets a 20% fuel burn reduction, the ducted-fan variant’s benefit would stand at between 10% and 12%.”
The ducted RISE version, believed to be called the Advance, is thought to be configured with an 85-in. diameter fan.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/emerging-technologies/boeing-calls-next-gen-engine-info-future-single-aisle
==============
Hainan Airlines Takes Delivery Of First A321neo
> Hainan Airlines has received its first Airbus A321neo, marking a gradual expansion of its Airbus narrowbody fleet amid shifting aircraft strategies in China.
Bloomberg:
> Indian regulators said they will initiate a special audit of the country’s aviation sector, a little more than a week after the nation’s worst air disaster
> Qatar suspended air traffic on Monday after the US and UK governments told citizens based in the Gulf state to shelter in place, amid fears that Iran will target US military assets in retaliation for strikes on its nuclear facilities
CNBC:
Air India extends temporary cuts to narrowbody network
RR already used the term advance, it seems sketchy for another mfg to use it.
More gibberish?
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE: Gulf shuts airspace one by one
This is another interesting breakdown on the Recorder system and specifically 787.
https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/inside-the-black-box-how-the-boeing-787-records-flight-data-and-what-happens-when-power-fails-rkswjyay
What I cannot suss out is the WOW and I believe data is recorded from engine start.
Interesting concept. Kind of lean to its just different as opposed to useful.
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/easa-initiates-consultation-over-single-lever-thrust-control-concept/163534.article
Some of the past shutdowns it seemed to me that better alarms showing which engine failed and not shutting down a good engine.
While no visible indicator of a failed engine, AI has that as an open possible.
Shutting down an engine is not needed in that short a time span unless its in severe compressor stall or vibration.
It does remain a possible contributing cause as well as wrong engine shutdown.
I am severely disappointed India is still sitting on the recorders.
China had a very large and varied set of exhibits at the recent Paris Air Show:
“China shows cutting-edge military, civilian aircraft at Paris Air Show”
“China is showcasing some of its cutting-edge military and civilian aircraft, including the J-20, J-35A and J-10CE fighter jets, as well as the AG600M amphibious firefighting plane, at the ongoing 55th Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Airport outside the French capital.
“The Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) is presenting a total of 30 aircraft models spanning eight categories at the weeklong show, which runs from June 16 to 22.
“China’s new-generation J-35A, a medium-sized multi-role stealth fighter capable of both air superiority and strike missions against ground and maritime targets, is making its international debut.
“Also taking center stage is the J-20, a heavy stealth fighter designed primarily for air superiority, and the J-10CE, another fighter jet equipped with China’s top-tier long-range air-to-air missile, the PL-15E.
“Chinese civilian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including the Wing Loong series and the Xuange helicopter series, are making their first appearance at the air show.
“The lineup also includes the Y-20 large transport aircraft, the Z-20 utility helicopter, the Z-10ME attack helicopter, the Xinzhou-60 remote sensing airplane, the GJ-11 reconnaissance stealth attack drone, the AG600M amphibious firefighting plane, and the AC352 mid-sized utility helicopter – which was jointly developed by the AVIC and France-based Airbus.”
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-06-19/China-shows-cutting-edge-military-civilian-aircraft-at-Paris-Air-Show-1EkBi5WU3Nm/p.html
***
I’m betting the Chinese exhibits got a LOT of interest from countries in the Middle East…
TW,
AW:
Production methodology of Airbus vs. Boeing: “One has production processes dating back to the 1940s; the other has production processes that were created in the 1970s,” 😅
“The difference in technology between the two production processes allows Airbus to replicate factories and final assembly lines a lot easier than Boeing.”
AW:
Industry players reveal that they do not really expect a new narrowbody airliner until closer to 2040 or beyond.
Implication:
BA will continue to be bogged down by the big hole in its lineup, 40/60 market to 2040 and beyond.
https://www.deccanherald.com/business/companies/flight-ai-171-wasn-t-an-accident-it-was-a-consequence-3597806
https://www.ndtvprofit.com/business/black-box-black-screen-experts-say-indias-failure-to-decode-exposes-critical-gaps-in-aviation-safety
Bloomberg:
> US safety investigators pointed to breakdowns in Boeing’s manufacturing processes as well as poor oversight by the FAA as key factors that led to a panel blowing off a 737 Max aircraft shortly after takeoff last year
==============
> As part of its investigation, NTSB found 23 members of the 24 member “door team” had not been directly trained on how to open or close a 737 Max mid-exit door plug at the time the Alaska 1282 aircraft was being built. #24 was out of the country.
https://x.com/jonostrower/status/1937528138000662970
> As part of its investigation, NTSB found 23 members of the 24 member “door team” had not been directly trained on how to open or close a 737 Max mid-exit door plug at the time the Alaska 1282 aircraft was being built. #24 was out of the country.
See below, I do not know it takes training to close a door (yes it should be a check off item for a door crew)
What I do know is if you removed bolts its flagged and stays open until someone puts them back in and then has it inspected.
Obviously that did not happen
It’s pretty incessant. IIRC someone “closed” the door/plug so that the 737-9 could be moved outside. There were no record of the plug opened, so no one went back to ensure the bolts were reinstalled properly because the only person who had “been directly trained on how to open or close a 737 Max mid-exit door plug at the time” was on vacation!
I continue to look at systems per the 787.
Engines and Electrical Failure: The engines on the San Antonino 787 incident kept running. That is as massive a zark as you can get.
Other reports on 787 say it has self running FASDEC so that an electrical failure would not shut engines down. That would at least preclude for the most part a dual engine or single engine shutdown via an electrical zark.
That does not mean it was not dual engine issue, just that electrical issue is really low on the list. It comes in due to RAT deployment. But RAT also deploys on hydraulic loss in all 3 systems.
So an engine loss followed by another engine loss, yes you would loose hydraulics.
I believe the APU even if running is electrical power not hydraulic.
More stunning news and if true, the Plug bolts were installed wrongly at Spirit.
That is contrary to all previous reports as to why the Plug was moved open
https://archive.ph/UQrTc
It does not change the overall but adds a twist (again if true)
From the “Story Highlights”:
“Boeing failed to properly reinstall bolts after inspection at facility.”
🙈
“The devices “engage with” fittings on the fuselage to prevent the plugs from moving upward as part of the opening sequence. Also, unless properly installed, they prevent the installation of sidewalls within 737 Max cabins, Crookshanks adds.”
So we add more devices that need to be rotated to lock it, sheese.
Tell me some clever install guy would not find a way to work around that?
And this report refers to the Rivets issue as cause of the removal.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2025/06/24/systemic-failures-led-to-a-door-plug-flying-off-a-boeing-737-max-ntsb-says/84337838007/
That is in line with previous. Have to see which version is correct. This one sounds more correct, those Plug bolts are very plain and if they were installed with something not right, you would remove each bolt, fix whatever assembly of them was wrong put the bolt back in (or new one) and then go onto the next bolt.
“More stunning news and if true, the Plug bolts were installed wrongly at Spirit.”
What the hell are you talking about? Where does the quote come from??
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/ntsb-reveals-details-about-boeings-pending-redesign-of-737-door-plugs/163560.article
FG: NTSB reveals details about Boeing’s *pending redesign of 737 door plugs*
“Boeing and supplier Spirit AeroSystems have completed engineering work for a design change to 737 Max mid-cabin door plugs, part of Boeing’s efforts to prevent a repeat of the January 2024 in-flight door-plug failure.
Boeing is expected to start equipping new jets with the design changes in 2026 and then to issue a service bulletin calling for in-service jets to be equipped with the update, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator Clint Crookshanks said on 24 June.”
I don’t typically post links but maybe there’s a little smoke.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/faury-we-are-really-serious-about-successor-a320
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/emerging-technologies/boeing-calls-next-gen-engine-info-future-single-aisle
Airbus drops a nugget and Boeing starts sniffing around. Probably nothing but not impossible either.
If this is real then the next year gets very interesting if a 2027 launch is in the cards.
@Casey:
Links are usually a help.
Best guess is its a game of chicken and anything can come out of that.
Airbus has easily the first move in the -500, but always the caveat is its not common to the rest of their aircraft. They can re-wing the A321. Airbus has moves or it can stand pat and build a big bank account (though then how do you hold your hand out for Free Launch Aid?)
Boeing has nothing to work with even if they moved now its 5 years. They do have a lot of order backlog so not any incentive to rock the boat.
“Airbus drops a nugget and Boeing starts sniffing around.”
Sniffing is free…but BA doesn’t have the funding — or the realistic prospect of funding — to do anything more than that.
Launching a new product remains a financial pipe dream for BA
You keep saying that and Boeing keeps going.
Boeing can get the money if they choose to launch a product.
RISE will a take awhile. AB won’t make a decision until it has the answer if RISE is the right bet.
What do you think about AW’s article?
> Industry players reveal that they do not really expect a new narrowbody airliner until closer to 2040 or beyond.
40/60 market split to 2040 and beyond would damage BA’s market position in NB irreparably.
From the context of the Boeing article any 2027 launch would be a conventional powered aircraft. If I had to hazard a guess this is likely a fallback preparation if airbus does launch soon.
However Airbus came out and publicly said they want propulsion down select in 2027 for a 2030 launch.
Hearing a lot more chatter in general the last few months.
I keep an eye on JetZero’s BWB development and if it will jolt AB into action.
Jet Zero has a snow balls chance for anything let alone their own timeline.
Casey
From the AW article, the RFI is believed to be the fourth such request, it may be Boeing’s assessment of the industry from time to time.
I wonder under what circumstances for Airbus to launch a stretched A321, the so called A322.
Waiting for America’s one-toy policy per family to kick in… 😅
> Toy inflation is at an all-time high, as new tariffs kick in
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuOcEScXkAAWNfb?format=jpg&name=small
https://washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/24/toy-prices-tariffs-inflation/
https://x.com/abhabhattarai/status/1937563930387243124
Is it working?
> “The May US trade deficit was a bit bigger than in April — and roughly consistent with its levels in the first half of 2024.
There will need to be a much bigger swing going forward to offset the massive q1 deficit, as of now the 2025 deficit looks to be bigger than in 24”
“EU Plans Boeing Tariffs in Response to US Trade Moves”
“The European Union plans to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, including on Boeing Co. aircraft, if President Donald Trump puts a baseline levy on the bloc’s goods as many expect.
“EU officials expect the U.S. to keep some duties in place, even after trade negotiations are concluded. Until now, the European Commission, which handles trade matters for the EU, hasn’t indicated whether that would trigger retaliation from the bloc.
““We will need to retaliate and rebalance in some key sectors if the U.S. insists on an asymmetrical deal,” the EU’s industry chief, Stephane Sejourne, told Bloomberg News, including if the “outcome of the negotiations is that a 10% tariff remains.””
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/eu-plans-retaliatory-tariffs
***
That will kill Ryanair’s big 737 MAX orders — the only substantial MAX orders from the EU.
It will be interesting to see what the Lufthansa group does vis-à-vis its BA widebody order book, if this materializes.
Million and millions more manufacturing jobs in America?
NYTimes: Why Factories Are Having Trouble Filling Nearly 400,000 Open Jobs
> About 400,000 manufacturing jobs are currently unfilled, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
> The country is flooded with college graduates who can’t find jobs that match their education, Mr. Hetrick said, and there are not enough skilled blue-collar workers to fill the positions that currently exist, let alone the jobs that will be created if more factories are built in the United States.
==========
OTOH after the $52.7 billion Chips Act and untold amounts of tax incentives & subsidies (est. $280 billion in total) …
> Major layoffs ahead for Intel? Following rumors of cuts affecting up to 20% of its manufacturing staff, layoffs are expected to begin on July 15.
Pedro
“Why Factories Are Having Trouble Filling Nearly 400,000 Open Jobs”
While the media shows state of the art factories with robots, white epoxy floor which are air conditioned and good pay/benefits, the truth of the matter is most US factories that haven’t been updated for decades (lack of investment) which are dirty, hot, poor lighting with less automation and low pay/poor benefits (non unionized) Who wants to work in those conditions?
AW:
> China Airlines is securing additional Airbus A350-900s and A321neos to enhance operational flexibility amid delivery delays of new Airbus and Boeing aircraft.
Reuters:
> China Airlines is postponing the retirement of some of its older aircraft due to delays in getting Boeing 787-9 jets that may result in compensation payments from the planemaker
> “We are at present being greatly impacted. Some aircraft that were scheduled to be phased out, or handed back at the end of their lease, as some are leased, will remain and have their leases extended,”
> Boeing has not given China Airlines an exact timeframe for the 787-9 delays, though it has said deliveries will “basically” start from the end of 2025
Womp womp!
Finally:
> .. Rafale Crushes the Competition: Portugal Rejects U.S. F-35 in Stunning Win for French Aerospace Power
Not surprising.
Israel revealed todat that much of the “operational freedom” which was assumed to be due to the F35’s “stealth” was, in fact, due to Israeli special forces (and, previously, Mossad agents) on the ground.
“Israeli military Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir says that during the Israel-Iran fighting, Israeli special forces were on the ground in Iran carrying out missions.
“Israel’s overall control of Iranian airspace was also made possible because of “commando ground forces”, Zamir said in a televised address.
““The forces operated in secret deep within enemy territory and created operational freedom of action for us,” he said.”
***
The Israelis evidently didn’t have full faith in the “stealth” of their aircraft.
Of note: Israel didn’t try to bomb Fordow until its S-300 missile batteries had been destroyed.
Still they bought the F-35.
Clearly you don’t know how SEAD works.
US F-35 almost got shot down by the Houthis!
@Pedro:
Portugal is not a rich country, very small air force. A lot of coast and Islands they control.
I can easily see the F-35 as a bad fit. Including the need for tankers to operate it. Easily just the drogue fuel system makes the Rafale a better fit.
Note that they are upgrading their C-130H? The C-390 makes sense in an easier to operate aircraft with commercial engines. They are still going along with the old P-3.
Only surprise is they did not go with the Eurofighter as their neighbor has.
Plenty of need for aircraft without them being F-35. Its a specialized aircraft that in its Stealth mode doe not carry large ordnance.
Obviously they can assess the cause of the loss or losses in India and the maybe two Rafales shot down. India immediate adjusted and they had no further losses. So it was something in the control of India be it threat signatures wrong or tactics that left them exposed.
As a couple of Russian origin aircraft went down, it was not aircraft specific.
The one country that really doesnt need the F35 is Switzerland. I am still struggling to figure that one out.
(Not) Surprise, surprise! Got hosed.
> US F-35 jets could cost Switzerland ‘more than CH1 billion extra’
@Casey:
I think you miss out on the bigger picture. Switzerland realizes its in Western Europe and while its not been worth invading, the Russians have changed that.
So, they are buying Patriot Missile batteries and F-35 both of which are a lead into NATO integration (not joining, just same interest)
Some air forces, aka Portugal can afford a more support role, Switzerland can’t. They really do need the most capable aircraft.
What is interesting is open tenders of Finland, Norway and Switzerland all with their own merit systems, picked the F-35.
When situational awareness really counts, then its an F-35.
It has its issues, but its also an astonishing platform.
Going to point out Russia would have to conquer most all of Europe before even seeing Switzerland. There is zero external threat.
That is why some countries like Spain are not nearly as enthusiastic about defense spending as countries like Poland and Finland
TW
Hahaha haven’t you realized that LM submit a bid too low to be true? Once the customer is “hooked”, LM wrings out to bleed the customer dry. The defense spending is heading up while its capabilities are going the opposite direction.
while
“That is why some countries like Spain are not nearly as enthusiastic about defense spending as countries like Poland and Finland”
Unsurprising.
They don’t throw shit at armed people ( PL )
They don’t have oversexed “Young Global Leaders” running the government. ( FI )
@Casey:
No I don’t like LM nor do I like the horror of mess ups on the F-35 program. Some are LM and some are USAF stupidity.
I have done some reading on Switzerland. They are heavily linked into Western Europe and not all all Russia.
If it affects Western Europe it has a huge impact on them. Maybe even totall.
I too am skeptical on the F-35 as an answer but as a common link into operating in the Western European system, it has a degree of sense.
Range wise it works. Its shorter range is not a disadvantage and they are amidst a constellation of other tankers if they committed forward.
Cost wise, the F-35A on the surface is lower cost. Cost to operate is high, but Rafalle say has two engines and costs more.
I don’t know on range as Rafale normally carries a drop tank. What an F-35 does if it carries a drop tank and then indeed drops it going into combat?
The Grippen E makes sense but it does not have the F-35 Capability.
They had to make a decision and it was interesting to see that their comparison matched Finland and Norway, all using different methods and an incentive for the Grippen E.
In a way Finland makes sense as anything taking off is all to close to Russian radar detection. Norway has far more standoff.
I will also note Poland has gone in with F-35A.
TW
The playing field is tilted in favor of one .
What I heard:
> Eurofighter finally left the Norwegian tender when there was a sudden last minute change to the mission set. Pretty much just wasted everyone’s time and money then sold it as fair and transparent…
I wonder what happened under the table!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Guc7gkQW4AAWJCl?format=jpg&name=900×900
TW
Is this true??
LM quoted a price too low to be true?
> … the price qouted by Norway is from a fantasy land. $54 million for Norway compares to a US DoD estimate (2009 fiscal year planning) of $96.8 million
And the UK has gone with F-35A.
and …
are they happy?
The Uk like Germany is buying a limited number of F35As’ (12 I believe is the number), not because they need or want the A model, but simple because the USA will not allow their new B61 freefall nuclear weapon to be carried by a non USA aircraft. Therefore for the UK and German fulfill their NATO obligations they are buying limited numbers of A models. If the USA was a “good” neighbor they would make available the source codes and modifications required that would allow the Eurofighter to carry the weapon. In the past the UK had its own freefall tactical nuclear weapon, the WE177 which was carried by the Tornado fighter-bomber. Germany also used the same Tornado in the past for the prior USA bomb.
@ Casey
There’s a lot of resistance to the F35 purchase in Switzerland.
Binding referendum on the horizon, with 80% against:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/swiss-petition-against-us-f-35-fighter-jets-gathers-42000-signatures/89539410
> Trump wants more drones and missiles, fewer F-35s in $893 billion budget request
============
> Pentagon officials are “reimagining Block 4” to examine what industry can deliver since *costs have skyrocketed and delays have plagued the effort*.
https://www.defenseone.com/business/2025/06/f-35-engine-upgrade-hits-delay-casting-doubt-timeline/406172/
Not sure when or if the UK is able to receive their F-35 ordered.
Let’s talk about reality:
The UK will procure 138 F-35 “over the lifetime of the program”, the latest switches 12 F-35B to 12 F-35A. Doesn’t impact the overall number of F-35 to be purchased by the UK.
Doesn’t the UK only have 48 confirmed orders for the F35?
There’s talk of ordering another 90, but I don’t think that second tranche has been green-lighted.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-takes-delivery-of-more-f-35-stealth-jets/
@Abalone
Yeah 138 is the number the UK projected to buy over a multi-decade horizon.
That must have been awkward with RR making the lift system.
Casey
Switching from the F-35B to F-35A would save the government a bundle, it’s about window dressing!
Some buys are less about the product but about “lightning protection”. i.e. to “dampen” mafiose behavior of a larger nation.
This adds more twist to the AI 171. Its in line with what I know of V1 speeds in general.
“High-speed aborted takeoffs—those beyond 120 knots—make up fewer than 2% of all rejected takeoff cases. They are executed only when absolutely necessary, such as for engine failure, severe control system faults, or major onboard alerts.”
the full link as follows.
https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/chicago-bound-united-airlines-boeing-767-aborts-takeoff-at-high-speed-in-zurich-new-update-on-this-incident/
The AI 787 was going significantly faster and should have not had any problem getting airborn well before the end of the runway.
IMU:
178kn seems to have been max speed ( air ) attained.
actual take off was near the runway end.
Under those conditions:
An abort at V1 would have ended in an overrun and crash beyond the perimeter? ( required takeoff runway length hinges into acceleration to V1, abort and braking to a stop. )
I am seeing reports I believe are totally fake showing up about AI 171 and Pilots Seat unlatching and rolling back in the takeoff.
Its only showing up in less than good publications.
Factually the Indian Authorities preliminary report is not shown, just a list of so called fact and timelines.
The pilot takes his hands off the throttle factually and there is no way for the Data to show a seat movement.
None of the physical evidence would be to that point, it takes serious forensics amidst a burned out wreck.
I hate fakes
connecting the dots from different articles
“Airbus just bought the Spirit factory that makes aircraft fuselages, particularly for the A220, in Nouaceur,” Mezzour explained, adding that both parties work toward achieving the goal of establishing “final aircraft assembly in Morocco.”
“The European manufacturer now employs nearly 2,000 people in the country following its recent acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems’ Casablanca facility.”
“The head of Airbus’ Canadian operations has estimated that a stretched A220, informally known as the A220-500, could enter commercial service in the early next decade. The executive said that the European planemaker should have its conclusions about the aircraft’s potential by the end of 2025.”
would US tariffs on the A220 (considering the fuselage/wing is made outside the US) the have Airbus move A220 FAL from Mobile? or maybe the only stretch model?
As has been stated, the OA is TACO so the tarriff aspect is going to get removed.
Airbus is not going to open up another A220 line. They got more than they need with Alabama a knee jerk reaction.
Morocco may have aspiration but they are not going to happen.
Trans
“Airbus is not going to open up another A220 line.” should be Airbus is not going to open up another A220 line in the US.
If Airbus will not get any US government contracts, why not move the Spirit A350 fuselage (composite center fuselage upper and lower shells (section 15) produced Kinston NC (500,000 sq ft) to the factory in Saint-Nazaire, France?
I think we can assume that plans for such a move are already being made.
The Spirit acquisition cost Airbus nothing, so Kinston can eventually be shuttered without financial pain.
Why continue to put an important AB program at (unnecessary) risk of US fickleness?
You guys have some truly weird ill logic chips.
On that basis Alabama should be closed down. Airbus has proven it will put skin in the local game to get long term gains.
And costs are disregarded seeing as you do not pay for them. To move Kingston is a large cost, does not matter what they paid for it.
You do not just up and move stuff. If you want to keep building A350s, you have to duplicate it, run it in parallel and all that tooling does not match the new tooling.
No, you just create an App and its all solved.
Alabama is optional — AB has alternate FALs elsewhere.
Kinston currently is not optional. In the current geopolitical climate, it’s essentially a liability.
And you accuse others of lack of logic? 🙈
Just because you think it isn’t easy doesn’t mean AB isn’t working on it.
It’s basic risk management.
So now we throw in the phrases like Risk Management.
Amazing.
Can’t make this up! 🤷♂️
Talking about “… some truly weird ill logic chips.”, followed by:
“On that basis Alabama should be closed down.” and
“And costs are disregarded seeing as you do not pay for them.”
Weird and illogical…
It’s too bad to see so much political content now on this comments section, especially since there is *so little solid information* available regarding same.
> Almost a fortnight after an Air India plane crashed in Ahmedabad killing 274 people, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is yet to appoint a lead investigator to probe the accident. The delay, say experts, raises questions on the efficiency of the probe process which has to be necessarily completed in a time-bound manner.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules stipulate that the investigator-in-charge of an air crash will be responsible for the organisation, conduct and control of the probe.
https://m.economictimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/two-weeks-after-air-india-crash-probe-lead-not-named-aaib-eyes-ex-airbus-safety-exec-rebbapragada/articleshow/122076971.cms
India is falling fast in my view. It was the only AHJ that told airlines that they could not even fly with one iffy engine let alone two.
All the international agreements are just so many words. China never released anything on the 737-800 crash because it pointed in a direction that they have no answers for. In that case it clearly was a non NG or Boeing system issue.
Here we don’t know. Its a mind boggling possibles that could affect engines.
Stunning. 270 dead and they are not working on it.
“Pentagon seeks to cancel E-7A procurement and opts for more E-2Ds”
“Congress must provide final approval to plan, which would see the US Air Force forego the development of a new Boeing E-7A airborne early warning and control fleet, instead investing in new space-based capabilities and the existing Northrop Grumman E-2D platform.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/pentagon-seeks-to-cancel-e-7a-procurement-and-opts-for-more-e-2ds/163586.article
Oh dear Boing Boing
“…citing delays, rising costs, and concerns over the aircraft’s survivability in contested environments.”
“According to senior defense officials, the decision to cancel the E-7A Wedgetail program was based on multiple factors, including a cost increase from $588 million to $724 million per aircraft …”
https://simpleflying.com/bad-news-boeing-pentagon-reportedly-cancels-us-air-force-e7-wedgetail-program/
***
That’s a 23% price increase.
One wonders if the UK and/or NATO joint foce will now postpone/trim/cancel their orders. Who wants to be stuck with a low-volume bird based on a defunct airframe from an over-charging supplier?
If the US is out of the order book, then there’s no excuse vis-à-vis NATO standardization and interoperability. Might as well switch to the Saab Global Eye, for example — whose RR engines are British. That would, at least, allow standardization with the French.
“UK competition watchdog weighs probe into Boeing-Spirit Aero deal”
“Britain’s competition regulator is considering whether Boeing’s deal to acquire its former subsidiary Spirit AeroSystems could affect competition in the country or in other markets, it said on Thursday.
“The Competition and Markets Authority has not yet launched a formal investigation, but has invited comments from interested parties by July 15 to help inform a decision. ”
https://www.ajot.com/news/uk-competition-watchdog-weighs-probe-into-boeing-spirit-aero-deal
“…US-made F-35 lies broken in Kerala monsoon, stranded on tarmac for 10 days.”
Of particular note:
“The US claims that while standard fighter jets can be identified and engaged from 400–500 kilometres away, the F-35 remains undetectable at such ranges. However, the fact that Indian radar systems were able to detect the aircraft has taken many by surprise.”
https://organiser.org/2025/06/25/299468/world/after-trump-a-new-nightmare-hits-britain-as-us-made-f-35-lies-broken-in-kerala-monsoon-stranded-on-tarmac-for-10-days/
It helps greatly to know the specifics.
The F-35 series has a radar reflector so that it can operate in and be separate from area traffic.
Sail boats do the same thing, hoist up a reflector so they do not get run down (hopefully an awake crew) by large ships.
Like SEAD, this is a world you need to be knowledgeable about to make relevant comments and not grasping straws for the sake of knocking something.
I have huge issues with the F-35 program, LM is part to blame and the USAF is part to blame, probably the USAF more as it was their program structure not LM>
Nothing in the article indicates that the Luneberg lens was deployed when the Indians detected the aircraft…
Yea yea yea
Oh, lets fly into someones airspace in stealth so they can not see us.
Nothing to it, just give them Lat and Long and they can figure it out.
Imagine: F35 dragging a radar reflector blimp along?
( an active radar transponder should be sufficient. )
The melee around fixing the plane is of more noteworthiness.
Could this be true? 😅
> Recently a CSG25 F-35B diverted to India was cryptographically locked out from the core network, rendering it inoperable until reconnected. This exposed the risks of US controlled systems and the F-35’s secure architecture in non-standard scenarios.
The risk of US “kill switches” has been front and center for months now.
Not only in the F35…but also, for example, in StarLink (Musk’s threat to Poland) and cloud services (ICC cut off).
The result: accelerating decoupling from US products and services by governments and corporations in Europe.
European defense companies, cloud providers and satellite communication providers are thriving as a result.
At least the UK and Germany had the wisdom to procure (majority) Eurofighters in addition to (minority) F35s. Other countries — such as France and Portugal — averted the F35 risk altogether. But an unfortunate group of countries — such as NL and Denmark — put all their eggs in the very shaky F35 basket.
And with this latest news, one can imagine that Canada will soon be ordering an alternative to the F35:
“Trump ends all U.S. trade talks with Canada over digital services tax”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/27/trump-canada-trade-talks-tariffs.html
Coming from multiple more reliable sources.
https://archive.ph/B9meT
Interesting aspect is that another article listed that the dual recorders are fore and aft.
It would explain a more damaged Recorder from one in better condition.
Can;t swear its true but makes sense.
Northrop Grumman Tests the NASA BOLE Booster for Future Artemis:
> The test firing started normally, but there was an unusual brightening of the plume, one that could have been caused by something flying off the motor. The nozzle liberated energetically from the motor around 10 seconds before the burn ended, and there appeared to be some debris leaving the nozzle just before the main disintegration of the nozzle happened.
Airbus to Deepen Ties With Chinese Suppliers..
> The number of Airbus planes in service in China has exceeded 2,000, with a market share of more than 55 percent, according to the France-based company.
https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/airbus-to-deepen-ties-with-chinese-suppliers-china-ceo-says
Goodbye!
> DOD’s request of just $74m for the Navy’s F/A-XX will complete the design, provide it as an “option” in the future
https://x.com/beverstine/status/1938260961502367859
> Official: The program awaits an official decision from the President, SecDef and SecNav on cancellation.
You have an administration that is clueless and has even less of a clue on Naval power.
I have been saying this for some time. Jon Ostower has weighted in.
It what comes of a totally control, not captured, government agency.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/china-refuses-reveal-cause-deadly-china-eastern-737-crash/
Now imagine the results of a system failure on a C909/919.
Yes, it can get worse than Boeing.
Is it any worse than having a US OEM that takes egregious shortcuts — leading to two crashes with 346 fatalities — and then does everything it can to avoid prosecution…including flipping its plea?
And then — years later, after a mid-air door blowout — stonewalls an NTSB investigation?
Imagine there is no one being held accountable!!
Also imagine the “outrage” (real or unreal) if the culprit were Airbus or anyone which does not belong to TBTF of the USA!
Question:
who is ( or payrolls the action ) inserting all this trash commentary
on various news sites?
Why does this only happen to non US entities?
“Yes, it can get worse than Boeing.”
Dream on.
Well a certain group rants on and on about Agency capture, and I fully agree it is bad for everyone.
But then they ignroe agency totally controlled by a government. But that is fine. The only conclusion is selective bashing.
The hypocrisy and illogic is truly amazing.
While there is a lot I would change in the FAA, our independent cross investigation agency in the form of the NTSB does a good job.
Writing while sitting in front of a mirror?
How big is the memory hole??
> An investigation by The New York Times’ Chris Hamby published in January 2020 in the aftermath of the Boeing 737 MAX groundings claimed that the DSB “either excluded or played down criticisms of the manufacturer in its 2010 final report after pushback from a team of Americans that included Boeing and federal safety officials…who said that certain pilot errors had not been ‘properly emphasized'”.
> In February 2020, it was reported that Boeing had refused to cooperate with a new Dutch review on the crash investigation and that the NTSB had also refused a request from Dutch lawmakers to participate.
FAA was also reluctant to ground the 737 MAX…
The US procurement system has its oddities. As far as cancelling the E-7, congress could well put it back into the budget. The twisted aspect is the E-2D is less survivable than anything else. The E-2D suits carrier ops but it has no where near the capability that E-7 has.
The OA has turned the process into whack a mole.
In the meantime, the F-15EX is on the list for more buys.
https://www.twz.com/air/f-15ex-planned-fleet-size-grows-to-129-jets-from-98
An E-2D is three times cheaper than a (re-priced) E-7.
Cheaper = more expendable, with more distributed outlay.
The crews certainly will feel differently.
And frankly I don’t care nor is it accurate as its two different birds with very different missions sets.
A Navy pilot has commented on how awesome AWACs is vs the E-2D. There is no comparison . Altitude is range. Range keeps you from getting shot down.
The illogical of E2-D while there is no space based capability vs a very capable and mission ready E-7 (you do remember the missions ready data do you not?)
Pretty bizarre Turkey has a major capability the rest of NATO does not.
SAAB went with a jet for the Global eye, it has the altitude and the speed needed (if you are fast enough you can run from a shot). Its a good gap filler platform.
And E-7 does not have to turn to cover its area and it sees further and better delineation.
The KC-46A is cheaper than an A330MRT.
Oh yeah the unique “top secret” US military secret sauce derails another project:
> … an official says today the cost per E-7A Wedgetail rose from $588m to $724m. The program has also faced “significant delays.”
================
> Airbus says the A330 MRTT has a market share of more than 90% in air-to-air refueling aircraft outside the United States.
> The first MRTT+ is in production, with a target of delivering the plane by the end of 2028
> Airbus increases the payload of the A400M transport aircraft by 3 metric tons to 40 tons and there are new capabilities to function as a drone “mothership” or an electronic-warfare platform for stand-off jamming.
Now the USAF finally admits publicly air superiority is “under threat”, any large aircraft the size of a 767 is not safe in combat area anymore. Without AEW&C, US fighter jets are a bunch of headless chickens.
Oops *737
Interesting from CFM and the production status and how they will not have the into service issues all new engines face.
https://archive.ph/GWxRB
Also interesting is confirming that LEAP-C is assembled in France.
Boeing attacks Airbus, may the best plane win!
https://airlive.net/location/asia/2025/06/27/the-right-wing-of-a-boeing-787-struck-the-tail-of-an-airbus-a321-on-taxiway-at-hanoi-airport/
Well the Airbus might not have been where it was supposed to be
But a great Man Bites Dog.
More highly-inconvenient press for the 787 at this particular time:
“Seven fall ill after Mumbai-bound Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 suffers mid-air depressurisation, makes emergency landing”
“As per reports, the incident occurred on flight ET640 when the Dreamliner was flying over the Arabian Sea at 33,000 feet. The depressurisation warning led to a rapid decline in altitude as per FlightRadar24 data. Upon landing, seven passengers felt unwell and one has been hospitalised. ”
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/airlines-aviation/7-fall-ill-after-mumbai-bound-ethiopian-airlines-boeing-787-suffers-mid-air-depressurisation-makes-emergency-landing/3895928/
FG: Over 20 MC-21s undergoing assembly as latest prototype starts certification flights
They’re also now test-flying the MC-21 with their own PD-14 engine, also according to Flight Global.
All that information is coming from Russia. Flight Global is just doing pass through (and I like Flight Global, if its a reliable sources its good stuff)
You would be well off to get your Coalescing filter on line.
What did Trump say??
> “China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran. Hopefully, they will be purchasing plenty from the U.S., also,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social
May be there’s more truth from Russia than …
That “latest prototype” is the model that’s been purged of Western components.
Big shock for the various commenters here who sought to assure us that it’s simply not possible to have a viable airliner without Western parts…and/or who quibbed that the new model was 6 tons heavier than the old one.
It’s actually a very nice aircraft 👍
Frankly I admire the MC-21. It is right up there with the A220 vs the dated A320s and even more dated 737.
Granted you can fully believe anything you read coming out of Russia.
Perhaps wait until they are delivered? Or see how reliable that substitute stuff is?
As I recall the 777X was supposed to be delivered 5 years ago?
Boeing says next year, do you believe that? Frankly I actually do but only because management has changed and its mostly through testing.
“Frankly I actually do but only because management has changed and its mostly through testing.”
I haven’t seen any change from you regarding Boeing — any post from you that said you don’t believe Boeing’s projection?
“Aircraft 73055 completed a non-stop ferry flight from Irkutsk to Zhukovsky in early May. The aircraft features Russian-manufactured avionics including flight computers, switching systems, navigation systems, and radio communication suites. The aircraft incorporates a domestic auxiliary power unit (APU), air conditioning systems, and cabin pressurization systems. Lighting systems, aircraft system control panels, electrical power systems, hydraulic systems, and landing gear have been replaced with domestic equivalents. Due to the unavailability of Russian alternatives at the time of this aircraft’s completion in spring 2025, it retains only three non-critical imported systems: actuators, brakes, and generators. These components will be replaced with domestic alternatives on test aircraft 73057 and subsequent production aircraft.
“Flight testing resumption of the fully import-substituted aircraft 73057 is expected within the next one to two months. The aircraft was powered up at Irkutsk Aviation Plant in February 2025. Yakovlev PJSC plans to complete certification of the import-substituted MC-21-310 variant by fall 2026, followed by aircraft deliveries to customers for commercial operations.”
https://ruavia.su/mc-21-310-test-aircraft-73055-completes-first-flight-in-certification-testing-program/
Also flight test progress with the new SJ-100 aircraft (previously Superjet), which has been purged of Western parts and fitted with PD-8 engines.
“The experimental Superjet 100 (aircraft number 97023, serial number 97003), equipped with fully localized systems and Russian-made PD-8 engines developed by the United Engine Corporation (UEC), has arrived in Zhukovsky for preparation for flight certification tests. This flight marks a significant milestone in the extensive import substitution program.”
https://ruavia.su/pd-8-engines-power-experimental-sj-100-flight-from-the-russian-far-east-to-moscow-region/
Doubtful, Ulyanovsk doesn’t have that much floor space for MC 21 The are also limited with using only 1 automatic fuselage fastening system. The plant was design for 4 systems…only one in operation before the sanctions
This is not well done, a reason I don’t care for most of his video. Juan Brown does his due diligence, so called Captain Steve just vents stuff out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FlCdH7s0FI
What is being monitored is parameters not data. There is a fixed time sampling rate, so the shorter flight does not bog up the recorder. Sampling rate is determined by what is deemed important , more per second if its high on the list, fewer if not.
One of the FDR should have been sent to France or the US. I don’t care which. France has as good a capability as the US for damaged FDR retrieval.
“What is being monitored is parameters not data.”
That utterance is one for the history books 🙈
“is parameters not data”
yeah, gotta use that one somewhere. 😉
Nope.
If the sensor is gone, then there is no data though there still is a parameter slot assigned to be monitored.
Its not willy nilly data. Its very specific items on the aircraft.
There is a huge amount of data on various networks, its a specific parameter that you monitor such as WOW.
That one is important as a number of aspects then are linked to that. WOW then gives you a starting point (or not WOW)
“Two main factors that affect parameter accuracy are Sample Rate and Resolution. ”
For a technician, words matter, definitions are critically important.
I was thinking about this overnight, rather than focus on the failure to describe how parameters are monitored, a few standard commenters attack the concept of what is monitored and what a Parameter is.
The point is, there would have been no more information on the DRs for that tragically short flight than a successful flgiht. Its got at least 17 hours recording time.
I spent 30 years dealing with refresh rates. This is a good definition.
“Essentially, parameters are placeholders for the data a function will use, allowing for flexibility and reusability of the function with different inputs. When the function is invoked, the values passed in are called arguments, and these are assigned to the corresponding parameters. ”
Regardless, you have AI, BI, AO or BO. WOW would be a BI. Airspeed would be AI.
Caveat is that voice recording is a different input. Nothing I ever worked with did voice so that is not known other than its general aspects.
AI 171 would have had Data from probably the entire previous flight, maybe extending into another flight depending on how long.
The recorders us sample rate though you can have a computer system register no change on a parameter if it does not go up or down by 1/2 a degree temp say, or the WOW is off and repeats the off no matter how often you sample it.
Sampling rate would be based on relevance of how fast it changes and if that is important.
Engine temps would be one of those for rapid sampling
This is a pretty technical report, but it demonstrates how complex the systems are and things can occur no one could have foreseen.
And not its not a knock on Airbus, a 777 or a 787 could have impacts like that and its one of the items the AI 171 may have been involved with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ09BnOl1d4
The good news was there was enough redundancy for the FO to be able to fly.
Having 3 ADU was knocked down to one.
While I do not know definitive this is the best analysis I have seen of the takeoff.
https://archive.ph/2z9eE
They do not explain the cloud of dust, you would need to analyze a number of views like that to determine if it was common.
If there analysis is correct it looks to be a normal takeoff. If true that rules out a engine failing on takeoff.
@TW
DJT’s not wrong:
> Bartiromo: “They hack into our telecom system, they’ve been stealing intellectual property, fentanyl, covid, all of this stuff…”
Trump: “You don’t think we do that to them? You don’t think we do that to them? We do…”
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1939334210390491283
“Describing his intended message to Japan, a frequent target of his trade-related complaints, Trump dictated: “Dear Mr. Japan, here’s the story. You’re going to pay a 25% tariff on your cars.””
or
“Dear Mr. Boeing, here’s the story. You’re going to pay a 25% tariff on your 787 fuselage sections and wings from Japan.”
Japanese patience with Trump’s tariff antics is wearing very thin indeed.
Trump would want to be careful: if the Bank of Japan increases interest rates, there’ll be a massive (further) unwinding of the Yen carry trade, with a nasty blow to the dollar and dollar-denominated bonds as a result. Moreover, the weakening dollar incentivizes Japan to offload large volumes of its 1-trillion-dollar holdings of US treasuries.
The last thing Trump needs is further upset in US bond markets.
and “The United States’ currency has weakened more than 10 percent over the past six months when compared with a basket of currencies from the country’s major trading partners. “
That should be good for US exports.
But does it work that way?
The US imports far more than it exports, and a weaker dollar makes imports more expensive.
Not sure if this year’s US trade deficit will shrink:
“The May US trade deficit was a bit bigger than in April — and roughly consistent with its levels in the first half of 2024.
😂
Bloomberg:
> Capital Group CEO Mike Gitlin say investors are eyeing diversification away from the US given the compelling opportunities elsewhere, and the risks stemming from geopolitics and supply-chain disruptions
Just in time!
> Qantas takes delivery of its first Airbus A321XLR
And the first leg of its delivery flight — from Toulouse to Bangkok (9662 km) — was flown in one go.
Nice.
a “niche aircraft”, per Boing. Quite a niche..
From OMAAT:
> “On a transcontinental flight from Sydney to Perth, for example, the A321XLR can carry significantly more cargo than the A321neo”
Really??
Yes. The standard A321neo and A321LR have three aux fuel tanks which take up a lot of belly room. The XLR has an integrated fuel tank which takes up far less space.
Thanks @Scott
they are gonna sell *a zillion* of those XLRs.
“niche product” 😉
“You’re fired”?? More clean-up coming?
> Boeing announces the board has appointed former Lockheed Martin CFO Jay Malave its new chief financial officer.
Rotating cast.. nothing will change, except perhaps for the worse. Expect them to start talking about reinstating dividends soon.
That is like changing to another tie?
from South China Morning Post
“China may be on the verge of placing another lucrative order with European aerospace giant Airbus, potentially for at least 100 to 200 new aircraft – even as some Chinese airlines remain heavily reliant on US rival Boeing’s jets.
Europe has emerged as China’s go-to source for overseas commercial aircraft in recent years. Boeing, once a major supplier, has not secured a major order from China since 2017”
China edges closer to Airbus mega-deal, leaving Boeing out in the cold: analysts
> China may be on the verge of placing another lucrative order with European aerospace giant Airbus, potentially for at least 100 to 200 new aircraft …
> Europe has emerged as China’s go-to source for overseas commercial aircraft in recent years. Boeing, once a major supplier, has not secured a major order from China since 2017 – casting a shadow over its future in the world’s second-largest economy amid turbulent trade ties between Beijing and Washington.
> In that time, the company has also suffered reputational setbacks marked by worker strikes, financial losses and crashes – including the recent Air India disaster that killed at least 270 people aboard a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
> Now, as Beijing’s geopolitical and aviation safety concerns push Chinese buyers towards Airbus and even the home-grown Comac C919 passenger plane, analysts warn Boeing’s absence from China’s recent plane-buying spree could leave some airlines in the lurch.
“Buying from Airbus makes a lot of sense now, both commercially and diplomatically … But carriers with Boeing-only fleets are caught on the back foot,” said Brian Yang Bo, an aviation industry veteran and independent consultant.
> “The new deal could be among the biggest in decades, filling the void left by Boeing. The wind in China is blowing in the direction of Airbus and there’s a clear mandate of support for the C919,” Yang said.
Void? China has decided it will not buy Boeing, Boeing has planes to sell so its not a void.
So much for allies (and this was going on Trump 1, Biden 1.). I seem to recall some big trade deal that the EU backed out of due to major issues with China.
As for the C919. Or course its blowing in its direction. Its a national prestige project. Probably nothing wrong with it though the self certification should give people pause. Nothing much right with it either. Its just an A320 copy that is not as well done.
What will be interesting is how it stacks up in its stretched version with the A321 and Max -10. Closer to a MAX -10 at a guess.
Not sure how much call there is for an A321 type in China that has restrictions as to where it can fly. Some countries don’t care but they are not the big client airlines either.
Maybe a short version for South West? If you certify it we will build it.
But they need to get production up to fill that huge backlog they have.
” I seem to recall some big trade deal that the EU backed out of due to major issues with China.”
You started dreaming? It’s too early!
I know as a matter of fact that China backed out of big trade deal with the US due to major issues!!
Who cares about the MAX 10? You?? What’s the latest market share estimate for the A321? 60%? 65%? 70%?
It’s the US which launched the made-up “reciprocal tariffs” against its so called allies… wants to take over Greenland from an ally and treats an ally as its state!
“Its a national prestige project. Probably nothing wrong with it though the self certification should give people pause.”
A hoot!
IMU that is one reason why China refrains from buying Boeing 🙂
@ Pedro
“…casting a shadow over its future in the world’s second-largest economy…”
Actually, if one uses PPP GDP rather than nominal GDP, then China is the world’s largest economy ($40.72T), followed by the US ($29.16T) and the EU ($28.29T).
So, Boeing is locked out of an economy that is 30% larger than that of the US.
The weakening dollar is going to exacerbate these differences even further.
I believe this one worths a read, go and read the piece from Reuters first and quickly go thru the thread. There’s a revolution, and most would agree China is ahead. It happened so quickly that many still try to explain it away. And it’s likely to happen in many other areas in like the next ten years or so.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/1lqli2v/how_chinas_new_auto_giants_left_gm_vw_and_tesla/
This may be of interest to you:
> Thus, if one were to reconstruct Chinese national accounts using current standard methods, the resulting figure for China’s real GDP would be relatively even larger than 1.8 times the US’s.
https://x.com/GuthmannR/status/1941900368918569264
Yes, not surprising at all…though highly inconvenient to the mainstream narrative.
There are also ways of calculating non-debt-driven GDP — obviously the US and Japan would score lower on that front relative to China and the EU.
Donnie assumes that the US economy is indispensible to world traders…but he might want to take a closer look at the facts on the ground.
CNBC: The declining dollar faces more headwinds after posting worst first-half return in 52 years
Also:
Sharp rise in US bond yields after yesterday’s announcements of 25% tariffs on Japan and S. Korea.
Expected further declines in the dollar make it more attractive for offshore investors to dump US assets — thus creating a self-perpetuating downwatd spiral:
“Global investors are expected to continue diversifying their holdings to shield themselves from further dollar weakness.”
https://www.investopedia.com/the-dollar-just-had-its-worst-first-half-in-more-than-50-years-will-it-continue-11767635
***
BA sources major aircraft parts from Japan — so these tariffs are going to be a headache for the company.
> New British nuclear strike jet can’t be refuelled by RAF
😂 Can’t be more funnier!
So the new F-35 will have to rely on American tanker fleet?
> Authorities at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport have confirmed that the UK will be charged a yet-to-be-determined “parking fee” for the weeks-long hosting of the stranded F-35.
> ‘Destination you’ll never want to leave’: Kerala uses stranded British F-35 stealth fighter to promote tourism
Stranded UK F-35 Jet Becomes Unexpected Star in Indian Tourism Campaign
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-07-03/stranded-uk-f-35-jet-becomes-unexpected-star-in-indian-tourism-campaign
============
The (mis)adventure of an F-35 in India continues
> A team of specialist engineers from the UK is due to arrive soon. (An initial engineering party flown to Thiruvananthapuram Airport from HMS Prince of Wales soon after the Jet was diverted determined that they could not effect a repair.)
The delay has centred around assembling a team of specialists with the right tools and spares, together with available aircraft to fly them out from the UK.
https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/1940803807891349873
Air India 787 crash simulation points to deeper Boeing system failure
Read more at: https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/air-india-787-crash-simulation-boeing-system-failure-pc5m636e
The headline is misleading and the simulators point to the engines.
@Scott:
Not taking a position on this at all, but included in the possibles for the engines is a system failure.
One of the possibles is that the engines were commanded to roll back. That could only occur in the system. Dual fuel shutoff is another – and no, not the pilots – if the fuel valves are not a fail safe design, aka fail open, then that gets into possible electrical systems aspects.
Unfortunately each possible then has to be determined if there is an auto function that can be commanded from the system (and by system its the computer controls)
I have seen that the pilots take their hands off the throttles on takeoff. I understand the one risk but the other is the throttles start to move aka auto throttle to where you don’t want them to be.
My simple flying had us keep a hand on the throttle.
A dual engine failure argues to some central aspect vs both engines failing.
Again nothing more than a possible, flip from TO to landing mode and what auto throttles would do.
Something that has crossed my mind is a runway that has that kind of build up off the end the radar antimatter could feed bogus info into the system.
Its mind boggling the various modes and switches and auto responses that mechanical controls don’t have as the pilot is the brain in those.
More accurately, dual engine loss of thrust involved.
Two engines failing at the same time with no indicators is implausible at best.
And it should be Altimeter not Antimatter.
Interesting from Pedro’s link is the assertion that pilots examining the video footage have determined that:
– The flaps and slats were correctly configured;
– The landing gear had started retraction, but the gear doors hadn’t started to open.
“The findings shift attention from pilot error to Boeing’s engine or electrical systems…”
Frankly my opinion is if there was any pilot error it was a result of a system aspect that popped up they had no response for.
It was pretty clear early on that 5 deg of flaps would not be seen and the subsequent aspects of the RAT and how the aircraft behaved was very sudden.
The only two things I can think of that cause that total a power loss in two engines is commanded and either fuel shutoff or throttle roll back.
Similar report from Bloomberg via the Seattle Times:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/simulation-of-crashed-air-india-jet-puts-focus-on-technical-flaw/
“Civil Trial to Begin on Boeing 737-8 MAX crash”
“The first civil trial against Boeing, stemming from the 737 MAX crash in Ethiopia, will begin on Monday, July 14th. The plaintiff is a Canadian man who lost his entire family in the crash that killed 157 people on March 10, 2019. This gentleman lost his wife and three children in the crash, in addition to his mother-in-law.”
“Jury trials are unpredictable and may result in significant material costs to Boeing, as each plaintiff’s case is brought individually against the company. It also means that damages to families may not be the same for each victim’s family, as each set of circumstances will be presented to a jury to determine the appropriate damages.
“The trial is expected to last approximately a week, and we should hear about the damages shortly afterwards, unless a settlement is reached between the parties, which often occurs just before trial and is typically shielded by confidentiality provisions. If the case goes to trial and a verdict is reached, a precedent will likely be set for each victim, enabling analysts to assess the potential impact of additional payments to victim families.”
https://airinsight.com/civil-trial-to-begin-on-boeing-737-8-max-crash/
I would have thought they had this in place already.
https://archive.ph/nb7yA
I know back in the 80s when the DC-8 failed to accelerate (locked up brakes on icy runway and dark) and the subsequent crash markers were setup so the crew knew where they were on the runway during takeoff.
Did Boeing miss its target of 38 737 MAX in June?
Yes:
“Boeing fell short of its maximum 737 MAX production rate but is showing signs of stabilization in production,”
https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2025/07/01/airbus-and-boeing-june-2025-production-rates-and-unofficial-deliveries/
That is a well written report.
35 produced, clearly its pretty stable though that does not mean variations will not occur. That should mean 7 from inventory.
Clearly the 35 is what counts as far as stability goes though moving 7 more of the inventory is a plus in both revenue and getting that drawn down.
They have whittled the 787 inventory down by 75 air-frames. Also nice though far better to not have had those problems in the first place.
CFO news is interesting, seems like West is being put out to pasture. Ortberg getting his own people in place? Not being remotely familiar with those players just see the activity and it means something.
West could do his CFO job and advise Ortberg so more to it than the headlines. Probably see West gone by next year.
Reuters: Airbus to sell more A330neo jets to Malaysia Airlines, sources say
“Boeing Judge Urged to Accept US Deal in 737 Max Crash Case”
““In the end, the government has made the considered and constitutionally vested decision not to prosecute,” Justice Department lawyers said in Wednesday’s filing. “There is no legal basis to override that decision or to appoint a special prosecutor, nor would either step yield anything but constitutional conflict.”
“The Justice Department in May asked US District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth to dismiss the case, after Boeing agreed to pay more than $1.1 billion in fees and fines, and to take steps to strengthen internal quality and safety measures. In return, the company will avoid criminal prosecution.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-02/boeing-judge-urged-to-accept-us-deal-in-737-max-crash-case
***
Can anyone name another country in which the DOJ tries to instruct a judge as to how to rule in a particular case?
The curious case of the dog doesn’t bark.
Lengthy but interesting read.
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/peter-reilly-on-the-cash-for-immunity-boeing-non-prosecution-agreement/
Inside the Airline Seat Industry Crisis Delaying Jet Deliveries
> The cabin of a long-haul jet contains some of the world’s prime revenue-generating real estate, which is why airlines are prepared to pay $80,000-$100,000 for a business-class seat and an astonishing $1 million for a first-class suite, insiders say.
“There are only a few truly differentiated things you can do onboard as an airline: the crew, the seat, the catering. Not so much the aircraft. So that’s where we’re going in the premium classes,” said Lufthansa Group Chief Executive Carsten Spohr.
> Airbus is now exploring ways of charging seat firms penalties for delays that hold up deliveries of jets from its factories, two people familiar with the discussions said.
> “My advice to all airline CEOs would be … stop inventing more seats. I know every airline CEO wants to design their own business class seat – don’t do it,” said Aengus Kelly, chief executive of the world’s largest aircraft lessor AerCap.
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2025-07-02/inside-the-airline-seat-industry-crisis-delaying-jet-deliveries
Alaska Airlines is taking advantage of the Hawaiian 787 order to stack up another 13 of the -9.
https://thepointsguy.com/news/alaska-airlines-hawaiian-boeing-787-dreamliner-base-seattle/
Its the kind of low level fill orders that keeps production going so good news.
Snagging that from Airbus is paying off.
Still they have 24 of the A330s though those are getting dated and the A321 that they just let go. So much for looking ahead!
More -10s so maybe going to drop the A321s.
If you had followed Alaska’s 787 a bit more closely, you’d know:
From FG
> Boeing has communicated that certain 737 and 787-9 aircraft are expected to be delivered later than the contracted delivery timing,” Alaska revealed in a recent 10K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Hawaiian took deliveryof its first 787-9 in February last year. But its fleet of latest-generation widebodies has since been slow-growing. Now, a revised delivery schedule from Boeing, which is working to boost its ailing airliner production programmes, has caused Alaska Air Group to further adjust expectations.
This includes 787-9 aircraft contracted for delivery between 2024 and 2026 that have been moved later into the contract or into the year following the contracted delivery,” Alaska says, adding that ”management expects that other Boeing aircraft deliveries could be delayed”
Not sure what the point is. For better and at times worse, AK Airlines has been the steady carrier for Alaska for a long time. As the steady flights are important to us vs others erratic and to and from the State of Alaska
As I recall the Hawaiian bid was for 8 air-frames and options for more. Ak has to put money up front to secure slots, so its far from nothing and a firm is good for Boeing vs an option. You plan long term production plans on firm.
Alaska is doing what it thinks best as far as deliveries go. That is obviously changed from what Hawaiians plans were. Hawaiians A330s are old (not as old as the 717s!)
I don’t know if the combined operation is going to succeed or fail. Both had very difference niches with Hawaiian a 2nd oddity in the A330-PCF ops. If the A330-200s are going away does that also go away?
AK as a whole has gone from two types (737/E175) to 6 types with at least at the time the A330 group being replaced by the 787.
Now AK is competing on and for long haul markets via Seattle and the guess is the Hawaiian end continues to works as a tourists destination.
I am interested to see how they juggle all of it and what direction they go in. The A321 is particularly interesting as AK had their and cut rate options at one time.
How do you justify dropping dual type just to flip around and get it all over again?
The 717s can be replaced with E175. Drop it back to Horizon oddity. Or an E2-195 (they sure do not need the range in Hawaiian Islands!)
Flip is are they using the A321 range or is it just more passenger carry vs 737? Will they drop the A321 ? as they may be able to work with the MAX.
The 787s carry a few more pax than the A330s as well as more of them are upscale seats, ergo the trend to fancier digs.
Delta has taken delivery of nine A330 in the last twelve months, four in 2025 only; and eight A350 in the last twelve months. They are expanding their service in the Seattle region. Hawaiian is flying their A330 to Tokyo from Seattle. Their business class hard product is simply not competitive in that sector to be honest while Delta is flying their A350!
If you intend to comment, since you took a couple minutes to type, why not do your own research before you press the “Post” button?
I continue to accept you have an issue with linking various aspects.
So what about Delta and Seattle? Its not like that is news let alone Delta and their on and off relationship with the State of Alaska.
From a state of Alaska perspective Delta is what we refer to as Gold Diggers. A long history of parachuting and and leaving.
I don’t fly first class nor do I particularity care. Again so what? If Alaska Airlines does not have the PAX for Seattle South Korea, they will pull out.
The Hawaiian 787-9s have a heavier high class seats than the A330-200 does. Again so what?
Either its good enough to compete or priced right or its not.
If Alaska falls flat on their face, its not like there are not other Airlines. The loss for the State of Alaska would be the service Alaska has been founded on.
When I flew to Minneapolis last year I went Delta as it was a direct flight. No love for Delta or against them other than the issues with erratic Seattle to Alaska flights (summer on, winter off)
Alaska Airlines is an interesting microcosm of mergers and decisions and where that does or does not get you.
I think the Hawaiian airlines link up was a bad decisions. CEO of Alaska wants to be a bigger fish, unfortunately its a bigger pond as well with nasty competitors.
Hawaii itself and Hawaii airlines is a different bird with a different market and the high prices seats are or were a far lessor part of that.
The aircraft makes no difference. Its the seating and Delta Seats I use are no better than Alaskan Seats.
Well the aircraft can make a difference in economics. But then that is what the 787 is about.
The Pacific is more a 787 route and Delta is probably happy to fly the A330 on the Atlantic routes.
I am not going any of those places.
Looking at any updates, this one gives you food for thought.
https://archive.ph/nf9NA
I don’t see what a pilot or pilots could have done to loose thrust, per Bjorn. I am far less sure about a strange system issue.
I can think of two ways to stop thrust. One is throttle roll back and the other is engine shutdown. In theory you could have worn fuel shutdown toggles that flipped off.
If they lost thrust and the pilot called on it, that implies they checked throttle position and the 787 throttles are back driven so position if rolled back would show (should show)
Flaps look to be in a rational position even if it was 5 (I don’t agree with reduced thrust on takeoff nor economical flap settings, I go with max safety). All the economy stuff can kick in once you get to 3000 feet. The simulations (if report is accurate) show not a problem even on one engine.
The gear position seems to show exactly opposite of the one theory of flaps and not gear.
Gear is totally different location than flaps, that was very low on any mental list. Not quite zero but extraordinarily low and only in conjunction with thrust loss.
A pilot could pull back the thrust levers but that makes no more sense than the wrong lever for flaps selected. You can override the thrust levers in auto throttle but I believe it fights you to do so per Boeing take (I prefer Airbus logic).
Nothing involved in that phase of flight has the pilots doing anything with the throttles unless its to move further forward to get max thrust.
I continue to not have any trust in the Indian AHJ. Download of the DRs did not have to be done in India or could have sent one to US or France, don’t care which. No national pride involved, just both countries have extremly experienced and proven labs for that let alone severely damaged DRs.
Bloomberg: New Boeing CFO Barred From Defense, Lockheed Matters for Now
> Boeing Co.’s new chief financial officer, Jesus “Jay” Malave, won’t be allowed to join in discussions initially that involve the company’s second-largest business, one of several unusual clauses in his hiring agreement addressing potential conflicts of interest with a former employer.
> Boeing said it is paying its defense rival $2 million “in connection with a release of claims relating to Mr. Malave’s employment with the company.”
Interesting to see the costs go up dramatically. No volume no discounts I guess
https://jetlinemarvel.net/russian-made-jets-get-pricier-but-the-challenge-to-boeing-and-airbus-grows/
What happens as their seized western jets age and become more maint intensive and costly?
Equally the non proven reliability of Russian substitute systems and parts as well as the low volumes.
Flip flop flip… an 180 degree turn from “information.. coming from Russia” is not trustworthy.
Reuters:
> Regulators warned Air India Express about delay on Airbus engine fix, forging records
> AirAsia strikes deal for up to 70 Airbus A321XLR jets as restructuring nears end
> French President Macron announces ‘historic’ Airbus/Malaysia Airlines deal
And another one bites the dust.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/04/us-china-trade-war-exports-00440019?utm_content=user/politico&utm_source=flipboard
So it goes.
From the link:
“What’s next: An agreement on limitations of export restrictions is likely a key agenda item in ongoing efforts to broker a wider U.S.-China trade agreement. But it’s uncertain whether Beijing will surrender its advantage in rare earths supply, given that the U.S. is years away from developing reliable domestic sources of those critical minerals.”
***
Just a partial truce…until the next upset.
Meanwhile, US importers/consumers continue to pay 55% extra for Chinese goods and services.
Renaissance in US industry?
“Samsung delays $44 billion Texas chip fab — sources say completion halted because ‘there are no customers'”
“”Local demand for chips isn’t particularly strong, and the process nodes Samsung planned several years ago no longer meet with current customer needs,” ”
“President Trump’s announcement of far-reaching tariffs has caused widespread uncertainty, but it has greatly impacted consumer electronics and automobiles — key sectors that order the most chips. The Chinese market is continuously growing despite that, but the ongoing trade war between the East and the West is making it difficult, if not impossible, for Samsung to deliver to customers in the country.”
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/samsung-delays-usd44-billion-texas-chip-fab-sources-say-completion-halted-because-there-are-no-customers
***
Made in USA = higher costs = higher pricing = lower demand.
When “if you build it , they’ll come” meets reality.
US allows GE Aerospace to restart aircraft engine exports to COMAC: Reuters
Reuters said that restrictions had been lifted on the export of LEAP-1C engines and GE CF34 engines, which power the COMAC C919 and C909 respectively.
Do you think the Chinese will breath a sigh of relief and lean back ..
Thrust has been destroyed. No return to a past status quo.
Once bitten, twice shy.
> US ethane export controls to China backfire, hurting American producers more than target
https://www.worldecr.com/news/us-ethane-export-controls-to-china-backfire-hurting-american-producers-more-than-target/
June 25
US allows ethane to be loaded and shipped to China, but not unloaded, letter says
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-us-allows-ethane-loaded-171449496.html
The real competition DJT & his cohort walked away from:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/30/climate/china-clean-energy-power.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/16/opinion/china-solar-climate.html
> But while this is often hailed as a global success, one country has dominated recent progress. When you look at the world outside of China, those eye-popping global curves flatten out considerably — green energy is still moving in the right direction, but much more slowly.
“US allows GE Aerospace to restart aircraft engine exports to COMAC”
Nice illustration of the motivation for companies/countries to decouple ftom the US. The LEAP-1C isn’t a GE product — it’s a CFM product, which is produced in France. CFM is a 50/50 JV between GE and Safran…but did the WH bother consulting with Safran before unilaterally imposing an export ban? Nope.
It has become a liability to have any US content in a product.
On that note:
– Saab is looking to replace the GE F414 engine on the Gripen by a non-US alternative (e.g. from RR).
– MBDA recently purged US content from its Exocet missile.
One can assume that Airbus is looking for non-US alternatives to the parts supplied by Spirit US.
China’s self-developed 3D-printed minimalist lightweight micro turbojet engine successfully completed its maiden flight test
https://x.com/ChinaScience/status/1940636624909427036
Are there any aerospace “oligarchs” in America rushing for low-cost alternatives?
Nicely written summation of Alaska. Hawaiian had a different market than what AK is aspiring to. Delta has had its toe in and out of Seattle but looks to have gone in as a significant operation there.
https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/alaska-airlines-invests-in-long-haul-growth-with-new-17-aircraft-boeing-787-order-boosting-international-routes-from-seattle/
Northwest had a lot of West Coast long haul ops to Asia. That got dropped after the merger with Delta. A lot of sorting has gone on since then. Delta kept Minneapolis so two major hubs and then the sub hubs.
Delta just opened two new lounges in Seattle and announced two new international routes from Seattle.
> Delta’s international share from Seattle-Tacoma, as of the end of 2024, is 25.3% compared to Alaska’s 16.4%. Over the past decade alone, Delta has added 28 new markets in Seattle,
Air Asia up to their usual shenanigans. Order one version, then kick the plane down the runway, order the next version, rinse wash and repeat.
https://archive.ph/M9Utr
As I recall it was the A330NEO, then A350, then back to A330NEO.
Now its A321NEO and oh, no we want XLR.
It has to be Airbus version of Boeing dealing with Ryanair.
Airbus just calls up the ones in line, hey, we have slots open. No we can not comment on it being Air Asia again, you interested?
Didn’t the prize go to Emirates? … at least according to Jon.
Boeing dangled an irresistible price — as much as 70% discount ‐— in front of UA in order to persuade them not to buy the Bombardier A220. Less than twelve months later, buyer’s remorse sank in and UA switched the order away from the uneconomical 118-seat 737-700. A few months later, UA converted an order of 100 737 MAX into the MAX 10.
Emirates switched their order of A350 to A380, and went back to A350 again.
On the subject of Emirates’ A350s: the airline has just taken delivery of its 8th frame.
Nice little mini-fleet for Tim to play with…must be producing lots of interesting comparative data.
Wasn’t he supposed to get a loan of a 777-9 to test out?
Never materialized.
You do not get a loan of a test aircraft. All the 777-9 flying (4 I believe) no one is getting a training set.
Leeham News & Analysis
June 18, 2023
“Exclusive: Boeing, GE to send 777-9 to Emirates next year for route proving runs”
https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/18/exclusive-boeing-ge-to-send-777-9-to-emirates-next-year-for-route-proving-runs/
From Google:
Direct flights from SEA to Tokyo:
Delta 483 kg CO2e
ANA 486 kg
Hawaiian 536 kg
Our “environment-friendly” poster all of a sudden becomes quiet.
FG: French air force sends its last KC-135 tankers into retirement
OTOH the TBTF saga continues…
“South Korea May Cancel Plans to Buy 36 Apache Helicopters”
“The acquisition may be scrapped due to a broader overhaul of the country’s defense budget and reassessments stemming from the use of attack helicopters in the war in Ukraine.
“Funds initially earmarked for the helicopters could be redirected toward higher-priority programs, including unmanned systems and less expensive manned alternatives such as multirole helicopters.”
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/south-korea-may-cancel-plans-to-buy-36-apache-helicopters/
***
Yet another country to re-assess military needs based on lessons learned from the conflicts in Ukraine and the Red Sea.
Germany also previously opted for larger numbers of (cheaper and more versatile) light attack helicopters…as opposed to smaller numbers of (more expensive and specialized) helicopter gunships.
So, the Tiger is not an attack helicopter and that is better because its the same mission?
Phew.
I grew up in the Vietnam war period. Huge number of copters lost and there were no missiles, projectile Ack Ack.
A horribly flawed doctrine. Choppers are very useful, but they don’t belong over a combat zone.
South Koreans are being smart.
The Tiger, Apache or the Italian AW is not going to survive over front lines like Ukraine and nebulous for any theater where your control is not full.
We’re living in the Matrix??
> The Marine Corps needs an Italian-made violin and a century-old violin bow immediately. And it somehow must be manufactured in the USA.
https://bsky.app/profile/thedewline.bsky.social/post/3lsvur7wlkc23
Them thar Marines takes their music seriously!
Italian-made and also “manufactured in the USA”?
“GE has come through pretty clean…”
TW
Haha more fiction than fact.
The truth is out there:
> CFM takes ‘key learnings’ from initial Leap durability issues and readies for roll-out of -1B fix
Vulgo: “GE Media Protection”
The real difference is in public exposure and
in connection with GE supportive hit pieces on the competition.
They all have issues.
From the article:
> Earlier in the year, Safran Aircraft Engines was aiming to build Leap-1Cs at a rate of two per week on a static line at Villaroche.
Two per week?
Corresponds to 52 aircraft per year.
Interesting to hear that same figure from a different angle…
Last look I had was that COMAC would do maybe 40 x C919 this year.
Is it remotely possible that Safran is doing its run of Leap-C to build at a profitable rate?
Run off 40 and then store them.
Doing some off the cuff calcs, if Airbus is at rate 60 aka A320 series, that is 30 a week. So yea, I would build in batches.
Abalone,
Many insist it’s not going to happen. 😂
==============
No TW. Check your numbers, not 40 this year. They know better.
@Pedro:
Youse buys your aircraft and youse takes your chances
https://www.airdatanews.com/comac-fails-to-increase-c919-deliveries-in-2025/
What was that about stockpiling engines and other gear?
Haven’t you heard of GIGO? Check your source(s) -— some are no better than hearsay even worse than your hated “Russian sources”. Lol.
TW
BTW there’s no mention of “40” C919? Where do you get that idea?
“if Airbus is at rate 60 aka A320 series, that is 30 a week”
Haha srsly?? The A320 has two engine suppliers.
Its how bad the issues are.
GE had what any engineer would call proving/teething issues with the GenX. The shaft coating was a huge mistake but quickly corrected as not inherent to the design, a shift to production system.
The LEAP has been in between, P&W has been half again worse. One of CFM issues is having to split Airbus deliveries with AOG per airliner.
Both CFM and PW have done a significant upgrade on their engines, call it PIP1.
RR did far worse on the Trent 1000, corroded blades then the cracking blades that still has impact on Trent 1000 ops (yes they are on the far end of it and mostly in the rear view mirror).
What made the engine issues as bad as they were on the Max and Neo was the production shock. These were not gentle increases in volume at EIS. So by the time fixes are introduced, hundreds and then thousands of engines are already out there.
These are two engines that would have dearly benefited from more development time and more gradual rate of production. I will also state that severe operators have no business being either EIS or close to it for new engines…at least wait 5 years.
@Casey:
Interesting point, first pass it has a lot of validity, maybe most if not all.
That said, they did know the ramp up and the nutty numbers of single aisles being produced then by both Airbus and Boeing.
As Bjorn has said, one answer is requiring more testing. It seems to have paid off on the smaller XWB motors and GE90 has had the chance to improve though not what anyone wanted.
More testing and a major delay into shifting over to the NEO or MAX. Upset A&B and the airlines wanting that (or thinking they did)
As for severe duty, that is at least in large engine immediate future and I think that with as long as they have been dealing with ME etc, they would understand what is going to get affected.
An oddity that is not well known, the only thing allowed to be put on a US ramp is Mason Sand, super fine stuff that has no real traction as its so smooth it just marbles along or off.
I have read the reports of the testers not using the right mix of real world dirt/sand.
Asking Boeing or Airbus to slow production to allow more development is like telling a child not to eat too much candy. Just like putting a cosmic importance on weight to the total exclusion of everything else to consider for aircraft performance. Maybe that pound of design margin was worth it.
There are two ways that engines fail at EIS…hot section distress and truly random items. Some fixes are more difficult than others. A lot of bad design decisions are made in order to reduce manufacturing cost as much as possible…you get what you pay for and it cost dearly. It can take multiple attempts to find a hot section configuration that works. Placing EIS aircraft in severe settings makes a difficult problem infinitely worse.
At least with long-haul aircraft, you can bank on usually 50% of your takeoffs usually not being in a severe enviroment. Without naming airlines, Max and Neo aircraft often fly from bad to worse.
@Casey
What do you mean? Elaborate a bit more, if possible.
“… often fly from bad to worse.”
@Pedro
Emirates as an example on widebody will take off from ME but fly 10+ hours to a location in the world that will be more benign. 50% of takeoffs are severe.
Narrow body from Qatar may fly a couple hours to either Egypt or India. 100% of takeoffs severe.
Thanks.
I wonder how it pans out.
From the AW article I mentioned below:
> “We operate the engine with 33,000 lb. thrust at the moment—which is the highest it could be. If you derate them to 30,000 lb. thrust, this extends the on-wing time of the engine,” Hamilton-Manns says. “We do believe this gives us 20% more cycles, 20% more time on the wing.” […]
“Subsequently, we learned more about the performance of the aircraft. We also learned to fly it with 70%-75% load factor. The aircraft is not full anyway, and it is not in full configuration. It is not a heavy-duty aircraft, it can be sustained at lower thrust,” he says.
@Pedro
That is another really good point on why the EIS for neo and Max has been difficult…the market shifted especially on neo. Half of sales are for A321 whereas ceo especially in the 90s sold a lot of A319 content. In light of the actual thrust usage, the design point on these engines should have probably been more in the 35-36K thrust rating. You really do not want to operate machinery at its ultimate design point .
I wonder if CFM has derated the LEAP-1A:
On LEAP’s wiki page, the max thrust for the A321neo is 32,160 lbf; on the wiki page of the A320neo family, the max thrust is 33,110 lbf.
@Pedro
You can always derate from any thrust rating. The FADEC will basically unlock “the ability” to fly whatever thrust rating.
The pilot will derate from that stated thrust level.
Another element that is sometimes lost is climb rating. Depending on the installation there is also a “gentle climb” and “max climb.” If you want to extract maximum TOW…you go with the highest absolute derate and the lowest rated climb setting.
Anyone who is serious can see how badly P&W fumbled: for some months, almost half of Indigo’s A320 GTF fleet were grounded.
Apparently you’ve a blind spot as large as the GTF engine. 🙂
Who said they did not? Quit making stuff up.
They had multiple failures in the product and CFM has its issues as well (not delivered engines to Airbus is one right now, talk to Safran – they are responsible for the LEAP-B and C).
The only reason the 787 was not grounded because of engines was that people for the most part were smart and bought GE. Trent 1000 operators suffered hugely.
That is why ANA, NZ and BASE jumped ship.
AW: SalamAir CEO Bemoans Leap’s On-Wing Time
> “I talk to all the [airline] CEOs in the region, they are all suffering the same issue: The off-wing time which is required regarding engine maintenance,” Hamilton-Manns tells Aviation Week.
BA reports Q2 earnings later this month.
Analyst consensus continues to worsen — currently expecting an EPS *loss* of $0.94 per share 🙈
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/analysis/
Keeping in mind the AI 171 Crash, it is deeply tragic for those who lost their lives and the circle of people around them who live with that loss forever.
Boeing did deliver 60 aircraft, 42 MAX. Yea that is above the 38, out of stock as there were 8 to China. I keep thinking Airbus will start to get ahead.
No where near out of the woods and there is still the AI findings ahead. If its a 787 system issue, so much good work has been undone.
8 x 787 last month. 3 KC-46A and a couple of 767 F. 4 x 777F.
https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/boeing-june-2025-orders-deliveries
Over a 100 orders. Speculation on my part it would have Paris Airshow orders.
…and all of those deliveries had a negative margin…just like during the past 5 years.
So, by your definition to stop losses Boeing quits making aircraft. Might make you happy but others not so much.
And then all those programs will never recover any money. Boeing goes bankrupt.
The degree of absurdity illogic is amazing.
@Abalone
Boeing made some really bad deals that would have been difficult to make much money on a long time ago. That Max7 order that someone brought up earlier to UA was sold at rates that were never going to make money.
But Boeing is delivering aircraft…that at least means they are no longer digging the ditch even deeper.
The other half of the story is when they actually certify something. Still waiting on that one.
The more you mfg the more you spread costs out. That is basic accounting that even I get.
So flip that, say Boeing sold a -7 for 20 million. Ok, no -7, they then pay South West back all the money and owe them an aircraft.
So, delivering aircraft is how Boeing gets out of the hole. Now you want to kill off Boeing, then yes, cease production.
But Boeing delivering more aircraft is not analogous to why they are loosing money.
I don’t know Boeing will ever deliver enough MAX to make up for their screw ups, be it low ball pricing or the MAX MCAS 1.0 tragedy.
Maybe they only reduce it. Right now keeping above water is not a bad thing.
So yes they need to keep improving and ramp up to 50 MAX a month and X 777-X as well as
Getting 787 and MAX off the lots is a good thing as well.
How that plays out we have to see.
Any chance Boeing is going to make a profit in second quarter? Who wants to make a bet?
Also why SQ canceled their 737 MAX order?
TW, didn’t AB deliver more NB?
Pretty funny. Airbus is supposed to be at rate 60 or some such.
They have been delivering a lo9t more NB than Boeing for quite some time.
So maybe aircraft mfg is not so easy eh?
No one is saying Boeing is going to have a profitable quarter anytime soon. But you ain’t going to get profits if you don’t build aircraft are you?
Care go guess what NG losses are on the B-21? And that is not a fixed price contract.
None of it is easy.
This is funny! Airbus is making a profit and earning cash, OTOH its competitor is not. Can you explain how great its competitor is doing and why their “fans” are celebrating?
Go guess what BA will lose on their fixed-price contracts? Thanks to sabotage from the top.
.
@ Casey
It’s not just old BA deals that are loss-making: many of the deals struck since 2019 are also probably in that category.
With an average discount of 63.5%, how can the company expect to cover costs?
The UK ordered more F-35, OTOH their Typhoon production line is going to be out of work and closed forever.
No wonder there’s a saying: “it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
And when did you come up with that?
More simplistic emissions when its a complex subject.
UK for better or worse wants to be back in the Nuke bomb delivery line. F-35 is the only access they have to and for that.
Typhoons are a problem with builds and when, so they have a gap because they did not order aircraft to fill it. Sometimes you have to bite a bullet and order when you don’t need them for times you do.
We have a C-17 gap as well. Contracts were filled, you then pay to keep the line hot or you build and buy low rates. Sell or retire the oldest most worn out ones.
Portugal needed to update their C-130 fleet, they looked at the options and the C-390 fit the bill better. People make decisions like that all the time.
South Korea decided they wanted cargo and pax capability vs a tanker so they went with the A330-MRT. All their ops are local and short range, they don’t need the A330MRT. But they have aspirations that include its capability so they bought it.
What’s the priority? How beneficial are the 12 F-35? American has hundreds.
You pay a high price once you disrupt your industrial base — witness 2020 to present.
“We have a C-17 gap as well. Contracts were filled, you then pay to keep the line hot or you build and buy low rates. Sell or retire the oldest most worn out ones.”
There is no “restart” of the C17 production, all the production equipment has been scrapped and facility/land sold off You should have clean sheet aircraft to replace the 1980 vintage C17 aircraft Most likely it would be built (FAL and wings) in the Southeast and not California
The F35A is not the UK’s only option to getting back to the tactical nuclear role. They could
1. order more Typhoons (T5 iteration) and equip them with the ASMP-A stand-off missile (French weapon) with a UK warhead,
2. use the same missile on an updated version of their existing (T2 and T3 models), or
3. If the USA is willing to be a good ally, provide the UK with the pylons and associated modification kits and software that would allow the Typhoon (existing T2 and T3 in the inventory, or new order of T5s’) to drop the American freefall B61 nuclear weapon.
I think the F35A order, like the German order, is simply trying to keep MAGA America sweet. The UK I believe knows that the current F35 is really a dead end but until they get to modifying their carriers to CATOBAR in the late 2030s they are stuck with the F35B (a truly dead end airframe since I don’t believe the US marines are going to continue with it for too long). The upcoming Lockheed 5.5 gen upgrade of the F35 (dumb Trump called it the F55) will focus on the A and C models with the modification, like the Hornet to Super Hornet, being an enlarged airframe with a larger modified wing (probably based on the C model wing) without the compromises that need to be made to accommodate the B variant lift fan and engine nozzle assemblies.
With these assumptions I think the UK buy of 12 is really a token and also to keep the illusion of their commitment to the F35 program (note that BAE system as the only Tier 1 partner on the F35 program has a fairly large stake in the program and therefore the UK industry needs to keep the MAGA USA sweet so they can keep collecting what ever their sizeable share of each F35 sale (majority to the USA military) is.
I do not understand the Nuke delivery requirements.
All I know is it has to be a proven type. I assume that means lots of testing.
It does not seem a stretch that the Typhoon could do it. France has their own Nuke setup as you noted.
Germany went with the F-35 for that reason as well.
US may have specs and won’t release the bombs to a non approved type.
All I know is its the stated reason for the UK to buy F-35A. If the UK or Germany wanted to use French nuke setup, seems no reason they could not as well.
@TW
Don’t understand by what you mean by “proven and unapproved type.” The last German aircraft to carry the USA nuclear weapon was the Panavia Tornado, approved during the Reagan presidency (took over from the F4 Phantom), a non-USA aircraft. The UK at that time had it’s own freefall nuclear weapon (WE177??), also carried on the Tornado fighter, which they have now discontinued thus they now wanting to use the USA B61 bomb (keeps their cost down and still lets them fulfill their NATO deterrent obligations).
However, I believe that the MAGA regime and the USA MIC is being difficult and predatory and thus forcing the allies to purchase the F35A which to date has locked out all non USA weapon systems (with the exception of Israel which has been given the source codes and right to make modifications to source code and airframe as they see fit, using off course USA taxpayer funds).
Also the UK and Germany, especially the UK, don’t need to use the French nuclear setup, they can simply buy the missile and modify them them accept a UK or USA made warhead, at additional cost off course. The whole point of working with the USA to deliver the B61 is simply to keep costs down but with the forced acquisition of F35A there will be no savings and therefore the UK and Germany are simply going ahead with these limited buys to keep the USA “sweet”.
Looks like Airbus has dropped off A320 types dramatically at rate 43 for June!.
“In June, it delivered 12 A220-300s, the highest number for the type, 20 A320neos, 23 A321neos, one A330-200, two A330-900s, and five A350-900s.”
This is getting chilling.
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigation-fuel-control-switches/
While its one of two possibility overall for sudden no thrust, its a low 0n the list simply because there would be no reason for pilots to touch those nor should they be able to activate with the stop locks working.
The obvious trigger is pilots but they would have zero reason to do it.
The other possibility is a throttle roll back, that would have to be a system issue. Seems more likely.
One item of clarification needed is, does it take power to shut off the fuel or are those valves fail safe in that they go to open position if power is gone?
Lack of Maint alarms or alerts says it was not an engine failure followed by a 2nd. A system command to roll throttles back would not put out an alert.
“Thai Airways International could exercise an existing option to buy more planes from U.S. planemaker Boeing as part of Thailand’s tariff negotiations with the United States, CEO Chai Eamsiri told a Reuters NEXT Asia summit on Wednesday.”
Good for Boeing, so don’t complain about geopolitics when it goes the other way for Airbus (e.g. China)
Didn’t Donnie pre-announce Thai’s tariff @36%? How much is Donnie willing to cut?
Furthermore, haven’t they learned their lesson?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GvX9DKbXUAAAWFI?format=jpg&name=medium
“How Trade Pressure on Small Nations Will Benefit Boeing”
https://airwaysmag.com/new-post/trade-pressure-small-nations-benefit-boeing
AW:
> Airbus More Than Doubles A220 Output In June
I saw that but as its selective facts why would I mention it?
Airbus of course has something around rate 60 for the A320 and its engines (CFM it appears) that is a holdup now.
Boeing is not at rate 48 either, right at 38.
So it goes.
COMMAC is really in arrears. No idea if they can up rate or they are having issues.
Even AW mentions the A320 is held back by a shortage of LEAP-1A engines.
Facts are facts.
“Airbus A220 production ramp-up approaches monthly target”
“Airbus appears within striking distance of its goal to produce 14 A220 airliners a month by 2026, in a long-awaited ramp-up for the Montreal-based program.
“The company reported 12 total A220 deliveries in June, up from five in the previous month.
“All of June’s deliveries were A220-300s, the larger variant of an aircraft family that began its life as Bombardier’s C Series. ”
https://skiesmag.com/news/airbus-a220-production-ramp-up-approaches-monthly-target/
Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the A220 deliveries. How many came from inventory, awaiting engines or other supply chain stuff, and how many came from new production?
Well, a large step-change in production in a single month is virtually impossible, so there must have been some deliveries from inventory.
Still, the fact that there is inventory at all shows that recent production has been higher than delivery figures indicated (as for other programs also).
Who is going to bring manufacturing back??
> U.S. President Donald Trump said he planned to implement a 50% tariff on copper (a.k.a another massive tax on the American economy)
CNBC: “Copper now costs way more in the U.S. than elsewhere. This could hit its economy hard”
“The U.S. copper price premium over the global benchmark soared 138% on Tuesday to a record high after U.S. officials announced potential 50% import tariffs on the metal.”
“The huge discrepancy in U.S. prices compared to those elsewhere is expected to have a major economic impact, analysts told CNBC.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/09/us-copper-price-premium-economic-consequences.html
“IndiGo expansion plans: Airline may confirm order for 40 more A350 planes”
http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/122335912.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
***
Exercising those options would bring the Indigo A350 total to 100 frames.
What an amazing world we live in — an Indian LCC can just order 100 widebodies without a blink.
> Over 2,000 senior staff set to leave NASA under agency push
Is Parker going to stay?
AW: Boeing could be out of the running for South Korea’s program to buy new airborne early warning (#AEW) aircraft
> An industry source told Aviation Week that Boeing’s E-7A pricing has recently increased, and the company had been unable to adjust its offer to align with the South Korean government’s budget.
> The E-7 program currently has a backlog of just three aircraft, all destined for the UK Royal Air Force.
South Korea has 4 in service, it seems a stretch they would not work out order for more be it two or three.
NATO consortium is negotiating for 6.
UK may take a couple more.
And keep in mind, congress may well intervene and insist on the US order going through.
While SAAB seems to have a good setup, its going to be more limited than an E-7 due to its size.
Stay tuned!
The E-7 is a product that’s past its best-before date. Time to buy more… so the gravy continues to flow. 😂
BTW
> Over the last five years, the Pentagon has provided over $770 billion in revenue to just five companies:
[Chart]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GvdRBNZX0AAwRbF?format=png
I see one that stands out against the rest because it fails to make a dime from a captive customer.
Interesting:
I don’t know I have seen something like this occur before. Not a blow to the A350F as such, but a major course change. Air Lease had to have a customer who wanted those and has now cancelled.
https://www.airdatanews.com/a350f-launch-customer-alc-cancels-order-for-seven-freighters/
It will sell to others decently, the shift by Air Lease is a bit boggling.
I forget who but someone lease wise had 5 A80F on order and those got dropped when UPS and FedEx gave up on it.
“US President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened Brazil with a crippling tariff of 50% starting August 1, according to a letter he sent to the country’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.”
“This brings the total SkyWest backlog to 74 aircraft, for a total backlog of 220 E1 jets for the variant; 211 of those aircraft are for American carriers.”
what happens to Embraer E1 jet backlog with a 50% US tariff?
Time for the Chinese to enjoy more coffee and OJ. 😅
and Brazilian crude petroleum
GE will soon have extra capacity for CF-34 engines. 😅
Time for the BRIC free-trade zone.
let’s not us confuse trade facts with Donnie trade myths
“For years, the United States has generally maintained a trade surplus with Brazil. The two countries had about $92 billion in trade together last year, with the United States enjoying a $7.4 billion surplus in the relationship.”
In a stump speech:
> [Japan Prime Minister] Ishiba on Trump: “This is a battle for our national interest. Don’t you dare take us lightly! Even if it’s an ally, we must speak up openly and with integrity when something needs to be said.”
Cracks are appearing.
> Delta CEO Ed Bastian tells CNBC:
-Travel demand is slowing among price-sensitive consumers booking economy
-US airlines will cut domestic flights “significantly” from mid-August onward
-Europe demand has softened too, mostly in economy & moreso among Europeans scrapping US trips
> -Premium seat revenue continues trending upward
> Canadians are committed to ditching US travel, taking the fewest number of car trips there in the year’s first half since at least 2017, excluding the pandemic.
US Sees 33% Drop in Car Trips by Canadians as Summer Travel Starts
https://x.com/rtkwrites/status/1943363948469744098
“President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the United States would apply a 35% tariff to all imports from Canada beginning next month, reviving tensions with a major trade partner that had largely dissipated in recent weeks.”
Does Airbus still ship sub assemblies from Canada to Mobile for FAL, or just FALs A220 out of Mirabel?
“Delta’s creative tariff dodge: leave the fancy new jet, bring home the guts
With grounded planes needing engines, Delta is shipping them from Europe without paying import taxes.”
“Bloomberg reports that the company has a new practice of removing some U.S.-made Pratt & Whitney engines from new A321neo jets that were constructed in Europe and sending them to the U.S. in order to avoid import tariffs. Delta is then using the engines on some of its older A320neo jets that aren’t currently flying due to engine problems.”