199 Comments on “Bjorn’s Corner: Faster aircraft development. Part 5. Market research.”

1. Very nice example of the weakness (or, actually, worthlessness) of AI in situations where real, hard analysis is required.
   Note that the tendered answer — a non-descript summary of generic factors that influence the market — didn’t in any way address the actual question that was asked.

   Question for the authors:
   To what extent do market researchers take pricing into account?
   For example, I posted a SCMP article yesterday (see below) in which a Malaysian official said that the C919 was being offered at pricing that was much lower than that of the A320/B737. Such pricing may tease out demand that might otherwise have remained subdued.

   https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3320247/malaysian-airlines-interested-chinas-c919-jet-countrys-transport-minister-says

   Reply

   • Abalone, this is a good question. Yes, an aircraft OEM needs to take pricing considerations into account, as these directly affect the business case for the program. A company might also want to see sensitivity analyses around price and quantity. A sensitivity analysis examines how changes in price or quantity impact the overall profitability of the program, helping decision-makers assess potential risks and opportunities. This is crucial for understanding how varying market conditions might influence financial outcomes for the entire program, rather than just individual sales campaigns.

     A sales campaign could have its own objectives and the company may adjust its offering — usually within agreed boundaries — to try to achieve those goals. Just as a car dealer might offer discounts or extras to close a sale, an aircraft OEM may adjust contract terms or offer incentives within set boundaries to meet specific campaign objectives.

     Reply

2. I wonder if your ChatGPT results have anything to do with its knowledge cutoff date being in late 2023? The model would have no knowledge of newer events, unless it had web browsing capabilities.

   Reply

   • Good question. I doubt the cutoff date would have a significant to the output. Many commercial aircraft OEMs and organizations like JADC publish their 20-year forecast annually.

     Reply

3. In order to use AI effectively to collate aircraft model feasibility data, you would need to train your own model.

   For example Leeham could choose one of the open source AI models and then train it using the sources that Bjorn outlined. As well as Leeham collected historical data.

   The initial training would be more work than just doing the same research yourself. However if Leeham has a market to offer that analysis to multiple customers, or on a frequent basis, then the properly trained model would save time in the long run.

   Something like the pre-trained public ChatAI’s would be pretty useless, as Bjorn noted. They are far too polluted with the bad data and reasoning published online.

   But if you were careful in the training, and incorporated Leeham’s extensive experience and judgement in selecting good sources, you could get a workable solution.

   The thing that would really boost effectiveness would to offer customer specific models that utilize their own proprietary data, but then would be exclusive to that customer.

   Or if there was a way to sufficiently anonymize the data, to create a comprehensive industry model. I would think that would have some value to every customer, knowing they are benefiting from a broad spectrum of research, including some from competitors, if it wasn’t identifiable or too specific.

   Interesting to think about, anyway. AI can be useful but often not in the manner it’s currently developed and utilized.

   Reply

4. Rob’s comment are spot on.
   Chat GPT is a jack of all trades, master of none. But a properly trained model will do wonders. It is just work, not science fiction.

   Reply

   • Sure…”just work”

     Pete: “I spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars training my dog to collect the newspaper from the doormat. Slight drawback: if I change to another newspaper and/or doormat, the dog doesn’t know what to do.
     Also, sometimes the dog chews the newspaper, rendering it partially illegible. To make matters worse, the ingested ink upsets his stomach, and he then pukes on the carpet”.

     Joe: “Maybe you should just walk to the doormat yourself…and spend the time and money you save doing something useful?”

     Reply

     • +1

       Reply

5. The right AI prompt determines the result, GIGO.

   Instead of asking
   “What is the market for a new generation airliner to replace A321 and 737 MAX?” ,

   I asked my (100% free) CHATGTP the following question:
   “What materials and engine research and development will be set the pace for Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 series replacement in the next decade? Summarize 6 major technology drivers.”

   Reply

   • Results after 1 minute 12 seconds:

     Here’s a tight, forward-looking summary of the six R&D areas most likely to pace a 737/A320 replacement in the 2030s—focusing on materials and engines:

     1. Open-fan (propfan) architectures
     CFM’s RISE open-fan—being flight-tested with Airbus—targets >20% lower fuel burn vs. today’s best turbofans, making propulsive efficiency the single biggest step-change candidate for a next-gen single-aisle in the mid-2030s. Noise/installation integration is the core engineering hurdle.
     – Airbus
     – ge.com

     2. Geared-fan evolution + combustor/fuel-system upgrades (incl. 100% SAF)
     Pratt & Whitney’s GTF roadmap (e.g., GTF Advantage, durability “Hot Section Plus”) pushes higher efficiency, thrust, and time-on-wing while being readied for 100% SAF—key to near-term CO₂ cuts without airframe redesign. Expect incremental SFC gains and lower life-cycle cost.
     – rtx.com +1
     – mtu.de
     – prattwhitney.com
     – Airbus

     3. High-temperature ceramic-matrix composites (CMCs) in hot sections
     Expanding CMC use (already in LEAP shrouds) enables higher turbine temperatures with big weight savings, directly improving core efficiency and cutting cooling air penalties—vital whether the engine is geared, direct-drive, or open-fan.
     – geaerospace.com
     – The American Ceramic Society

     4. High-rate composite wings & structures (laminar, longer-span, fold-tips)
     Airbus’s Wing-of-Tomorrow and related demonstrators combine advanced aerodynamics (longer, thinner wings—potentially with folding tips) with new build methods, aiming for double-digit drag/weight reductions and production at 60–100 a/c per month. Technologies include dry-fiber infusion and more automation.
     – Airbus +1
     – nccuk.com
     – Reuters

     5. Thermoplastic composites & out-of-autoclave (OOA) resin infusion
     Moving from autoclave prepregs to CFR-thermoplastics and OOA/RTM infusion cuts part count and cycle time, enables welding (fast assembly/repair), improves recycling, and supports the production rates a single-aisle successor will need. Expect >10% structural weight opportunity in select sections.
     – Airbus
     – CompositesWorld
     – JEC

     6. Additive manufacturing (AM) for hot-section and complex parts
     The LEAP’s 3D-printed fuel nozzles proved AM’s durability, weight, and part-count wins; the next decade brings broader AM use for optimized cooling, housings, mounts, and air-system components—shrinking weight, improving thermal performance, and shortening supply chains.
     – geaerospace.com +1

     Why these six matter together
     + Propulsive efficiency (1) + core/thermal efficiency (2/3) deliver most of the fuel burn cut.
     + Airframe aero & mass (4/5) compound the engine gains while enabling industrial scale-up.
     + Manufacturing innovation (6) underpins both engine and airframe cost/schedule.

     Put simply: an open-fan or advanced geared-fan core built with more CMCs and AM parts, hung on an ultra-efficient composite wing produced with thermoplastics/OOA at automotive-like rates—that’s the recipe most likely to define the Boeing 737/A320 successors.

     I didn’t ask to deliver the results in an illustrated business like powerpoint / Canva presentation..

     Reply

     • And where does your AI-generated reply specify the *size* of the expected market demand for a particular aircraft?
       It doesn’t — and, yet, that’s what we want to find out.

       In effect, your AI-generated reply is just as non-committal as the reply quoted in the article above.

       Reply

       • I asked (but you can too):
         “You are an aviation analyst for https://leehamnews.com/. Taking all market, political, technical, commercial, political and environmental forces into account, what is a good estimation of the number of Narrow body aircraft to be delivered in the 2030-2040 timeframe. Use outlooks from aircraft OEMS and other credible industry sources. Split out the estimates in useful categories.”

         Reply

         • Results (in 36 seconds):

           Here’s the translation into professional English, written in a style that would fit Leeham News:

           Narrowbody Deliveries 2030–2040: Central Estimate and Scenarios

           Summary: Based on the most recent 20-year forecasts from Airbus, Boeing, and independent industry sources (Cirium, Oliver Wyman, IATA), the global market will require around 18,600 new narrowbody aircraft deliveries between 2030 and 2040. This is our central scenario, framed within a reasonable range of 16,500–20,500 units depending on supply chain, geopolitical, and traffic growth factors.

           Key Sources and Methodology
           – Airbus GMF 2025–2044: ~34,250 single-aisle aircraft deliveries in 20 years.
           – Boeing CMO 2025–2044: ~33,285 single-aisle deliveries in 20 years.
           – Cirium / Ascend Fleet Forecast & Oliver Wyman / IATA analyses provide independent cross-checks on fleet growth, replacement cycles, and traffic CAGR.

           The central number is derived by averaging Airbus and Boeing’s 20-year outlooks (~1,700 aircraft per year), scaled to the 11-year window of 2030–2040. Independent data supports this as a credible baseline.

           Central Projection
           ≈18,600 narrowbody deliveries (2030–2040)

           Airbus ratio: ~18,800
           Boeing ratio: ~18,300
           Central midpoint: 18,600

           Scenario Bandwidth

           Low case (supply chain/geopolitical headwinds): ~16,500
           Central case (OEM consensus, moderate growth): ~18,600
           High case (accelerated Asia/India demand, faster production ramps, COMAC share): ~20,500

           Useful Breakdowns
           Replacement vs. Growth

           Replacement demand: ≈8,200 aircraft (~44%)

           Fleet growth: ≈10,400 aircraft (~56%)
           This reflects a dual trend: modernization of aging fleets and strong traffic growth in Asia, India, and other emerging regions.

           OEM / Platform Split
           Airbus and Boeing together will supply >95% of global deliveries.

           – Expected split: 50/50 to 55/45, depending on production ramp-ups and market dynamics.
           – COMAC and other entrants may capture share in China but remain limited globally through 2040.

           Regional Distribution (indicative)
           – Asia & China: 35–40% → 6,500–7,400 aircraft
           – North America: 18–22% → 3,300–4,100
           – Europe & CIS: 10–12% → 1,900–2,200
           – Middle East & Africa: ~10% → ~1,900
           – Latin America: 6–8% → 1,100–1,500

           Asia remains the growth engine, while Europe and North America lean more heavily on replacement cycles.

           Leasing vs. Airline Direct Purchases
           Lessors are projected to take 30–40% of deliveries, with their share rising during periods of rapid traffic recovery.

           Why This Projection Is Credible
           Both Airbus and Boeing forecasts are aligned on narrowbody demand in the 33,000–34,000 range over 20 years.

           Independent sources (Cirium, Oliver Wyman) confirm robust single-aisle growth driven by emerging markets and sustained replacement demand in mature markets.

           The main uncertainties are supply chain resilience, certification timelines, and geopolitical tensions (notably U.S.–China).

           Implications for Industry Stakeholders

           OEMs: Deliveries hinge on ramp-up capability. Airbus and Boeing must stabilize supply chains and industrialize efficiently.

           Suppliers: Narrowbody demand at >1,700 aircraft per year globally will strain tier-1 and tier-2 suppliers; investment in automation and resilience is critical.

           Airlines: The replacement cycle is accelerating as sustainability pressures and SAF-readiness favor new-technology aircraft.

           Lessors: Their role as financing intermediaries remains central, especially in emerging markets with weaker balance sheets.

           Conclusion

           Between 2030 and 2040, the industry should expect about 18,600 new narrowbody aircraft deliveries, with a realistic range of 16,500–20,500. Replacement and growth will both be significant drivers, with Asia and India providing the strongest uplift. Airbus and Boeing remain dominant, though regional entrants may begin to shift market dynamics post-2035.

           For Leeham readers, the key question is not the scale of narrowbody demand—it is already well established—but rather how OEMs and suppliers will navigate production, geopolitical, and sustainability challenges in meeting it.

           👉 Kees, would you like me to reframe this into a Leeham-style article draft (with headline, subheads, and embedded charts/graphs placeholders) so you can publish or adapt it directly?

         • @ keesje
           So, in essence, it just paraphrased info that it found on Cirium and Oliver Wyman — info that you could have found much more reliably yourself using a web search.

           Interestingly, it asserts the following with great authority…but whereupon is its “confidence” based?

           “COMAC and other entrants may capture share in China but remain limited globally through 2040.”

         • @Abalone

           Automated info reinforcement machine!

         • That is what current AI implementations do.
           they are avid readers and can spout the gist of it.

           there is no “creative” AI around at the moment.

6. Keesje is right about GIGO. It applies to AI as much as anything else.

   The real value as noted earlier would be to incorporate proprietary data, and then also thoroughly verify the results to make sure that garbage hasn’t crept in.

   In my experience, that is the flaw in ChatAI’s, they may get many things right but then pop up something that is not only completely wrong, but inconsistent or in contradiction with their other results. A reasoning human would spot that, or at least question it. But an AI doesn’t reason.

   Hence the value of training the model yourself, you can be certain it has learned consistent information. Or if the training data is inconsistent, you can flag that so the AI recognizes the pattern.

   In schools where I do some consulting, this is the approach we take in teaching AI. Rather than just having students use a ChatAI, we set up the models so they can learn how they are trained and what the vulnerabilities are, and how to measure them. The students only work with simple models, but they at least gain some understanding of how they work.

   It’s really bad to just teach people to blindly trust an AI. But that is what all the providers want you to believe. Better to be informed and educated about how the sausage is made.

   Reply

   • Good Presentation and logic backing it up

     Reply

7. I’ve long been fascinated by the lack of initiative to develop a new generation of highly efficient, quiet 40-seat regional passenger aircraft. The current fleet is aging and based on outdated, overspecified designs. Such as ATR42.

   I asked Gemini the following:

   “Assist me in specifying and designing a new 40-seat turboprop aircraft. With a full payload of 4.4 tonnes and reserves, the target range is 800 km. The aircraft should be powered by two or three efficient, possibly hybrid, turboprop engines. The configuration must be optimized for operations in densely populated areas, which makes low noise levels a priority. Please estimate the optimal cruising speed and flight level for such operations. Also, provide an estimate of the potential global market for such an aircraft. Finally, create a comparison table for both two- and three-engine layouts, with conventional and hybrid powerplants. Include OEW, MTOW, maximum cruising speed, and range.”

   I won’t share Gemini’s response here, but you can easily plug the same request into your own AI tools to explore the results.

   Reply

   • Thanks, Keesje,

     I put your exact question into ChatGPT Pro. Here is the answer, which is totally unusable (we have modeled this class of airliners in several jobs).

     The answer has the wrong speeds (too high), wrong engine class (far too weak for even lower speeds and these MTOWs), too high empty weights, and totally underestimates the complexity and weight of a hybrid, etc. As said, unusable.

     “Let’s analyze and design your new 40-seat turboprop aircraft with the specified parameters:

     Key Specifications:
     Seats: 40
     Full Payload: 4.4 tonnes
     Range: 800 km
     Number of engines: 2 or 3, possibly hybrid
     Operational focus: Densely populated areas, low noise
     Performance considerations: Optimized cruise speed and flight level
     Estimated Optimal Cruise Speed and Flight Level:
     Cruising Speed: 300-350 knots (approximately 555-648 km/h)
     This range balances fuel efficiency, noise reduction, and operational speed for regional flights.
     Cruising Altitude: 15,000 – 20,000 feet
     Such altitudes help reduce noise impact at ground level and improve fuel efficiency.
     Powerplant Options:
     Conventional turboprops: Pratt & Whitney PT6, Honeywell TPE331
     Hybrid options: Turboprop engines combined with electric propulsors or in hybrid configurations, possibly with battery storage or auxiliary power units to reduce noise and emissions.
     Market Potential Estimate:
     Using global regional turboprop and small jet markets:

     Market size: Estimated at around 800–1,200 units over the next decade
     Key regions: North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific
     Growth drivers: Urban air mobility, environmental regulations, regional connectivity
     Comparison Table for Configurations:
     Specification 2-Engine Conventional 2-Engine Hybrid 3-Engine Conventional 3-Engine Hybrid
     OEW (Estimate in tonnes) 13.5 14.0 14.0 14.5
     MTOW (Estimate in tonnes) 18.0 18.5 18.5 19.0
     Max Cruising Speed 330 knots 320 knots 340 knots 330 knots
     Range 800 km 800 km 800 km 800 km
     Notes:
     Hybrid variants may have slightly higher OEW due to additional batteries or electrical systems.
     Three-engine configurations provide redundancy and could facilitate more hybrid options but may add weight and complexity.
     Would you like detailed design sketches, specific engine models, or further analysis on noise reduction techniques? “

     Reply

     • Thanks Bjorn. Yes, this is the problem I noted above. The AI is reciting what it has learned, but there is no curation of the materials used at large from the Internet for training. And no conceptual understanding of what is being recited, or where it might be false or contradictory.

       The underlying theory of the public ChatAI’s is similar to that of the “wisdom of crowds”, that if you average enough data, the result will be the truth. But that relies on statistical parity of error, that errors will be evenly weighted and distributed on both sides of the mean.

       That might be valid in a controlled experiment with vetted methodology. But the internet is completely uncontrolled, and the methodology as reflected by the level of subject matter education, is all over the spectrum.

       In a recent South Park episode, Sharon tests a ChatAI by asking it about a business to turn french fries into salad. Although this is meant as parody, the reality is that the same kind of data mining error can be present in any response from a ChatAI.

       The reality this reveals is that public ChatAI’s also follow an algorithm to boost engagement. So they are tuned to affirm the question put to them, as much as possible.

       Reply

     • For reference, does anyone have (easy) access to the Chinese DeepSeek-R1 bot?
       It would be interesting to see what answer it generates.
       I expect roughly similar fudge as output — but at least DeepSeek-R1 only cost $6M to develop, as opposed to hundreds of billions of dollars for US models.

       On a somewhat related note: the Chinese have determined that the primary utility of AI will be in providing (non-complex) helpdesk assistance. Other uses will be relatively marginal.
       Says enough.
       At least they didn’t waste more than a trillion dollars to find that out.

       Reply

       • I would expect a Chinese ChatAI to have been trained from the censored Internet in China, thus be heavily influenced by the government as to what information it would make available to users.

         Which reveals yet another vulnerability of AI’s. Thus far we have discussed unintentional training error, but it can be intentional as well.

         Reply

         • We can conversely point out that Western LLMs are trained using datasets that largely exclude the vast amount of publicly-available data in Chinese.

           On the subject of censorship, don’t overlook the alarming increase in censorship and narrative manipulation in the US.
           For example:

           https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/book-bans-pen-america-censorship

           and/or (from another angle):

           https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2021-issue-no-19/americas-new-censors

           The erstwhile “shining beacon on the hill”…has become a disorganized mound of rubble.

         • There is not censorship of training materials used in the US, to my knowledge.

           In fact the problem has been the opposite, the AI vendors are using copyrighted materials without permission. Numerous lawsuits over the breadth of materials that are being consumed

           There have even been efforts to access confidential and government databases.

           The environment in China is quite different, the Internet is controlled by the government as to what information is available to the public. They have required censorship compliance from all the search providers. The Great Firewall is well recognized and understood.

         • From social credit to the “censored internet”. You aren’t aware how Google censors the net under the direction of your government? Lmao.

         • I’m not aware of any US government policy that censors Google, beyond obscenity laws or other legal or security requirements. This has been pretty well documented.

           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

           The larger issue with Google has been SEO, sponsorship, and AdSense which ranks search results by what is either most profitable or generates the most engagement for Google. I use another primary search engine for that reason.

           As far as China, I know a university student there and we often talk about current events, because it’s interesting to see how things are perceived there. He’s a good source of providing English translations and Chinese law sources, as well as explaining government practices.

           However we have an understanding that some questions he will not answer, to avoid drawing attention. So if he doesn’t respond, I just accept it. There is no similar restriction on my end, I freely discuss flaws in the US government and where I disagree (there’s been a lot to discuss in the last 7 months).

         • One wonders if @Rob’s Chinese buddy has been asked to comment on the witchhunt against Harvard?
           Or the suppression of pro-Palestian protests in the US?
           Or the firing of officials whose reports displease Trump, such as the heads of the BLS and NSA?
           Or the refusal to give entry visas to Palestinian officials for the UN meeting in September?
           Or the removal of LGBTQ-related publications from School curriculum?

           Suppression of free speech takes many forms.

           I know lots of Chinese — including many engineers and scientists. They have no desire to live in the west.
           One wonders why 🙈

           Not at all intended as a political comment — merely a debunking of the idea that “we’re better off than they are”.

         • By citing Wikipedia on Google censorship is only a half-hearted effort because you’re aware the truth hurts?

           I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole to cause me being blocked (and also a waste of my effort), I’m going to take a touch for other readers.

           Haven’t you heard of the controvetsial “Twitter file”? Look up and decide yourself.

           > The House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas Wednesday requiring Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft to hand over records regarding “censorship” collaboration with the US government. 😅

           > Moreover, as Intercept reporter Lee Fang has detailed and as a former Twitter official confirmed, the FBI held weekly meetings in Silicon Valley with tech officials about policing disinformation.

           > Fang and his Intercept colleague Ken Klippenstein reported in October that documents and court testimony show the Department of Homeland Security has “an expansive effort . . . to influence tech platforms.”

           The Intercept:
           https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

           First Google, Now Microsoft: Tech Staff Are in Revolt…

           What do they know better than most of the rest?

           “Free speech”? What free speech? What are they afraid of??

           > Canadians caught in crossfire as U.S. customs searches of electronic devices rise at borders

           U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has released new data showing a sharp rise in electronic device searches at border crossings. From April to June alone, CBP conducted 14,899 electronic device searches, up more than 21 per cent from the previous quarter (23 per cent over the same period last year).

           https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/us-canada-device-searches-1.7619944

         • Furthermore is it save to go to the US?

           > New Zealand woman and six-year-old son detained for three weeks by Ice in US enduring ‘terrifying’ ordeal

           Sarah Shaw, who has a US visa and lives in Washington state, was detained after attempting to re-enter US from Canada

           A New Zealand woman who is being held at a US immigration centre with her six-year-old son after they were detained crossing the Canada-US border, is being wrongly “treated like a criminal”, according to her friend and advocate.
           https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/13/new-zealand-woman-six-year-old-son-ice-detention-us-ntwnfb

           ==============
           Stanford
           US censorship:
           > Many large corporations such as Google and Microsoft practice self-censorship

           References
           https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/FreeExpressionVsSocialCohesion/us_references.html

           ===========

           > Dominic Cummings’ name blocked by Twitter anti-porn filters

           ============

           https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/07/31/under-new-editor-the-wall-street-journal-is-misreporting-facts-about-israel/

         • Just as a reminder, the topic here is ChatAI’s and their training, and how that might relate to aircraft certification

           If you two want to use that as a platform for anti-American rants, that’s up to you, but it’s not the topic here.

         • Reminder to @Rob:
           You’re the one who started the condescending China censorship rant — but “it’s not the topic here”.

           🙈

           When released, reviewers in the West found DeepSeek-R1 to be just as good as — if not better than — ChatGBT across a whole spectrum of tests.
           No evidence at all that it was only trained using “censored” content.

         • “I would expect a Chinese ChatAI to have been trained from the censored Internet in China”

           Why do you expect you know what you don’t know? You can find out but chose not. The same “expectation” that there can’t be innovation. Just more cope.

         • > Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company DeepSeek has sent shockwaves through the tech community, with the release of extremely efficient AI models that can compete with cutting-edge products from US companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

         • Lol!! I see our struggles with truth continue unabated.

           Abalone introduced Chinese AI to the discussion, not me. And in the context of superiority.

           I just pointed out the fallacy in that assertion. All the remaining talk of politics emanated from Abalone and Pedro, as per the usual.

           Scott has asked that we not discuss politics, so I have not responded to any of those points, and will not.

         • @Rob:

           There is a posting on the production side that related to China and Scott stated the leash was off.

           So in particular posts he does allow a very open discussion regardless of how poorly the opinions are supported.

           It was funny to see the Euro 3 disagree with Leeham data. Kind of like arguing physics with Fennyman.

           Sometimes facts speak for themselves and the Chinese need for aircraft (assuming they will not short themselves) means Boeing is in the mix to fill that need. Their own production is so low and not ramping up that it just extends that to the right.

           Airbus could fill that need if they devoted their entire production to China but that has its obvious train wreck to do so and they won’t of course.

           The OA is happily agreeing to 600K Chinese students suddenly (and much to the MAGA base shock). He has not principles, whatever makes him look good in his eyes, only thing that counts)

         • @TW

           “Sometimes facts speak for themselves and the Chinese need for aircraft”

           You keep repeating such claims with nothing to backup. Let me ask you, to see if you have the answer: what do you mean by: “the Chinese needs for planes”?? How soon they need the planes? Like now? In five years or ten? When can BA start to deliver aircraft in substantial numbers to “the Chinese”? Now? In a year or two? In five years? Ten?? Why do you think BA has an advantage over AB, or JFC COMAC?

         • @Pedro:

           Obviously you did not read what Leeham has to say on the subject. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

           The only reason you post then becomes so this becomes a platform for your agenda.

           None are so blind as those who will not see.

         • @TW

           If I recall correctly LNA has maintained the same position for years. BA won’t be able to deliver additional aircraft anytime soon, nor much earlier than AB, the quickest to have more aircraft is to order from COMAC. Oh let me remind you, the big three has orders of almost 300 aircraft from COMAC, about 300 from AB. So six hundred aircraft to meet their needs. Do they still need more from BA? Haha.

           P.S. Let me remind you who turned this into their own blog.

         • If I recall correctly LNA has maintained the same position for years. *There hasn’t been an order from Chinese airlines for the last eight years.*

         • ICYMI it’s reported China also has an order of 500 aircraft with AB, pending announcement, so roughly 1,100 aircraft coming in future.

           BA still has to catch up with what it missed over the last couple of years, before anyone can go singing and dancing that BA is ahead. Hah.
           https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/737-MAX-Del-Stream-at-12-31-23.png

       • According to LNA chart above, BA missed like close to 400 737 MAX promised deliveries in 2024 to 2025. When is BA able to fulfill this backlog?? TW, Rob, any idea??

         Reply

         • Did some searches yesterday: it seems even the big announcement of massive order by China is a bit questionable.

           > There’s no model or sub-type break down, and no information about the delivery years. This makes it impossible to judge whether Boeing’s production gap for the 777 Classic and 747-8 get any support out of this deal.

           “This agreement includes approvals and new commitments. Included in the agreement are a number of new incremental commitments, as well as approvals of previous commitments,” spokesman Doug Alder Jr. wrote LNC in an email. “We aren’t providing specific details at this time.”

           Wall Street was not impressed with this supposed record-breaking order. Boeing stock was off $2.38 when the Dow Jones was flat.

           https://leehamnews.com/2015/09/24/boeing-announces-big-china-order-but-how-big-is-it-really/

           And the order from 2017 was also questioned by, IIRC, Bloomberg. So it’s quite likely that China hasn’t made any major order since 2013/14?? Wow. “The Chinese needs aircraft”, but not from Boeing?

     • Thanks Bjorn,

       wrong speeds (too high) Look at d328eco specs.
       too high empty weights, MTOW, maybe.

       But who knows how much hybrid, 3 engined aircraft will weigh? Probably heavier than conventional twins.

       I believe that, at its current stage, AI is particularly valuable for generating quick, reasonable estimates—especially when you are not a subject-matter expert. In the past, for example, I explored the feasibility of a small, fast (around 40 knots) coastal submarine with limited range and depth capability. By asking what technologies were available or under development, I was able to gain significant insights. The value increased even further once I requested comparative tables of existing designs and specifications, which provided a clear, structured overview.

       Reply

       • The best use of ChatAI at present is that it quickly provides a list of references for its findings. I generally start there and begin researching. But I do not as a rule trust the findings themselves, until I verify with my own reading and research.

         I’ve seen many instances of wrong conclusions in the AI findings, especially for engineering topics. But it is improving over time, although not to the point that it could be solely trusted.

         Reply

         • There was a famous series of Brit Ships that had stability issue (not the only ones but I am familiar with it somewhat).

           I think Destroyuer Escrot, Firgate depening on your definations.

           They cacluated and recaluated half a dozen times. It was not passing the feel/experience test but the calcs kept coming out wrong.

           Turned out there was a bad bit of data on height that was not cuaght, everyone used the same data. Took some serious re-design.

           We had a couple of Deice Glycol tanks they put an electronic meter in, guy could not get it to read right.

           He finally measured the tank height, yep, we had the wrong data.

           We had no reason to check it as we just topped em back up when they got below 5 feet.

   • ” new generation of highly efficient, quiet 40-seat regional passenger aircraft.

     The real answer is there is ‘no their there’.
     Turbo props are already highly efficient, quietness doesn’t come with large props and 40 seats is below optimum for recovering fixed operational costs.

     You can see this with the good project to revive the Dornier 328.
     https://www.deutscheaircraft.com/products/d328eco

     The original version with the PW308 was already resonably fast and quiet and the newer D328 version is stretched 2.1m to enable 43 passengers (2×1 across)

     New Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127S turboprop engines are giving the now heavier aircraft additional thrust, its maximum take-off weight has been increased to 15.6 tons, equalling that of the older Do328JET

     The production process, with state funding at Leipzig, is still a challenge and order have to be 32 -40 per annum to be economic
     https://www.compositesworld.com/news/deutsche-aircraft-rolls-out-d328eco-test-aircraft
     Composite upper and lower fairings, rudder, tail elevators and wing flaps etc
     It looks like the fuselage and tail will come from GKN Fokker and composites from a Spanish firm Aciturri in Burgos

     The right plane in the right time but will the orders flow, even with background of the well regarded original model ?

     This the right approach, modernising the most recent 30-40 seater and with amended type cert. A totally new plane is completely out of the question.

     Put the features of the D328eco into Google gemini and compare to a hypothetical more advanced. It should say cant be done.

     Reply

     • Note gemini says this about PW 127S
       “The PW127S is not a distinct engine model but rather a component of the newer Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127XT-S series of regional turboprop engines, specifically developed for Deutsche Aircraft’s D328eco aircraft. This engine, part of the XT engine series, offers significant improvements over previous generations, including a 40% increase in time on wing (engine life between overhauls), 20% lower maintenance costs, and 3% better fuel efficiency.”
       The numbers say it all, only 3% more efficient but the maintenance numbers are music to airline’s ears

       Reply

       • Note the PW100 series used to be called PT7. As Bjorn pointed out the AI program he ran the ‘market question’ through made a mistake with the different lower power PT6 – which is used in King Airs and such

         Reply

8. I quickly found sources tot assist feasibility study for developing this 40 seat concept (“Create a information source list I can use when designing this 40 seat / 800km aircraft. Use only credible sources relevant for this project, e.g. NASA, DLR, JAXA, EASN and other research institutes. Include writers, publishing dates.”)

   Here’s a curated, authoritative information sources list for designing a 40-seat regional aircraft with ~800 km range. These entries—drawn from credible research institutes like NASA, DLR, and academia—will help inform your aerodynamic, propulsion, mission-profile, and technological decision-making.

   NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
   – Marien, T. V. (approx. 9.2 years ago, 2016) — Seat Capacity Selection for an Advanced Short-Haul Aircraft Design.
   Focus: Market-profitability analysis across seat capacities; concluded 48 seats as an optimal design for revitalizing short-haul air traffic under advanced-technology scenarios. Range tested was up to 900 NM (~1,670 km)—relevant to your 800 km target.
   ntrs.nasa.gov

   – Hahn, A. S. (approx. 15.6 years ago, ~2009) — A Conceptual Design of a Short Takeoff and Landing Regional Jet Airliner.
   Focus: STOL performance modeling for regional jets, including impact of runway length constraints—critical if operation from small fields is contemplated.
   ntrs.nasa.gov

   – (NASA STI Report) (approx. 14.7 years ago, ~2010) — N+3 Aircraft Concept Designs and Trade Studies, Final Report.
   Focus: Review of advanced concept design phases and baseline theoretical data; useful for trade-study methodologies and advanced technology adoption in next-generation regional transports.
   ntrs.nasa.gov

   DLR (German Aerospace Center)
   – DLR / Sustainable Skies (approx. 4.8 years ago, ~2020) — DLR’s Novel Configurations – Sustainable Skies.
   Focus: Hybrid-electric, multi-propeller 19-seat regional configurations (similar to X-57 Maxwell). Offers insight into electrification, distributed propulsion, and aerodynamic layout innovations for small regional aircraft.
   sustainableskies.org

   – RWTH Aachen / DLR Design Challenge 2024 (published ~1.1 years ago, ~2024) — EcoAir conceptual design report.
   Focus: A 76-seat regional aircraft with mission analysis, design considerations, and cost modeling. Highly relevant for scaling and methodology—even if the size differs.
   dlr.de

   – DLR / Clean Sky & Clean Aviation Programme (published last month, ~2025) — Regional Aircraft programme overview.
   Focus: Integration and validation of regional aircraft technologies within Clean Sky’s framework; excellent for understanding technology TRL paths and demonstration programs.
   clean-aviation.eu

   Other Research Institutions & Universities

   – Espinosa-Juárez, E. (June 2024) — A Model-Based Systems Engineering Exploration of Three Sustainable Regional Aircraft Concepts (Master thesis, Linköping University).
   Focus: Evaluation of all-electric and hybrid regional concepts (e.g., Eviation Alice, EL19, hybrid-Dornier 328), with realistic range modeling for 2030–2040, applicable to battery/SOEM-based propulsion design.

   ResearchGate
   – Unspecified Authors (5 years ago, ~2020) — Conceptual Design and Operating Costs Evaluation of a 19-seat All-Electric Aircraft for Regional Aviation.
   Focus: Conceptual design coupled with cost analysis, showing ~39% DOC reduction—relevant for cost trade-offs in small electric aircraft.
   ResearchGate

   – (MDPI AEROSPACE) (approx. 1.6 years ago, ~2023) — Conceptual Design of a Hydrogen-Hybrid Dual-Fuel Regional…
   Focus: Design of a modernized Dornier 328 (3-abrest seat) with hybrid-hydrogen propulsion. Innovative powerplant concepts may inspire propulsion-system architecture choices.
   MDPI

   – Mokotoff, P. R., Arnson, M., Cinar, G. (Feb 12, 2025) — FAST: A Future Aircraft Sizing Tool for Advanced Aircraft and Propulsion System Design (arXiv preprint).
   Focus: A sizing tool for rapid evaluation across conventional, electric, and hybrid configurations in early design—very useful for parametric exploration of your concept.
   arXiv

   Additional Reference
   McKinsey & Company (approx. 2.3 years ago, ~2023) — Short-haul flying redefined: The promise of regional air mobility.
   Focus: Commercial context—market trends, historical decline in 6–50 seat regional services, and potential resurgence; valuable background for framing business case and market feasibility.
   McKinsey & Company

   Summary Table
   …….. (left out)

   Let me know if you’d like help drilling into any specific source, extracting key data tables, or adapting these findings into an analytical design brief for your 40-seat, 800 km aircraft concept.

   —
   Maybe instead I will do an AI search for proverbs including smelling & coffee.

   Reply

9. Tangentially related to (mis-)certification:

   “Boeing clears last B737-8 from post-grounding storage”

   “Boeing has removed the final B737-8 from long-term storage at Moses Lake, dating back to the type’s global grounding in 2019.

   “An internal report from Boeing News Now, accessed by FlightGlobal, announced the occasion, saying that all MAX jets stored since 2019 are now reactivated for delivery. It added that the storage recovery, which Boeing has referred to as “shadow factory” rework, involved almost half a thousand B737-8 and B737-9 aircraft.”

   https://www.ch-aviation.com/news/157737-boeing-clears-last-b737-8-from-post-grounding-storage

   ***

   So, we’ll soon have an end to the MAX yard sale.
   However, there’s still a 777X yard sale to come at some stage in the future — 29 frames corroding out in the parking lot.
   Does anyone know how many 787s are still out in the parking lot?

   Certification shortcuts make looooonnnngggg delays 🙈

   Reply

   • Yea yea yea.

     That information has been floating around for a week. August data will be out soon. Sept data will start to show the real trend.

     Reply

   • The brilliance of BA continuing production for an extra ten months after the 737 MAX grounded is about to reverse! 😅

     > Boeing ended the second quarter with 20 737 MAX 8 planes in storage, West said on the call.

     Reply

     • Yes. those 20 Max 8 in storage “end of Q2” were for chinese airlines . All have departed storage now (Aug 27)
       https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/last-max-stored-at-boeing-shadow-factory-after-crashes-pandemic-departs/

       A Great Leap forward for the chinese air carriers. China Airlines loves Boeing Max long time

       Reply

       • Took like 60 month (or more) to reverse the brilliance of continuing 737 MAX production for an extra nine, ten months in 2019. Genius!

         Reply

         • months*

         • If they planes are so bad why is Air China airlines and others taking delivery …after 5 years storage . I count 12 Max 8 deliveries in last 18 months on top of 16 already in service
           of course bad management decisions at Boeing- for which the shareholders have paid a steep price. Thats capitalism.

         • “CN taking MAX”

           Interim lightning protection?
           while work on real protections continues?

           or just giving Trump a run around?

         • Can’t you see it: it isn’t about China, it’s about BA and its own goal?

           Capitalism? Are you kidding me? Head I win, tail you lose. Privatize the gains, socialize the loses. What happened to those who enriched themselves thru stock options and pushing BA share buybacks?

         • Heads* tails*

         • I could imagine the Chinese customers received such great deals after compensation credits that the deals are practically irresistible. If you can get an aircraft with two working engines that worths quite a bit in the used market for paying peanuts, why not? Didn’t WN tout the value of their order book (to pump up their stock price)?
           One needs to be able to look at the big picture! 😉

   • As per the Boeing Q2 earnings call transcript, rework is complete on the stored 787’s.

     There were about 15 aircraft remaining undelivered as of June 30th, with expected delivery of roughly 5 per quarter. So inventory should be cleared by first quarter of next year.

     Regardless of the negative spin, this is important and welcome progress for Boeing.

     Reply

     • Q: If re-work on the 787s is complete, then why won’t they be delivered for months…?

       A: Because re-work isn’t complete at all. Maybe the shimming issues have been addressed, but that still leaves a whole load of de-mothballing to be done, after years corroding out in the parking lot.

       Reply

       • Well, no, delivery is at the discretion of the customer, who has to work the aircraft into the schedule, consider payments due on delivery, etc.

         There’s nothing out of the ordinary about this.

         Reply

         • Nice try 😅

           Customers are falling over one another to get aircraft.
           If these aircraft were ready, they’d be delivered a.s.a.p.

           They’re still being re-worked 🙈

         • Reality is you have to sequence the delivery for the Airline and you have to have the financing in place.

           So its not a we fixed the shim and it goes to the Airline.

           Boeing will have been doing the bring it out of storage checks and maint based on when they have a decision from the airline for that aircraft delivery slot.

           Lufthansa is taking delivery and parking 787s or flying them part empty because the new seat setup has not been certified which is not in Boeing hands.

           It all adds up to they may be fixed and not delivered not some nefarious entity from Venus poking a stick into the process.

           Airbus has its own issues with engines and interiors.

         • “Lufthansa is taking delivery and parking 787s or flying them part empty…”

           Time to fact check your claim. Where’s your source? If you can’t answer, that means you have none?

         • Why waste my time?

           You won’t read it anyway (or do not comprehend things, I suppose I should present the other possibility)

           This would make a great comedy series. Reminds me a lot of Who’s on First? (Yea you will have to look that one up though I warn you its heavy on American humor)

         • Lol. So you admit you have no source.

           This is what you posted: “He has no sources, he just makes it up to fit an agenda.”

           Doesn’t it apply to you?

         • Have a few minutes on hand and quickly confirm my suspicion: TW hallucination struck again (or in simple English that poster is making stuff up while talking about “facts”). Haha.
           https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2024/09/lufthansa-starts-fitting-allegris-first-class-to-initial-a350/

       • Abalone wrote……
         Maybe the shimming issues have been addressed, but that still leaves a whole load of de-mothballing to be done, after years corroding out in the parking lot.

         Great point but perhaps a narrow perspective. We don’t have any visibility of the supply chain impacts to the delivery schedules either. Seats and interiors have been especially problematic for the last couple years and its a pretty good bet that the 787 interiors that were due for delivery to aircraft destined for long delivery delays were iced by the vendors to use those resources for actually deliverable aircraft. We don’t know what kind of holes exist in the BFE/SFE work packages. Neither do we know what interiors related parts were broken during the disassembly process. When production continued building known gapped aircraft, the intetiors packages got all screwed up schedule wise and the vendors pushed some of this work into the future, which is here now. It’s a carry on of BAs craap worksmanship, but watch them say they are complete and completely dismiss themselves as the cause of the vendor turmoil. Add this to Robs comments about Customers dictating actual delivery and the picture is a bit clearer

         Reply

         • It all boils down to the definition of “re-work”, doesn’t it?

           I think we can assume that many of these inventory frames are currently nowhere near a deliverable state.

         • You really have no clue as to the magnitude of the shim fix.

           They had to take aircraft apart. The rest is time consuming but not serious problems.

           You also loose sight of the fact that interiors have changed and if they have a new interior, that has to be upgraded which means a delay.

           All that is also a factor of when you pull the regular maint and into service aspects (oil changes, time out of batteries etc).

           The bottom line is the intense part of the work is done and the rest is a normal insert where it works aspect.

           Reports are 9 x 787 will be delivered in August, that is not from production, the adders are from the reserve pool.

           That gives some idea of how fast it will go but it also will vary as no month is identical to another month.

           Its also whey we don’t jump on (or anyone who has a serious demeanor) make knee jerk comments on, oh, down in July, woe is me.

           Its the average that counts, quarters should be the smallest segment to measure by and reality is 6 months is more valid.

           If Boeing hits rate 38 for two months in a row you can be fairly sure they have achieved a steady 38. You give it another two months before you state that. Well if you want accurate statement.

         • TW

           See my post below today. We’re now three months after BA’s claim that they produced 38 737 MAX a month. 🙄

10. Good to see Boeing finally clearing the 737 parking lot. It will enable them to increase production as long as FAA deliveries limitations are in place.

    https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2025/07/25/a-long-ways-away-faa-signals-no-imminent-end-to-737-max-production-limits/

    Now get the 737-7 & specially 737-10 certified. Boeing debuted the first 737-7 more then 7 years ago..
    https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-02-05-Boeing-Debuts-First-737-MAX-7

    Reply

    • The FAA and Boeing are conducting exercises to plan for the MAX production increase, although Boeing has said they won’t make the request until all KPI’s are being met at the current rate limit.

      https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/faa-boeing-737-max-exercises-production-lift

      Reply

      • We won’t hold our breath 😅

        Reply

        • Tabletop exercise?? 😁

          > The FAA plans tabletop exercises with Boeing to assess risks before potentially lifting the 38-per-month 737 MAX production limit.

          How about BA about to ramp 787production to 14 a month?

          Reply

          • They are gaming out how Boeing would respond to any decrease in KPI that could result from a production increase. FAA won’t grant the increase unless there is some resiliency, otherwise there is no point.

            Boeing lost one KPI when the MAX went to 38 per month. As I discussed with Scott at the time, there is always going to be some risk of reduction with production increase.

            The thing that’s different now is that Boeing is mitigating those risks ahead of time rather than forging ahead in spite of them. Boeing can’t be rationally criticized for both addressing the risks and not addressing them, at least from a logical standpoint.

          • “Boeing lost one KPI when the MAX went to 38 per month.”

            The MAX isn’t yet at 38 per month.
            Line deliveries last month were 32 p/m…

          • Shouldn’t BA prepared a scenario analysis for the FAA in advance?

          • @Abalone: Boeing achieved the 38 rate in June, but then backed off because of the loss of the KPI. That is how it’s supposed to work, the loss of quality reduces production until the KPI is restored.

            @Pedro: perhaps you didn’t understand, but the purpose of the exercise is to prepare a plan with the FAA in advance.

          • @ Rob

            Boeing *said* it achieved rate 38 in June…but that’s not the same as actually achieving it 😉

            The rate in July was 32.
            The rate in August appears to have been 34.
            Prior to June, the rate was consistently about 30-31.

            There’s no rate 38..it’s just a smokescreen 🙈

          • Back in May, CEO Ortberg *was confident* to increase the output of 737 MAX, no “ifs” or “buts”. Is it as positive as someone here pretends? Judge it yourself.

            May 29, 2025
            > Boeing CEO says company is ‘pretty confident’ it is ready to increase 737 MAX output

            > Boeing is “pretty confident” that it can increase production of its best-selling 737 MAX jets to 42 a month, Chief Executive Kelly Ortberg said on Thursday. The U.S. planemaker’s share price jumped 5% after Ortberg said at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions conference that he hoped to have production at 47 a month by the end of 2025.

            > Increasing production is critical in getting Boeing back to being cash positive… The company burned through $2.3 billion in cash during the first quarter.

            > The company is making progress on certifying the smallest and largest MAX variants with the FAA, he said.

            The MAX 7 and MAX 10 have been delayed in part due to concerns with the engine de-icing system. The company *should finish critical testing of its fix by July*, allowing time to certify the aircraft by the end of the year, he said.

          • This is just more of the usual denial of facts, with the requisite accompaniment of replacement with imaginings.

            My statements are true and correct, by the facts issued by Boeing.

            You guys can believe whatever you want, it doesn’t alter the reality or the truth. It just wastes space in the comments section.

          • Two Airlines have stated increased confidence that they will get more MAX deliveries than they thought.

            My analysis is that Boeing understood it had to stop stating what it knew was coming so as not to block the FAA into a corner. Even Calhoun finally got that.

            Ortberg is still learning. He will make mistakes.

            So the assessment is the rate increase has agreement from the FAA but they are holding off until the i is dotted and the T crossed.

            Ditto the now more cautious d statements on the anti ice (that is probably a factor of also thinking it was solved before the final tests were in).

            Regardless, rate 42 has been all but approved and the announcement will come from the FAA not Boeing.

          • Abalone said……

            The rate in July was 32.
            The rate in August appears to have been 34.
            Prior to June, the rate was consistently about 30-31.

            There’s no rate 38..it’s just a smokescreen 🙈

            There’s a difference between the delivery Tate you se e and the line rate at the input end of the line….. You are missing the wave of WIP that accumulates in all the line stations before the Final Assembly Control Codes see the result of a line rate call. Boeings early control efforts are invisible to the public. All we have is the output measured in delivery. That’s 2 very different things…. I would like toy to show see how you know Boeing isnt at 38 a month in the early control coded. I have no visabiliity of early control codes either so I’d really love your insight here…..

          • Rob

            Again, what are you talking about? Doesn’t my post consist entirely from what BA’s CEO said a few months ago? Are you telling me they are not “facts”? Your word salad is not acceptable.

            ==========

            Delivery rate is what’s publicly available. I believe Cirium keeps track of first flight date to approximate rate of output. We aren’t BA, input rate is not our concern, our concern is where rubber hits the road, the time when customers pay!

          • @PNWGeek:

            He has no sources, he just makes it up to fit an agenda.

            I like how you expressed it. While its a guess on my part, it seems pretty solid that Boeing has given proof of the rate and increased rate to come to airlines.

            No surprise there is some ebb and acceleration as the lines settle out as well as some time being taken for the future rate increases setup and planning.

            Rate 42 is probably going to be late this year or early next year.

            Just to be clear to some, a rate increase is not rate, its going to take 6 months to go from 38 to 42.

            In the meantime they will continue prep work on the Everett line.

          • @ PNW
            I’m just going by the delivery numbers that BA publishes.
            It’s possible that the line rate is higher than the delivery rate, and that BA is accumulating inventory…but, then, what’s the holdup? Brian West said earlier this year that BA had a “triple-digit” stockpile of engines. Interiors are more a problem for widebodies than narrowbodies. So, what is it?

            When I see the delivery rate bumping, then I’ll believe the assertions about line rate.

          • Pedro, lacking an understanding of the subject, wrote.

            Delivery rate is what’s publicly available. I believe Cirium keeps track of first flight date to approximate rate of output. We aren’t BA, input rate is not our concern, our concern is where rubber hits the road, the time when customers pay!

            Pedro, If Input rate is not your concern, perhaps you should stop commenting on it. It’s obvious to us that you have never throttled an assembly line. Theres no way anyone with a modicum of understanding of the assembly process could maintain your position. When you approve a rate increase, it just doesn’t magically happen. You need to slowly add +WIP (Work in Process) in an incrementally quicker pace in small fractions of the rate increase interval on designated units in the line. You cannot overrun the previous unit on the line and obtain your compression window from the existing line capacity cushion. It is easy to disrupt things is you try to move the system forward with too much +wip faster than the cushion windows allow you to pull the line forward. You don’t get 38 delivered just because you start on a 38-unit production rate. You initially might get a small delivery rate increase that moves up and down as the hysteresis in the system is overcome by the WIP wave from each bump as it flows thru the system. Interestingly enough, thats what abalone noted in a post of his. Getting to 38 deliveries a month doesn’t happen on day 1 of a rate increase call. What does happen is first a pulse of WIP at a small MDAY compression from the previous units MDAY schedule. There will be many discreet MDAY compressions needed to get to the delivery rate of 38. The front end of the ramp up takes time and is not normally visible to outsiders. Abalone noted that the line rate has been moving up and down. That is an indication that there is +WIP being pulsed going through the line and the rate is going up and down as it flattens system hysteresis as it go’s faster. If you look at the delivery rate every 3 days using 2nd order smoothing the story looks vastly different than your complaints suggest. Unfortunately, you are very confused on what is happening because you by your own admission don’t want to understand it. Have a nice day

          • Abalone wrote, respectfully I might add,
            I’m just going by the delivery numbers that BA publishes.
            It’s possible that the line rate is higher than the delivery rate, and that BA is accumulating inventory…but, then, what’s the holdup?

            I wrote a long winded slightly snarky reply to Pedro that explains the ramp up process. I’m absolutely convinced that Boeing is on a manufacturing plan greater than they are speaking of. I suspect its the front end of 38, but I can’t prove it, its just what I’m seeing up here. I am of the opinion that BA can do more than 38 in Renton but really suspect that they will be frozen there by the feds. The feds want stability. I suspect that the rate increases beyond that will come from Everett. The initial plan will be to do -10s there but the building is wide enough to place 2 parallel lines in the building wih something like 8 feet left over. A bit tight, but if you add wingtips outside it gets damn near spacious. The words I get is that there is a long lead issue with gear legs and trunnion fittings as well as engine strut mounts. These are forgings and in short supply. beyond that, its people parts and paper like always. Spooling up with the deep loss of skills in the workforce is a larger issue than many consider. SSSSSOOOOO Im encouraged that the ship is pointing the right direction, it still leaks and sometimes its really hard to read the tea leaves, but I think they suffer fewer days moving backwards than they did in the past. I still prefer the comfort of the DAL A220 to the Max or 320 series when I commute SEA-PSP. Have a great evening

          • @PNW

            It may very well be 38 at the front end — but I’m interested in what rolls *off* the line rather than *on* to it…after all, revenue is only generated when a completed aircraft is handed over.

            Society tends to judge the cook by the dishes that he serves, as opposed to the ingredients that he puts in the pan — it is, after all, still possible for him to ruin the cooking process.

            So, we’ll just have to wait to see how things pan out in the next few months. But, until then, line *deliveries* are the litmus test for me, rather than line *starts*.

          • @PNW

            I’m not BA and I don’t work for BA, same as AB or COMAC, therefore I apply the same metric for all three: I look at the results. Let’s say, I bought one of the finest steak available, went home let someone to prepare it and it’s burnt! Does it matter more what went in, or what comes out? I’m familiar with large scale manufacturing than some posters who have never stepped near a manufacturing line all their lives.

            A good outcome is BA can pump out 38 737 MAX smoothly each and every month, not squeezing hard at loading 38 fuselages into the lines but failed to get them out!

            I can still remember few months ago BA was all smooth sailing, talking about how much progress it had:

            > Boeing expects to stabilize 737 MAX production at 38 airplanes a month *over the next couple of months*, its Commercial Airplanes Vice President of Quality Doug Ackerman told reporters on Tuesday.

            > The company is **on track to produce about 38 of the popular single-aisle airplanes this month**, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

            > Boeing is also using machine learning to catch quality problems in its supply chain before they become widespread. While it is still “fine tuning” the approach, it is seeing statistical correlations between the data and the likelihood of supply chain issues, Ackerman said.

            @PNW

            No need to backpeddle.

            Does that BA guy know what he’s talking about??

          • Backpedal*

          • Last but not the least, BA doesn’t disclose how many fuselages it’s loading into the FALs each month, now many are WIP each month, so outsiders can’t tell and have no way to measure its performance. My question is: do you have a solution for us?

          • Pedro wrote
            Last but not the least, BA doesn’t disclose how many fuselages it’s loading into the FALs each month, now many are WIP each month, so outsiders can’t tell and have no way to measure its performance. My question is: do you have a solution for us?

            Pedro and Abalone
            The answer is something you might not like. First of all, you mentioned that cooks are graded on how many meals they serve. Absolutely correct, because in their world, they do not have to raise their own pigs and cows for their restaurant. Boeing uses a lot of very specific aluminum raw materials that are not commodities. The wing spar chords and the wing skin blanks are made by the mills for Boeing, there are no other users of this stuff, so the supply chain length matters. The supply chain for all the bones making an aircraft last time I looked is around 200 MDAYS. An MDAY on the callendar is a monday thru friday non holiday. Weekends are non counters. This means 200 mdays can approach 10 1/2 months. You are focused on the Fuselages in the FAL. Cool, thats the last 11 MDAYs of the 200 MDAY product flow/build process. Its also a seriously lagging indicator to describe system performance. If you wish to keep score that way, its your right to do so. If you want to say Boeings not on its way to stabilizing at 38 a month, feel fine to say that. The facts are that delivery’s are slowly accelerating as measured by your lagging indicator while those of us looking at the system as a whole see a different story. The truth after you look at all the available data as well as recent performance is that it is far more likely that the line is actually performing beyond what the current deliveries indicate, is it 38 today, it entirely depends on where you look and what metric is used. I can guarantee you that my perception of line performance is closer to reality than your focus on only the last 11 MDAYs which would be the last place where a stable 38 a month line would show it. As far as Boeing saying what they do about a stable 38 being achieved, or soon to be there, They can be absolutely correct while you dont see it using the lagging indicator you point to. Your use of the delivery count doesn’t make Boeing wrong. It also doesnt make you wrpng as you are relying on what you can see to make a deision. Do I have a fix to get you to better understand an exceptionally complex process, Im not sure because it would require a reframe of how you are looking at things and Im not sure you want to make the jump even if the storys there for ya. Changing hats here for a second. I also will give you this point without contest. BOEING ALWAYS PARSES SHIT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, I hate this because there are times it pushes them into nonsensical positions. IN THIS CASE, I know that Boeing would use the chance to say that initial loading of the front end of the line at the first WIP bump of a schedule to get to 38 a month would be announced as achieving that. I said the truth is somewhere in between. The funny thing is that Delivery rate would be also be a lagging indicator on a rate cut as the entire system would slow before you saw an output change….. Im not sure what indicator commonly avaiable would be better for you, but let me make a few calls and see what pops up. Sometimes being so close to the system has its way of hiding the obvious.

          • “you mentioned that cooks are graded on how many meals they serve.”

            Sorry that’s *NOT* what I said.

            BA has been pretending (or to be polite: talking up) they are going to ramp production again and again to keep their suppliers “hot”.

            Oct 2023
            FG: Boeing pushing production rates to keep suppliers ‘hot’ despite delivery slowdown

            > While Boeing will deliver fewer than expected 737s this year due to a quality problem, the company is broadly working to speed up the pace of its entire 737 production system, aiming to hit a 38-monthly rate this year. […]

            Slowdown aside, Calhoun says Boeing is pushing to bring the 737 production system to a rate of 38 jets monthly before year-end, and to 50 monthly by 2025 or 2026. Boeing this year stabilised the rate at 31 jets monthly. “We are keeping our suppliers hot, according to the master schedule,” he says.

            May 2021
            > Planemaker Boeing has drawn up preliminary plans for a fresh sprint in 737 MAX output to as many as *42 jets a month in fall 2022*, industry sources said. […] [Wow!! 😅]

            Last month it reaffirmed plans to raise MAX output from an unspecified “low” rate to 31 a month by early 2022. [!!]

            > … Boeing hopes to speed monthly output from single digits now to about 26 a month at the end of 2021 at its Renton factory…

            > However, several US and European suppliers view the production plans of both planemakers as optimistic… 👈

            Mar 2023
            > Boeing is planning to ramp up production rates for its best-selling 737 MAX airliners “very soon,” the company’s head of commercial operations said Thursday. 😅

            Stan Deal, the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said that 737 MAX production will be increased above its current level of *31 jets per month*. He also said the company is working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to wrap up the final certification of the new 737 MAX 7 model. “We’ve got a handful – less than a handful – left to go to the FAA,” Deal said. 😅

            Boeing expects that its MAX 7 will complete FAA certification later this year and that the first delivery of the new aircraft will occur this year as well. 😅

            [Even BA’s repeated claims of reaching 31 jets per month are basically myths! We really need BA’s production guy here explain what exactly happened!]

            Apr 2023
            > According to Boeing president and CEO Dave Calhoun, while this is not an immediate safety concern for the in-service fleet, the program will perform the necessary inspections and “rework of affected airplanes in production and storage, to ensure each meets our standards prior to delivery.”
            Despite the setback, Boeing remains ambitious to move forward with increasing production of 737 aircraft to *38 per month* “later this year,” and to 50 per month in the 2025/26 timeframe.

            As well, the OEM is aiming to ramp up production of its 787 aircraft from three per month to five in late 2023. This is expected to double to 10 aircraft per month in the 2025/26 timeframe.

            Sept 2024
            Boeing delays 737 MAX production milestone by six months

            > Boeing has announced a six-month delay in reaching a key production milestone for its 737 MAX, according to three industry sources. The revised timeline now aims to achieve an output of 42 MAX jets per month by March 2025, shifting from the previous target of September 2024. 😅

            > While the master schedule provides a demand forecast, it does not represent an official production target. Boeing’s official aim is to increase production to 38 MAX jets per month by the end of 2024, up from approximately 25 jets per month in July.

            In response to queries about the master schedule, Boeing’s spokesperson highlighted comments from CFO Brian West made in late July. West explained, “On the master schedule, we continue to make adjustments as needed and manage supplier by supplier based on inventory levels. Our objective remains to *keep the supply chain paced ahead of final assembly to support stability*.”

            Any suppliers which follow BA’s production schedule are losing their shirts!

          • Pedro wrote……

            An unintelligible word salad…

            Come back on point and perhaps we can have a conversation.

11. @ Mr. Hamilton

    Not nitpicking here but, in today’s new LNA article on EU defense spending, there’s an error.
    The article says:
    “Spain and Switzerland canceled orders for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter.”

    In fact, Spain and *Portugal* walked away from *potential* F35 orders — actual orders hadn’t yet been placed.

    Switzerland has an existing F35 order, but there are political moves to cancel (at least part of) that order. Apart from anger over Trump’s tariffs, the Swiss are p#ssed off over perceived violation of fixed price clauses in their purchase agreement — effectively voiding the contract, and triggering an automatic re-evaluation of the other contender (Rafale) in the original bidding competition.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/switzerland-f-35-deal-donald-trumps-tariff-bombshell-trade-war-eu-us-jets/

    I’m assuming that the original error was just a typo.

    Reply

    • In addition, the Swiss are negotiating directly with Lockheed over the offsets specified in the contract. In particular they are looking for increased awards to Pilatus for F-35 services, to compensate for the increased aircraft costs.

      Lockheed has said they are open to adjustments in the offsets, but cannot alter the aircraft pricing terms of the contract between the two governments.

      Reply

      • “…the Swiss are negotiating directly with Lockheed over the offsets specified in the contract. ”

        Got a link to back that up?

        Reply

        • Its been in the news for the last few weeks. It’s actually been in discussion since March.

          https://www.defensemirror.com/news/40030/Switzerland__Lockheed_Martin_Discuss_F_35_Offset_Deal

          Reply

          • Old news.

            The referenced meeting was held from 5-7 August.

            The 39% tariff against Switzerland kicked in on August 7 — causing immense offense to the Swiss.

            Very doubtful that those offset talks will be receiving any follow-up.

          • Don’t you know what happened recently? Especially after Trump’s tariff war and imposed 50% tariffs against the Swiss?

            Couldn’t you see from the view point of the Swiss? 🙄

            > Swiss politicians across parties are seeking to cancel an order of three dozen F-35A fighter jets from US defense conglomerate Lockheed Martin Corp after President Donald Trump imposed some of the world’s harshest levies on the country.
            https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politicians-push-to-cancel-f-35-fighter-jet-deal-after-us-tariffs/89796985

            > U.S. allies think twice about buying F-35s in response to Trump’s antics
            https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/f-35-fighter-jets-us-allies-switzerland-spain-france-rcna224350

            So a contract that actually doesn’t worth the paper it’s printed on? 😲

            > After selecting the jet in 2021 and inking a contract in 2022, Switzerland says its order of 36 F-35A aircraft made by Lockheed Martin should be set at a fixed price of 6 billion Swiss francs, or over $7.4 billion in current dollars. But according to a press release from the Swiss government, a fixed price has been “abandon[ed]” despite “intensive discussions” between Swiss and American officials, leading to inflationary and tariff pressures that could drive up the cost of the order between anywhere from 650 million to 1.3 billion Swiss francs.

          • As usual, this isn’t legitimate criticism. The Swiss meeting with Lockheed overlapped the tariff announcement. And the Swiss government has said they are continuing those negotiations, as one way to offset the price increase for the F-35. That has not changed.

            The tariff that was declared is a reciprocal tariff, which has just been overturned by the appellate court, as illegal. That is the third consecutive loss for the reciprocal tariff policy. It will now go before SCOTUS, so we won’t know for a few months what the final determination is. But the policy has always been on shaky legal ground. It’s not favored by the majority of Americans, or the majority of US businesses.

            Also just to clarify, the Swiss F-35 contract pricing terms are the same as for all other foreign buyers.

            The US government may not charge more nor less than the price it pays for the lots that are delivered. The lots are priced according to the US contract with Lockheed, which have allowances for inflation and supplier increases.

            Many of those increases are coming from overseas, due to offsets with the other customer nations. As well as from the US, as inflation has occurred everywhere as a result of the pandemic.

            In Switzerland, this is a political issue, but in other customer nations it hasn’t been alleged as a violation of the contract.

          • I think where the Swiss F35 saga is concerned, we’ll rely on facts from the Swiss press rather than (unsubstantiated) editorial opinions from Robert’s Daily Gazette 😅

          • This is the second time I tell you to stop personal attacks. One to go and you are out.

          • Well, you regularly invent the belief systems that you post here, and this appears to be no exception.

            The Swiss government’s official position is to evaluate the F-35 program in terms of number of aircraft, offsets, funding, penalties, and other issues, with a report to be issued by November with recommendations.

            “The Federal Council remains committed to procuring the F-35A. The aim is to protect Switzerland from airborne threats by acquiring a fighter aircraft that has a significant technological advantage over other aircraft and is now in widespread use across Europe. The Federal Council has therefore instructed the DDPS to intensify its work on various options.

            The DDPS will examine whether current air defence requirements still correspond to the principles on which the evaluation of the F-35A was based – in particular the 2017 report ‘Air Defence of the Future’. A working group within the DDPS, headed by the future commander of the Air Force, Major General Christian Oppliger, will critically validate the assumptions made at the time and reassess the equipment objectives pertaining to air defence, taking into account the security and financial policy situation.

            The DDPS will submit a proposal regarding the next steps to the Federal Council by the end of November.”

            https://ieu-monitoring.com/editorial/procurement-of-fighter-aircraft-swiss-federal-council-determines-next-steps/841227/?utm_source=ieu-portal

          • @Rob:

            Keep in mind that while the ruling on tariffs went against Trump, it was given a stay so is not in affect.

            Unfortunately the Supreme Court does not rule by law but by ideology with a heavy right wing loading.

            It does not mean they will rule for Trump but its not unusual they either endorse him against all readings of the constitution and laws, or they waffle.

            Clearly a lot of what Trump does is against the laws. You have to wonder why we have a revolution in the first place if they are going to anoint a king.

          • @Rob
            This is what your article says:
            “Talks held over the summer have made it clear that the USA is not prepared to deviate from its position. Consequently, Switzerland is unable to assert a fixed price for the F-35A fighter aircraft. At its meeting on 13 August, the Federal Council determined the next steps and instructed the DDPS to examine various options in depth by the end of November.”

            Are there any negotiations about offsets? That’s quite LATE——offsets should be negotiated before any deals were made! 😂

            Even the Pentagon is backtracking!

            Swiss May Reduce F-35 Purchase as US Squeezes Government
            > The government said in a statement that the defense ministry will “examine various options in depth” by the end of November, including whether “current air defence requirements still correspond to the principles on which the evaluation of the F-35A was based.”

            > While the F-35 is widely used in Europe, Lockheed faces an emerging sales challenge as governments in the region come under pressure to direct a greater portion of military spending toward home-grown equipment.

            > The jet has been a mainstay of Lockheed Martin’s bottom line for years. But criticism over cost overruns has flared this year, and the Pentagon sharply cut its proposed purchase of F-35s for fiscal 2026… The Swiss jets on order represents about a third of the number the company delivered in 2024.

          • Rob

            Furthermore, I doubt it’s fair to say: “The Federal Council remains committed to procuring the F-35A,” based what’s in the article, that’s a pretty biased take IMO.

          • Things are changing. In the coming years countries might consider J-35. In Asia, South America and Middle East. Swiss amd other European countries that are no NATO members might take a look.

            https://asiatimes.com/2025/06/chinas-j-35a-courting-buyers-barred-from-us-f-35s/

          • How well the Chinese aircraft hold up, how effective and maint support are all factors.

            Pakistan made their PR easier on that front taking down a Rafael (maybe one other jet). That establishes a baseline though its the system (Missile and Aircraft) as it is given equipment (also AWACS involved)

            And its not a given. One guy was found to be stealing rocket fuel. US runs rigorous tests and that is why a lot of its stuff works. It may take a bit to sort it out to effective but the base is there.

            China is an unknown. Russian equipment has proven problematic with India probably with the best operation of it as a dual source country that can fill in parts.

            Trump has mucked up a whole lot of things and defense equipment and sales is huge. Does not do any good for Boeing to get big contracts and defense drop off.

            You would think the Chinese are paying Trump to mess things up (hmmmm)

          • You should think less of a jet, but the whole kill chain, hint: May 6th/7th.

            The other thing it’s certain is the F-35 has exceptionally low availability rate: availability rate ~50%; full mission availability: below 40%

            https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/styles/1500/public/full-reports/2025/61347-fig1_availability-year.png

            https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/styles/1500/public/full-reports/2025/61347-fig3_full-mission-availability-yr.png

            No, Putin has the Trump file! 😂

          • > Every Rafale built is still fully capable, including all the early Rafale Ms built to Standard F1, which have been upgraded all the way to F3R. Nobody has a ghost of a scintilla of a clue when the USAF’s 370 TR-2 jets will be u/g’d to Block 4.

            > F-35 Fast Fact: Every F-35 built since 4Q23 has software that is not fit for purpose and is not usable except for training.

            Of those 500 aircraft, ~50 are pre-TR-2 jets of little use for anything. ~80 are the new TR-3s, still usable only for training. The remaining 370 represent a >$100bn USAF investment.

            [No wonder the USG has over $37 trillion of debts.]

        • Edit: 39% tariffs, not 50%

          August 1
          BBC : Confusion and anger in Switzerland – hit by highest tariffs in Europe

          Reply

12. Artificial “intelligence”?
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gzwu-KvW0AAau2O?format=jpg&name=large

    Reply

    • Why am I not surprised.. plenty more stories like this to come. 😉

      #”AI”con

      Reply

    • I had dinner with a US lawyer a few months ago that told me she is no longer enthousiastically advising students to invest in lawschool and that work done by 100 people a few years ago is now done by 30.

      AI is very strong in legal topics. Contrary to creating technical drawings. A long way to go on that 😀

      Reply

      • Pulling the applicable codes and sections of them out of regulations is another use that is effective.

        There are a lot of aspects involved that are touched on by any number of paragraphs , its not a neat tidy bundle.

        The key is that it lists what chapter, verse and paragraph its pulled the ref out of. Then anyone can locate it and if needed confirm its there and not made up.

        Nothing more than we always have done. So yes it can be useful in both the right application and the format that ensures tracking to the source ref.

        We had an addition to an area and it was puzzling that there was no boiler added as it was SOP for dual boilers after a certain size service area was reached.

        It took me a few hours to wade through the documentation but yes it was listed in the docs, the drawings did not show it. Drawing are supposed to reflect the documents.

        Siting chapter and verse we got the 2nd Boiler and its associated pumps.

        Reply

    • CBC: An Ontario judge tossed a court filing seemingly written with AI. Experts say it’s a growing problem

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/artificial-intelligence-legal-research-problems-1.7550358

      > Legal experts say an Ontario judge’s criticism of a lawyer who seemingly leaned on artificial intelligence to prepare court materials is putting the spotlight on the dangers of AI tools that can produce false or fictitious information.

      > In the list’s first Canadian case, Zhang v. Chen, B.C. Justice D. M. Masuhara reprimanded lawyer Chong Ke on Feb. 23, 2024 for inserting two fake cases into a notice of application that were later discovered to have been created by ChatGPT. The judge, who described the errors as “alarming,” ordered Ke to pay court costs but not special costs.

      Reply

      • https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/insights/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-law-law-firms-business-models/

        Impact on legal firms is enormous. Denial is not an option.

        Reply

        • No doubt it’s a powerful tool like gun powder, but we’re like stone age man who discovered fire, it’ll take some learning.

          It takes an experienced technical team to use them at enterprise level, how many lawyers or law firms are capable to manage the transformation successfully?

          Summary:
          > A July 2025 METR study found that experienced developers using early-2025 AI tools took 19% longer to complete tasks than developers using no AI, which challenges the widespread belief that AI inherently boosts productivity. While participants expected a 24% speed increase, they still believed AI improved their performance by 20% after the tasks.

          Reply

          • Expect initial use in series production of frivolous litigation.

          • Still takes manpower to vet for hallucinations.

13. This gentleman flies both the A320 and the 737 and has some thoughts on their relative quaties:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqxQnj3GCOA

    Reply

    • Yep, difference between the modern and the old stuff.

      I suspect you would be biased depending on where you started and how recent your background is in small aircraft.

      737 has its legacy aspect baked in. You can’t change the cockpit size without a huge impact on the air frame. You can add some of the automation but it still is going to have that circuit panel behind the co pilot.

      Not sure day in day out I would prefer not to smell the biffy though. Ungh.

      Reply

14. Breaking:

    > A new GAO report on the F35 is out…

    [Footnote 13:
    There is no plan to equip TR2 aircraft with future Block 4 capabilities.]

    > That’s right. All the early adopters – UK, Oz, Noggies and Cloggies, RoK and the rest – no plan to bring these aircraft beyond Block 3. And AFAIK none of the new kit in TR-3 Block 4 – EO-DAS, updated radar, improved EW, expanded memory – was spec’d to be back-compatible. (… the entire MS physical and compute architecture is new for Block 4.)

    > Everyone is stuck with an aircraft that USAF has repeatedly said is not up to the latest threat standard…

    > … the second-wave punters, incl Finland, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, who are expecting Block 4 capability: the cost of Block 4 and when which upgrades are available remain undefined, with no further clue until later this year. But GAO makes it clear that the list of improvements has been slashed and the survivors will be delivered at a more modest pace.

    > If you want to go beyond the truncated Block 4 and get future capabilities – or indeed, what you thought you were getting when you signed on in the early 2020s – the GAO says quite clearly that you will need more cooling capacity, the EPM (engine and PTMS modernization) package. PTMS stands for power and thermal management system and is different from PTSD which is what the customers will experience when they see the check.

    > … while the Joint Program Office hasn’t signed a contract with RTX for the engine upgrade yet, it has definitely selected RTX and has no alternative engine source.

    > LM and RTX’s monopoly position (both are primes) has led to more shenanigans detailed by the GAO (the report is, all in all, a work of horror that makes Lovecraft and King look like the Teddy Bears’ Picnic) in terms of incentive fees. Because of the many delays in development and chronic late deliveries, the primes have technically forfeited a lot of incentive fees, which are super-profits paid on top of regular profits for doing, errm, what the contractor promised to do in the first place.

    > But, says the GAO, the JPO came up with a wizard wheeze. (Not their language.) They “repurposed” the incentive funds and awarded them for different milestones. Like this: “Nathan, if you don’t hit Madysyn again you can have more ice cream.” whop HOOOOOWWWWWLLLL “Nathan, that was non-optimal, but if you don’t pull the cat’s tail you can still have the ice cream” Doesn’t work any better on $70 billion prime contractors…

    > Another observation by the GAO is that the program has routinely bought more aircraft than the primes and supply chain can produce. That’s in line with incentives: building more airplanes can reduce unit cost, undercutting the dastardly Europeans, building market share, and not only making money on production but putting more aircraft in the field to eat spares.

    > The bad news, of course, is that deliveries have run late, and no matter how hard the primes wield the knout, the suppliers can only go so fast, spares are short, mission-capable rates tank, and cost/flight hour goes up. But it’s not all bad, at least not for the primes’ profits or market cap, or the bosses’ 401(k)s.

    > … comment from GAO, which is as close to editorializing as they get:

    “Our prior work has found that using evidence and applying learning is key to effective decision-making. Specifically, using evidence can help an organization better understand why desired results were not achieved. This, in turn, informs decision-makers so they can change their approach to achieve better outcomes.”
    https://x.com/ValkStrategy/status/1963339326554505662

    The best fighter jet according to Genius. 😅

    TR3 is the bare minimum for today’s world (unfortunately TR3 from LM today is still incomplete — good for training only!) and TR3 will not be competitive very soon.

    Reply

    • The cost to upgrade the early F-35’s to Block 4 is prohibitive. That’s been known for years. Many of those buyers didn’t want Block 4 anyway.

      One if the the issues JPO faces is that not every customer wants Block 4, which raises it’s overall price. Some are perfectly happy with Block 3.

      Block 3 is still quite formidable, the notion that it’s “obsolete” is fairly amusing.

      Here is a link to the GAO report:

      https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26081786/gao-f35s.pdf

      Reply

      • “Many of those buyers didn’t want Block 4 anyway.”

        Haha. Can you name each of them and your source(s)?
        Anyone who is updated with current affairs is aware LM and America are not in the lead anymore. There’s a new kid at the block. Not only Trump stayed up late to watch, we also have the Pentagon Pizza Index to prove folks at the Pentagon were up all nigh.
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gz44CRLbAAgQ_8Q?format=jpg&name=large

        Why does Block 4 need a new architecture? Isn’t the promise from LM the F-35 is updated with the latest technologies? Not tech barely competitive fifteen, twenty years ago?

        Rob, did you read this? 👇 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
        “But GAO makes it clear that the list of improvements has been slashed and the survivors will be delivered at a more modest pace.”

        When can RTX deliver block 4? 🤷‍♂️ Did LM cut corners and enrich themselves? Look at their stock price, does it look like a massive failure? No wonder the US is being sucked dry.

        Reply

        • Oh my God!

          2031 the *earliest*? Who the hell are these guys/gals kidding? By 2031, I have no doubt it won’t be competitive anymore. No wonder the PACOM guy admitted air superiority is lost.

          “The Pentagon now anticipates the F-35’s Block 4 modernization won’t be complete until 2031 at the earliest, a five-year delay from its original timeline”

          ==========

          To the contrary of what Rob posted:

          > “Of the first 48 F-35B bought by the UK only jet 38 onward is TR-3, which means no Block 4 for the rest – ever.
          Only 25 of the UK’s 63 F-35B will be able to use Meteor or SPEAR *if* those weapons are ever integrated.
          We will never hit FOC for CEPP as it was originally conceived.”

          ##########

          That’s the sound came out of those who belatedly realized they are shafted.

          I can now quite confidently give my verdict of the RN’s QE experiment

          Reply

          • I can now quite confidently give my verdict of the RN’s massive QE class experiment: cut loss.

        • The F-35 program has always been conceived in terms of block upgrades that would be optional to customer nations.

          I can’t really make logical sense of your arguments here, so will presume they are the usual anti-American propaganda.

          Reply

          • see: https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133476/1439133476___5.htm

            and:
            “anti-American propaganda.”

            looks more like an anti “war mongerer on conjured up pretexts” position.

          • Well, that post makes even less logical sense than Pedro’s.

            I get that you guys hate the F-35, and will accept your hatred within the framework of personal bias.

            As is typically the case here, there are flaws in the F-35 program that could be discussed rationally, but that never seems to be the objective.

            In the meantime, the F-35 has been selected by some 20 nations after their own independent reviews. So whatever problems exist, it obviously has considerable merit.

          • “…hatred within the framework of personal bias.”

            Not very personal, it seems.
            From 4 years ago:

            “The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed”

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/

          • For Germany buying F35 was forced by the indication that qualifying the Eurofighter for the nuclear share job ( currently held by Tornado ) would be boondoggled.

            Others seem to have decided on “lighting protection” considerations and other less product related circumstances.

          • The debate in Germany over the replacement nuclear platform, was resolved in favor of the F-35 because of its stealth capability of operating behind enemy lines. That’s an essential attribute of nuclear delivery.

            In addition, the nuclear certification period for the Eurofighter was longer than the remaining life of the Tornado.

            https://theaviationgeekclub.com/germany-asked-pentagon-to-certify-eurofighter-for-nuclear-role/

          • “…F-35 because of its stealth capability of operating behind enemy lines.”

            It doesn’t have the range to operate behind enemy lines from Germany.

            And the Russian Resonanz long-wavelength radar can track and target “stealth” aicraft.

            🙈

          • Neither of these statements is true. I really don’t know where you get this stuff sometimes.

            The B-61 is a tactical nuclear weapon, and the F-35 absolutely has the range to deploy it, as well as the stealth. Germany has said that is a key capability.

            In addition, long wave radar cannot track a stealth target with sufficient resolution or accuracy for a targeting solution. That’s an inherent limitation of the wavelength, and is why radars must use much higher frequencies, for which the F-35 presents a null.

            Also, the F-35 has electronic warfare countermeasures that extend into the long wave bands. So in the improbable case that it was detected, it could jam those radars.

          • The distance from Berlin to the closest point in Russia is 1300km.
            The combat range of the F35 is typically 1100-1300 km.
            So, from Germany, the F35 won’t be “operating behind enemy lines”.

            Regarding Resonanz:
            “Russian sources seen by Armada say the radar can detect a fighter-sized target (presumably with an RCS of circa 1.2m2) at 32,808 feet/ft (10,000 metres/m) at 189nm (300km) range. The sources continue that the radar offers accuracy to within 300 metres (91 feet) for range. The margin of error in azimuth and elevation is 1.5 degrees. The margin of error for velocity is one knot (1.8 kilometres-per-hour). The Resonance-N’s maximum range for undisclosed air-breathing targets is 324nm (600km). They also claim a maximum detection range of 594nm (1,100km) and 328,084ft (100,000m) altitude. The radar’s elevation angle is between 1.5 and 80 degrees and it can track up to 500 targets.”

            https://www.armadainternational.com/2023/03/russian-air-defence-systems-part-1-resonance-radar/

            🙈

          • The GAO reports what’s been rumored for awhile:
            “There is no plan to equip TR2 aircraft with future Block 4 capabilities.”

            The USAF’s 370 TR2 are toast, but the TR3 currently is only good for training. Truth hurts so much that it’s named Anti-A propaganda. Good grief. The more kool-aid/copium you consume, the worse the reality. Like the Tsar’s Baltic fleet annihilated in the East. Why they failed? Incompetence, corruption, out-dated equipment…

          • “Also, the F-35 has electronic warfare countermeasures…”

            What’s good in LM’s marketing brochure is rather meaningless in actual real life. That’s only good to trick civilians (politicians). I hope those in uniform is able to see thru such gimmick.

            IYKYK.

            P.S. It’s quite trumpian to call GAO “anti-A propaganda, isn’t it?? 😅

          • “In addition, the nuclear certification period for the Eurofighter was longer than the remaining life of the Tornado.”

            What I wrote.
            You are producing “Pravda” the official truth.
            Reality is different.

            You’d make a good lawyer or politician. Never an engineer.

          • Does it look like the US has substantial interest to defend European? “Daddy Trump” is about to quit… Europe after signing up all the beautiful trade deals. Haha.

            FT: Pentagon officials last week informed European diplomats that the US would no longer fund programs that train & equip militaries along Russia’s border in Eastern Europe

    • Yet another reason for Switzerland to cancel 🙈

      Reply

      • The Swiss lot of F-35’s will all be TR-3 and Block 4 compatible.

        However Switzerland is among those nations that may not want or need Block 4. Their primary role is homeland defense in friendly skies.

        The main benefit of the F-35 for them is compatibility with NATO & surrounding nations, as well as surveillance & reconnaissance capabilities.

        Reply

        • “The main benefit of the F-35 for them is compatibility with NATO and surrounding nations”

          Switzerland isn’t in NATO.

          Surrounding nations:
          -France: no F35s…just Dassault Rafales.
          -Austria: no F35s…just Eurofighter Typhoons.
          -Germany: mainly Eurofighter Typhoons; some F35s on order
          -Italy: about 50/50 mix of Eurofighter Typhoons and F35s.

          So, chosing the Typhoon or Rafale would be just as compatible with surrounding nations…😉

          Also far cheaper and more reliable.

          Reply

          • No stealth or thrust vectoring..
            Yesterday’s tech vs. Today’s!!
            Dang well better be cheaper..
            Threw a lifeline to Turkey to save the program..
            Definitely dirt cheap.. An offer too good to walk away from.

          • Better than TR-2 that only enriched LM/RTX and the “capitalist”.

            And, ahem, the atrocious full mission availability rate! (Where’s the solution? None?)

            So to have a similar number of aircraft available, the customer likely has to increase the number of purchases by say 50%, or more? And we all know how much LM/RTX charges for “sustainment”! Yup sustainment for the profits of LM/RTX! Not the customers.

            A fighter jet not able to fly is just a pile of metals sitting on the ground. Ask RN/RAF. They have two recently.

          • Switzerland broadly cooperates with NATO, and it is their stated policy to do so. As it is for NATO as well.

            https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52129.htm

            The Swiss made a free and democratic choice of fighter jets, and have outlined the reasons very clearly. And those reasons have been posted here earlier as well.

            If you disagree that’s fine, but you don’t make this decision. What’s right or wrong for the Swiss, is up to the Swiss.

          • Let’s be honest: the Swiss were tricked to believe they were buying the “most advanced” fighter jet at a price LM can’t fulfill.

            TR 4 may or may not come, at the current progress. That’s my prediction.

            Politicians and those in uniform are in bed with the military contractors that can’t meet what they promised.

            Norway, the Netherlands also bought into this boondoggle, in the name of NATO cooperation. A pile of metals sitting on the ground or considered by the USAF to be not worthy for upgrade is as useful as paper planes by kids.

            Think of the jobs that went overseas as billions and billions of taxpayers’ money gone into the F-35 TR-2 sinkhole.

          • @OV-1

            AFAIK only the F-35B has thrust vector, but all the F-35 has corrosion issue. 😂

          • “DOD estimates that Block 4 and engine and power thermal management modernization—as well as the costs to maintain and operate the 2,470 planned aircraft over the 77-year life cycle—will exceed $2 trillion.”

            Bullish! Time for more stocks! 😅

            *Not investment advice

    • @ Pedro
      Did you know this?

      “India rejects F-35 fighter jet deal as it pushes towards domestic defence manufacturing”

      “India has firmly signalled its disinterest in acquiring the US-made F-35 stealth fighter jet.

      “While neither side has officially confirmed the development, a Bloomberg report suggests that New Delhi has communicated its decision in recent months.”

      https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/india-f35-fighter-jet-rejection/

      https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/india-rules-out-f-35s-as-defense-ties-with-us-face-new-turbulence

      ***

      Per the LNA article just after this one, looks like Trump’s antics have, indeed, caused a wave of domestic self-reliance at the expense of US defense orders — and not just in Europe.

      Reply

      • There was never any serious intent for India to acquire the F-35, from either side. They have the same conflict as Turkiye, so it would never have been approved.

        Thus this is not a significant development.

        Reply

        • “During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier this year, Trump announced that the United States would open discussions on the potential sale of F-35 jets to India.”

          “We’re paving the way to ultimately provide India with the F-35 stealth fighters,” Trump declared, adding that “starting this year, we’ll be increasing military sales to India by many billions of dollars.”

          https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/what-are-f-35-fighter-jets-why-donald-trump-offered-them-to-india-8673532

          Reply

          • 🙂

          • Trump says a lot of things. To do this, he would have had to override the policy to not sell the F-35 to nations with direct military ties to major adversaries.

            My guess is that his intention was to cede territory in Ukraine to Putin, then declare Russia is no longer an adversary, which would eliminate the constraints on Turkiye and India.

            But that didn’t quite work out, and it was pretty dubious from the beginning.

            I don’t know anyone in the Lockheed or JPO program who thought sales to India was a realistic possibility. It would be foolhardy at best.

          • “The United States has made yet another verbal offer for the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II stealth aircraft to India.

            “This announcement comes just two months after President Donald Trump first offered the aircraft to India during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This time, however, the offer is more subtle, as it comes from Vice President JD Vance in a speech made during his ongoing visit to India.”

            https://www.eurasiantimes.com/f-35-after-trump-vance-makes-verbal-offer/

          • That doesn’t alter any of the facts I gave. Trump commonly believes he can override any policy, but that has proven an elusive goal in practice.

            Not even Lockheed wants to hand the F-35 to US adversaries, not even by proxy. That would substantially diminish it’s value. It was never going to happen.

          • Lockheed Martin, the DoD and the Pentagon had a trip to India planned to start the F35 negotiations…

            https://idrw.org/lockheed-martin-and-pentagon-officials-defer-india-visit-for-f-35-jet-proposal/

            🙈

          • One of the requirements presented at that meeting would be for India to give up specific Russian defensive systems that could be trialed against the F-35.

            That was the same requirement presented to Turkiye, which they ultimately refused, and subsequently were kicked out of the F-35 program.

            It’s no different for India, they have the same Russian systems.

            As I recall, Trump was going to offer them replacement American defensive systems, to avoid the conflict. Which we did also with Turkiye. But it’s not clear India would accept a distancing from Russia or reliance on American systems. Turkiye certainly would not.

            We just saw Modi in China with Putin at the Xi military parade. We didn’t see him in Washington at Trump’s equally ridiculous parade. Pretty clear where things stand.

            As I noted, at Lockheed there was no expectation that they India would break with Russia. What actually happened was pretty much as expected.

    • I don’t make this up. 😂

      > Major F-35 engine upgrade effort (ECU) will be delayed to “prioritize support” to Block 4, according to Pentagon budget docs. But ECU is needed to support new Block 4 capabilities, so this could be robbing Peter to pay Paul

      Reply

      • To clarify, the Block 4 capabilities that need the power and cooling upgrade are deferred until after the upgrade is available, while others that don’t need it are moved up in the schedule.

        All that means is the Block 4 rollout schedule has a different order. Block 4 was planned to roll out over about a decade, as there as so many changes.

        Reply

        • Lol.
          “To clarify”: The power and cooling upgrade is essential to maintain the F-35’s competitiveness in today’s world. The F-35 currently is limited by the power and cooling headroom available. All these fancy talks worth little when in real life everything has to power down due to overheating. LM shafted their customers by not factoring in headroom for future needs. Right now they are struggling for 40W IIRC. They can only have 30-32W at best. Almost like your data centre should be populated by the most powerful chips available, but you are only allowed to have “efficient” chips good for phones due to power and cooling. They also need a new digital architecture which prettymuch tells you everythingyou need to know about LM and the F-35. Nothing will be backward compatible. Forget bout it! Today’s so called “most advanced” fighter jet limited by bad decisions of yesterday due to a prime looking to maximize their profits! 40W should be available today, not tomorrow or the day after… when the competition is done. And P&W’s upgrade is fraught with budget overruns and delays… to be cont’d.

          Reply

          • None of this is really true, but it’s pointless to argue with non-factual representations.

            As is often said, the truth has only one version, but there is an infinite amount of misinformation. So you will just keep spouting falsehoods no matter how many times you are corrected.

            Whomever your masters are, they are certainly getting their money’s worth from you here.

          • “None of this is really true, but it’s pointless to argue with non-factual representations.”

            When non-factual spinners have no basis to argue, they start to call names: propaganda, “your masters”, etc. Why don’t you look at the mirror?

          • @ Pedro
            Remarkable that that commenter isn’t being reprimanded — I see him resorting to systemic name-calling and other personal attacks when the narrative is unpalatable to him 🙈

          • As stated, it’s pointless to argue with non-facts. An infinite quantity and variety can be vomited at will.

            The fact that this occurs on a continuous basis, post after post, is evidence of a specific intention to mislead.

            If either of you would like to engage on the facts, you are welcome to bring them.

            As I noted earlier, there are definitely flaws in the F-35 program that could be rationally discussed. But that has not been the content of your posts thus far.

            I’m not going to pretend otherwise, nor should anyone else here.

          • @Abalone

            I wonder who keeps spamming non-fact, who refuses to engage on facts?

      • Is the Congress going to save LM thanks to pork barrel politics?

        USAF won’t resume full F-35 buys until Lockheed wrings problems from upgrade: service chief

        > The Air Force will increase procurement again when it can buy “F-35s that are most relevant for the fight,” Gen. David Allvin told Defense One on the sidelines of the Royal International Air Tattoo.

        “In the end, because we have limited financial resources, we need to *make sure that the F-35s we buy have the capability to meet the pacing threat*. So, some of the delays with respect to Block 4 and TR-3 weighed into decisions by the department,” Allvin said.

        Reply

        • To put this in the full context of the article, DoD is reducing aircraft purchases across the board, because Trump wants the F-47, B-21, and Golden Dome to be prioritized.

          That’s a controversial position, but it is what it is. Not unusual for Trump to abandon principled plans & approaches.

          As far as USAF demanding Block 4 up front, that’s an impossibility. It was always intended to be rolled out in stages. To force it into one stage would be a disaster.

          However the USAF is right to demand the TR-3 hardware and software refresh, that should be ready by now. And to require it for future purchases. Lockheed claims it is ready, but that still needs to be certified by USAF.

          https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/07/usaf-wont-resume-full-f-35-buys-until-lockheed-wrings-problems-upgrade/406934/

          Reply

          • “As far as USAF demanding Block 4 up front, that’s an impossibility. It was always intended to be rolled out in stages.”

            Look at what’s in GAO report and decide yourself who is telling the truth here.

            > the cost of Block 4 and when which upgrades are available remain undefined, with no further clue until later this year. But GAO makes it clear that *the list of improvements has been slashed and the survivors will be delivered at a more modest pace*.

            It’s frustrating how come there’re so many who are interested in nothing but spinning??

          • As usual, you have selected specific quotes rather than giving the full context of the report. That works on stupid people but unfortunately not on us here.

            That’s why I posted the GAO report, when you did not. Anyone who is interested in the truth can read it for themselves. It lays out the specifics of Block 4, despite your claim to the contrary. They have been well known for years, as well as the rollout schedule.

            That there are delays in that schedule is also well known. But it hardly makes Block 4 “undefined”, as you imply.

          • Does the GAO report mention that Block 4 ‘was *always intended to be rolled out in stages’? What’s the page number??

            So much for the spinning: “Block 4 up front, that’s an impossibility. It was always intended to be rolled out in stages. To force it into one stage would be a disaster.”

            Contrary to what poster said above, ‘program officials’ decided to cut the foot to fit the shoe from the incompetent LM! Hooray! Lol.

            “The F-35 remains critical to our national defense, as well as that of our partners and allies, and is expected to retain critical roles for decades to come,” the report said. “After nearly 20 years of aircraft production, however, the F-35 program *continues to overpromise and underdeliver*.”

            > Block 4 is meant to boost the Lockheed Martin-made jet’s weapons capabilities, sensors and sensor fusion, and comes on the heels of another upgrade known as Technology Refresh 3, or TR-3. However, Block 4 is now at least $6 billion over budget and years behind schedule, in part due to delays with TR-3.

            *The F-35 program originally aimed to have Block 4’s 66 capabilities — which later swelled by more than a dozen — completed by 2026*, but that deadline first slipped to 2029 and then further. A 2024 Defense Department review found the program was not on pace to start delivering the bulk of Block 4 upgrades until the mid-2030s, partly due to technical challenges, according to GAO.

            *Program officials then decided to focus on Block 4 capabilities that could be delivered by 2031 at the earliest* — still at least six years behind schedule — and that wouldn’t require the additional power and cooling capacity of a planned engine upgrade. *Some capabilities… will be delayed, and others struck entirely* because they are no longer needed, the report said.

            **GAO said program officials acknowledged the new plan for Block 4 doesn’t meet its original intent** [😱🙀🙀]

            A 2021 estimate also found Block 4 costs had grown from the original $10.6 billion to $16.5 billion; an updated estimate won’t be ready until the end of 2025.”
            https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/09/03/pentagon-cuts-back-f-35-upgrades-to-slow-schedule-slips-auditors/

            Up to you to decide who, as usual, has more spinning than substance.

          • Actually the blame should be shared by both primes: LM & P&W.

            “In a statement to Defense News, Lockheed Martin stood by its work on the F-35 and pledged to keep moving forward on Block 4.” 😂

          • Again these statements are selective and misleading, and have already been addressed in this thread.

            Repeating them does not make them representative, nor does it add anything of substance or merit to the discussion.

            If this is all you have to say, there is no need to continue further.

            Everyone can read the report for themselves, which also contains Lockheed responses. Those are notably omitted via intentional selectivity.

          • Your response is trust me, bro? Lol. You have no source and have nothing to back up your claims.

            All these reports are anti-A propaganda? Laughable!

            > Every F-35 jet delivered in 2024 was late by an average of 238 days. Yet contractors still earned millions in bonuses.

            GAO flags major delays and cost risks in F-35 program
            https://t.co/VhFknzEtGD

            > I know that if I performed this way, not only would I no longer have a job, but I would also definitely not get bonuses.

            Not many are LM senior executives!

15. In the Boeing fraud charge dismissal hearing today, about two dozen accident family members addressed the court in opposition to the plea agreement.

    Roughly a third of the families responded to the court’s invitation by opposing the agreement. Another third responded either in support of the agreement, or did not oppose it. The final third did not respond to the invitation.

    The third that opposes, asked the court to appoint a special prosecutor to continue the case, claiming that the DoJ has a conflict and doesn’t represent them.

    DoJ and Boeing continue to argue that the court cannot order a criminal prosecution without the government, it can only order independence for an existing prosecution.

    The opposition argued that a prosecution is in the public interest as it will deter Boeing from future actions. The DoJ argued that the public interest is served by the terms of the agreement, which levies more than $1B against Boeing.

    The judge will now consider the hearing materials and testimony to decide whether to accept the agreement, reject it, or modify it.

    My guess is that he will alter or impose some additional conditions for monitoring and reporting of Boeing compliance. That was his concern a year ago. But we’ll have to see.

    https://apnews.com/article/boeing-737-max-case-ethiopia-indonesia-crashes-395cb5273f88b0a1bec0ef633719abce

    Reply

    • The aspect about fines = deterrence has been proven over and over again to be a wiffle. I don’t think any of us has seen even things like BP on the Maconda disaster be deterred.

      The penalties should be for the families. You can throw in some song and dance money, but that fails for the purpose.

      What did get Boeing’s attention was the Door Plug Blowout beauteous it became a story that was not going away. I suspect the Airlines meeting with the Board was the most impactful aspect.

      We also found the FAA had given lip service to the inspection operation as they were doing paper audits and bad ones at that. Anyone who has worked with paperwork knows it can be whipped and what the indicators of whipping are.

      All the travel work (read that botched quality) was on paper, as we used to say about ISO 9000 (other than it being a European Plot against the US) was if you made a bad product, ISO ensured the paperwork confirming it was bad was perfect.

      The case against Boeing depended on Government working better (never perfect) and it is not. Its up to the Judge to give them the best he can manage.

      Reply

      • The problem for the DoJ is they have a weak case. They weren’t able to get convictions against the Boeing staff involved, even with undeniable evidence.

        For Boeing itself, they have no evidence that management was involved. The two employees used text messaging specifically to conceal what they were doing from management.

        The case is built around the notion that Boeing should have known that their employees were committing fraud. Boeing was willing to risk going to trial based on that, after the judge rejected the guilty plea agreement.

        Boeing wants finality above all else. That has been a condition of all the agreements. But they don’t trust that the judge wouldn’t reopen the case at some future point, if that possibility is left open.

        I think that will be the sticking point in the judge’s decision. If it’s not final, Boeing won’t accept it. If they go to trial, then win or lose, double jeopardy applies, and it ends.

        If they lose, it’s unlikely the award would be greater than the $1B they have already agreed to pay. That’s why a third of the families support the agreement.

        Reply

16. “China starts aviation training for Southeast Asia as it pushes C919, home-grown jets”

    “Twenty participants from Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam are taking part in the 2025 China-Asean Civil Aviation Management Capacity Enhancement Workshop in Beijing, which started Monday.

    “Organised by the Civil Aviation Administration of China, the 14-day training course covers safety management, airworthiness certification, green development, new technologies and domestically produced large aircraft, according to an online statement.”

    —

    “Recent developments in a number of areas show Beijing is continuing to reduce its reliance on foreign parts, close long-standing technological gaps and assert itself as a major player in civil aviation at all levels of the supply chain.”

    https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3320682/nose-tail-how-china-reshaping-aviation-supply-chain

    ***

    So, as expected, China — like Russia — is purging its aircraft of western parts.

    Reply

    • Oh poster head “imploded” — as advised by uwe the logical consequence.

      Reply

    • So, a meeting to beat attendees into submission.

      Safety: Its a national security issue, we don’t release results.

      Certification: Trust us, we are the Chinese Communist Dictatorship. We would not do anything against international law like claiming and entire ocean (sea_) our ancestors* quit sailing a 1000 years ago and only sailed through it once at that.

      *: Note the ancestors were elites running dog nobility that subjected the Chinese people to forced labor just like we do.

      Reply

      • Many would agree at least much better and safer than aircraft designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys. Two crashes, 346 fatalities in less than six months, is that a record?

        *Note the ancestors killed 56 million indigenous people over 100 years.

        When Europeans arrived in the Americas, they caused so much death and disease that it changed the global climate, a new study finds.

        It caused large swaths of farmland to be abandoned and reforested, researchers at University College London, or UCL, estimate.

        The inaction by the so called “international law” community has resulted in a new genocide in the middle east. Aren’t you proud?

        ** It is believed that the peopling of the Americas began when Paleolithic hunter-gatherers entered North America from the North Asian Mammoth steppe via the Beringia land bridge. Time for Asian to take back their land?

        Reply

17. Wow

    SMBC-led group to acquire Air Lease Corp.

    The end of an era!

    So the removal of the A350F order is part of the deal in preparation for the exit?

    Reply

18. August update:

    Airbus Atlantic Montoir-de-Bretagne site has delivered the central fuselage sections 15-21 & the forward sections 11-14 of the 1st #A350F MSN700 at Toulouse FAL Final Assy Line.

    The company also completed the first A350F horizontal stabiliser in Spain in late July.

    https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/airbus-a350f-advances-fal-order-book-shifts-delays/

    Reply

    • We saw that and some discussion last week.

      Reply

19. Pretty interesting. So they have used the 787 like an A330 Regional. Wonder if they got the lower pricing?

    https://simpleflying.com/china-southern-selling-10-boeing-787s-online/

    They do run a number of 787-9s with a couple more on order. The -8s continue to be the orphans of the 787 line.

    Reply

20. Talk about bad engine choice: ANZ’s aircraft grounded by P&W engines. It seems it’s as bad as RR but you never hear that from our poster.

    Reply

21. A new collaborative approach is needed for Europe’s next generation of fighter aircraft. The Rafale/ Eurofighter) have been in service for over 20 years and flying 6th gen Chinese / US prototypes show the urgency.

    https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fchina-wz-x-hale-stealth-flying-wing-aircraft-v0-jd9o28jl28kf1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc5cd722b83d7878cf8195b799b3c9f837d929555

    The continent should develop two distinct 6th-generation fighter platforms to meet its future defense needs: a larger, long-range aircraft and a smaller, more agile one. Instead of overlapping/ competing ones reducing capability.

    The larger aircraft (MTOW 40t) would be a two-seater optimized for deep-strike missions, complex battlefield operations, and extended range. Its size would allow for greater internal fuel capacity and a more expansive avionics and weapons suite.

    The smaller fighter (MTOW 25t), meanwhile, would be a single-seater designed for air defense and close air support. It would be smaller and more nimble, ideal for decentralized operations and maintaining a presence over key areas.

    European nations with extensive aerospace expertise, specifically the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, and Spain, should set aside national rivalries and form a unified effort. Instead of competing on separate projects, they should issue a joint request for proposal for both aircraft, mandating that industry form alliances to develop fully funded prototypes within five years.

    This collaborative approach would improve shared development and production, allowing for significant commonality in aircraft systems to drive down costs. European air forces could then order a mix of both types, creating a versatile and powerful fleet for the future.

    Reply

22. When reality hits

    > The new National Defense Strategy has been delivered to SecDef Hegseth for review, and places homeland security over deterring China has the Pentagon’s primary mission.

    https://x.com/paulmcleary/status/1963924846548533463

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G0FDPRbWsAAEkDH?format=jpg&name=large

    Trump doctrine?

    Reply

    • Trump doesn’t seem to be persuaded by EU’s “trade deal”. Heads they win, tails you lose.
      Time for Kallas to go back to school to learn history.

      > Allies are especially worried about the fallout of the global posture review, given that it could pull U.S. troops away from Europe and the Middle East and cut critical security assistance programs.

      A Pentagon official and European diplomat confirmed a Financial Times report that the Pentagon’s Baltic Security Initiative — which grants hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to help build up their defenses and military infrastructure — will lose funding this year.

      > NATO allies increasingly expect some of the roughly 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe to leave over the next several years. But countries will feel the impacts differently and, in the end, are subject to the whims of Trump.

      Reply

      • Trump approved Navy SEAL mission that killed North Koreans and nearly sparked nuclear clash — NYT

        A 2019 covert operation in North Korea went disastrously wrong when SEAL Team 6 failed to install a surveillance device to monitor Kim Jong-un and, instead, killed unarmed civilians

        > Trump sent Seal Team 6 into North Korea to plant a listening device. The operation went sideways within minutes, when a fishing boat was unexpectedly at the landing site. Seal Team 6 killed everyone on board, sunk the bodies, and fled. Congress was never told.

        NYTimes:
        > “In Mr. Trump’s first term, top leaders in the Pentagon believed that even a small military action against North Korea could provoke catastrophic retaliation from an adversary with roughly 8,000 artillery pieces and rocket launchers aimed at the approximately 28,000 American troops in South Korea, and nuclear-capable missiles that could reach the United States…

        A few days after taking office in 2017, Mr. Trump skipped over much of the established deliberative process to greenlight a Team 6 raid on a village in Yemen. That mission left 30 villagers and a SEAL dead and destroyed a $75 million aircraft…

        The Trump administration never told leaders of key committees in Congress that oversee military and intelligence activities about the operation…

        The shore team swam to the boat to make sure that all of the North Koreans were dead. They found no guns or uniforms. Evidence suggested that the crew, which people briefed on the mission said numbered two or three people, had been civilians diving for shellfish. All were dead…

        Many of the people involved in the mission were later promoted…”
        https://t.co/XcuNX3vMtQ

        Imagine for a second that Xi were as crazy as DJT, what would happen??

        Reply

        • “But veterans of Special Operations saw a pattern. The elite reputation of SEAL Team 6 was built on daring missions, yet its history is scattered with such incidents. In Grenada in 1983, four men drowned before reaching shore. In Afghanistan in 2010, a hostage was accidentally killed by SEALs sent to rescue her.”

          Reply

        • Pedro,

          cut down the political military rhetoric. The the site is about Civil aircraft business and the thread about its development.

          Reply

23. Nice Content, I also write content on Tech Stuffs on https://codewithdc.com/

    Reply