Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury on Supply Chain, Tariffs, and the Next Generation of Aircraft at US Chamber of Commerce Global Aerospace Summit
By Chris Sloan
Sept. 9, 2025, © Leeham News: At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Aerospace Summit in Washington, D.C., Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury shared an optimistic outlook for Airbus operations speaking on supply chain recovery, production goals, tariffs, sustainability, and next generation aircraft programs.
Supply Chain Challenges and Recovery
Faury claimed that the supply chain picture has changed dramatically for the better compared to 2023. Deliveries from most suppliers are now arriving on time, though he admitted that “The one that is impacting the on-time delivery most is the two engine manufacturers.” For the first half of the year, Airbus is averaging as many as 60 “gliders” per end of momth — aircraft completed but waiting for engines. He said the situation has been improving and that “We hear from our engine colleagues that they expect to be back to what we need to deliver our planning goals. That’s why we are maintaining what we believe we are going to deliver to our customers.”
Engine makers remain in recovery mode, working through shortages of both new engines and spare parts. Airlines’ strong demand ahead of the summer peak adds to the pressure, but Faury noted that manufacturers have been transparent about their timelines. “You can’t be speculating on the fact that everything will go well. You have to factor in crises and recover today,” he said. When asked about Airbus’ target of 820 deliveries in 2025, Faury’s response was confident: “The answer is yes because we see that the supply chain is there, slightly better than we planned. I’m really worried about the engines, but what we hear from our engine colleagues is that they’ll be back before the end of the year.” He explained that many of the delayed aircraft would ultimately be delivered in the second half, once engines are available.
Expansion at Airbus America FAL in Mobile, Alabama
Faury highlighted the growing role of Airbus’ U.S. production site in Mobile, Alabama, where the company now has two A321 assembly lines and one for the A220. “In Mobile, we have two A321 lines finalized and one for the A220.” When complete, he says the sprawling facility that will be the fourth largest production site in the world for commercial aircraft. Airbus delivered 91 aircraft from Mobile last year, and with a FAL coming online, capacity will rise significantly. According to Faury, “When the third line is in place, the capacity we have will be around 200 aircraft per quarter.” He described the expansion as a symbol of Airbus’ commitment to the U.S. market and a sign of its confidence in long-term demand.
Next Generation Aircraft
Airbus continues to press ahead with its next-generation single-aisle program, which it expects to launch by the end of the decade and bring into service in the mid-2030s. Faury said, “We’re targeting better fuel efficiency by overall 20 to 25 percent, and about half of it will come with propulsion.” The other half, he explained, will come from aerodynamic improvements, lighter weight, and longer wings. Airbus is working closely with CFM, GE, and Pratt & Whitney to validate technologies and identify the right architecture. “We’re still in the research validation of the technologies, comparing technologies. We’re working hard… to identify and understand how we overcome the challenges and how we can see, but it’ll be a winning architecture,” he said.
While blended wing designs appear promising for widebody aircraft, Airbus has determined they are less suitable for narrowbodies. “We came to the conclusion that the blended wing is for bigger, wide-body planes,” Faury explained. “But for the narrow-bodies, the thickness of the blended wing is too high so you loose on drag. So we’ve come to the conclusion that the better architecture for narrow bodies is the more conventional (tube design) with longer wings which are better for efficiency.”
Sustainable Aviation Fuel
On the sustainability front, Faury reiterated Airbus’ support for sustainable aviation fuel while acknowledging the challenges ahead. “You don’t have this alignment between ecological and economics. Bringing down the price is a big challenge,” he said. Faury argued that more innovation will be needed to scale SAF adoption: “I think we are right to continue to target more SAF, but we have to be more creative.”
Tariffs and Transatlantic Cooperation
Turning to trade policy, Faury praised the long-standing “zero-for-zero” agreement eliminating tariffs on aerospace goods, calling it a foundation for the industry’s success. “We contribute to the positive balance of aerospace in the U.S.,” he said, adding that Airbus’ work with American partners “confirms the fact that what we have today leads to a very powerful, I call it North Atlantic ecosystem, which the U.S. and the EU are offering to the world.”
He noted that without the tariff-free agreement, costs would have risen and efficiency would have suffered, though he believes demand would have remained strong. “If zero-for-zero did not get approved… that would’ve had a negative impact on the cost base, on the efficiency of what we do,” he said. “We would have continued to do the same. But what we have now is much more effective.”
Wow, Airbus is anticipating mid-2030 EIS for a new narrowbody?
Very impressive, if true.
Wonder what the engines will be (I hear RISE is fading with both MFRs, as many of us anticipated).
I heard from here that Boeing will compete with their 737 MAX. Haha
Surely it will be sold more as Airbus’s attempt to catch up with the 737Max?
ULTRA !!
Unusually Late Transport Aircraft 🙂
Thats not what Faury said …’mid-2030 EIS”
He actually said and its clear as a bell
launch by the end of the decade and bring into service in the mid-2030s.
that is around 2035
Yes, you are right: I omitted an “s” from the end of “mid-2030”. Thanks for the correction.
Mid 2030s, not mid 2030. I would say that sounds optimistic of the launch is 2030. They have a giant decision to make between UDF and a higher bypass (like 15/1) geared turbofan with improved hot section.
I’d bet on the turbofan but would love to fly on a RISE powered plane.
“They have a giant decision to make …”
I’d expect those decisions will have been done before
that programme starts.
AFAICS Airbus is doing quite a bit of solution vetting in the sidelines. ( has done in recent years, will continue .. )
What will Boeing’s response be to the new narrowbody???
Crickets, most likely.
or
“We don’t need a new aircraft- we’re awesome just as we are.”
+1
After they are able to pay down their debt funded by operation. Watch for their FCF generated from deferral of payments to suppliers, which is low quality FCF.
800 aircraft per year is approaching 75/mth? (Has to deduct holidays and summer break — in Europe.)
@DF:
While none of is easy, my take is the basic form as Faury said, tube and wing.
As such, match the tube and wing. Only difference might be engine choice, either not or one different engine mfg.
Not shruggin off the complexity of any new (or in the case of Boeing old) aircraft mfg) but we are talking known tech. Lowest cost and issues is a conventional tube and a composite wing (wing pretty well drives the bus as it were and it has to be composite to get efficiency improvements)
Ironic is what Boeing should have planned for to replace the NG.
Engines will be GTF and as Vincent noted, not a TP.
RISE: as a side note, engine out ID is critical on a Prop, you have to feather ASAP. As we saw with Jeju, even a jet engine causes confusion (and other times, the 737 PCF off Honolulu shut down a good engine)
They have not solved the Prop off and more than one aircraft has suffered sever or fatal damage to that. I doubt EASA or FAA would allow anything other than a good armored section.
Finance wise worst case Boeing can borrow the money to do it.
What no one is factoring in is the coming crash in airlines ops. With Trump actively throwing his knee jerk monkey wrench into the gears, I am seeing reports of drop off in activity both passengers and airlines outlook. Two year olds have great fun knocking blocks down, not building castles with them.
Start in 2030 and its 2035 at best before you see hulls start to trickle out.
How and what composite they use to build the wing is fascinating.
Just to clarify:
BA had to issue shares last year in order to repay their debts due.
Everyone including LNA knows why BA can’t afford a clean sheet program now. 🤣
Oh yeah??
“Boeing can borrow the money to do it.”
Isn’t America the eye of the storm? Even China, after Trump initiated another round of tariff war, is still humming alone — exports growing above 4% thanks to new tech products.
“What no one is factoring in is the coming crash in airlines ops. ”
Remember BA relies on “fortress America” to fill up its order book!
> Demand for commercial trucks has fallen due to uncertainty, including tariffs. Here is one fun tidbit:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G0bXEgAXcAAj5uV?format=png&name=large
humming along*
Raising capital by selling shares is what the share market is primarily for.
Does that not happen in your countrys leninist-party-state system
Selling shares or buying them back, to reward senior employees, who knew
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-09-airbus-commences-limited-share-buyback-to-support-future-employee
Duke
“Raising capital by selling shares is what the share market is primarily for.”
Stick with what you know best, not financial market. Lol
2024
Moody’s Ratings downgrades Boeing’s senior unsecured rating to Baa3, outlook negative 🙈
Boeing’s crisis is getting worse. Now it’s borrowing tens of billions of dollars
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/investing/boeing-cash-crisis
Reuters
Boeing weighs options raising cash ratings downgrade looms: sources 🔥
DJT wants to turn my country, your so-called “leninist-party-state” into part of his! Lol.
Just to clarify, there is no cash crisis. Boeing raised capitol in the market and had no problem at all doing so.
In return for that capitol investment, Boeing acquired Spirit. There also was no objection or problem with that acquisition at all.
In addition Boeing raised $10B through the sale of Jeppeson and other assets.
It would be nice if we could have a factual discussion with full context, rather than the continuous stream of hyperbolic confirmation bias from a select few commenters.
Raising capital by offering shares.
selling shares is no investment.
peddling. nothing more.
IMHO: big misunderstanding. nobody “invests” in a company via buying shares from the peddling market.
shifting ownership. nothing more.
To clarify:
The fact is Boeing’s credit rating was downgraded by credit rating agency last year. Everyone can see the writing on the wall, Boeing lacked cash to repay debts due!
Even Scott wrote an article Boeing close to “ran out of cash” in case you missed it. 🤣
Simple facts and the reality! Time for “factual discussion”.
Uwe
BA spent like $43 billion to buyback shares at $250 to $350.
Duke
Imagine BA had saved a $10 billion rainy day fund in good times; slowed down 737 MAX production responsibly once the fleet was grounded (but they hesitated because they faked FCF to pump up share buybacks), and hadn’t faked its FCF to pump up share backbacks.
Did posters here learn any lesson from that debacle? Nothing?
PS: This is the headline from the CNN — Boeing’s crisis is getting worse. Now it’s borrowing tens of billions of dollars
“*Cash-starved Boeing, contending with massive financial losses from a crippling strike and years of operational and safety problems*, is turning to major banks and Wall Street to raise tens of billions of dollars in cash.
In a regulatory filing early Tuesday, the company announced plans to borrow $10 billion from a consortium of banks. It also separately announced plans to raise $25 billion by selling stock and debt. The $10 billion borrowing plans would be included in the $25 billion that Boeing filed to raise.”
PPS: Duke, BA’s share sale came at a high cost, at the rate of 6% to 6.5%.
Pedro, again there is no crisis. It doesn’t matter how much you post articles and then twist them around to support your viewpoint.
Here is a recent analysis from Fitch (June 30 2025). Note that raising capitol and selling assets is a net positive for Boeing’s financial position, not negative as you have attempted to portray.
“Fitch Ratings has revised the Rating Outlook on The Boeing Company’s Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) to Stable.”
“The Outlook revision to Stable reflects Fitch’s view that the post-strike production ramp and enhanced financial flexibility, including the announced Jeppesen sale, have reduced downgrade risks. The Stable Outlook also incorporates Fitch’s expectation of gross debt reduction, including repayment of all 2026 notes at maturity ($7.95 billion).”
“Sustained operational improvements, particularly continued 737MAX production progress, should drive FCF generation and EBITDA leverage metrics.
Fitch will monitor Boeing’s ability to maintain operational momentum and provide greater clarity on long-term capital allocation, which could support further rating improvement within 6-12 months.”
“The $24 billion equity issuance in late 2024 materially strengthened Boeing’s balance sheet, enabling the company to de-risk its financial profile while supporting operational execution. Fitch expects Boeing to retire all 2026 notes ($7.95 billion) upon their respective maturities. This would drive gross debt below $50 billion in 2026, a key consideration in the Stable Outlook revision.”
“Fitch views Boeing’s liquidity as sufficient with proforma cash and investments around $34 billion, including the announced Jeppesen sale, as of March 31, 2025. Fitch forecasts Boeing will maintain full revolver availability and aim to sustain greater than $10 billion of cash over the next few years. We currently expect this will be adequate to cover negative FCF in 2025 and repayment of 2026 maturities, and project that FCF will exhibit improving trends with positive mid-single-digit billion-dollar FCF in 2026.”
‘Fitch anticipates that achieving 777X certification will further catalyze Boeing’s financial improvement. Expected in early 2026, the certification would unlock significant working capital currently tied up in inventory, potentially avoiding a production versus FCF decision in case of extended delays. The resulting boost to FCF would enhance financial flexibility, supporting debt reduction efforts and enhancing capital allocation flexibility. Certifications for the 737MAX-7 and -10 variants would also be favorable, but backlog depth and the substitutability of other MAX variants helps mitigate the near-term impact on the credit profile.”
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-revises-boeing-outlook-to-stable-affirms-idr-at-bbb-30-06-2025#:~:text=Fitch%20views%20Boeing's%20liquidity%20as,revolvers%20and%20commercial%20paper%20availability.
I realize you don’t have a good understanding of corporate finances, and I’ve never faulted you for that. But I do fault you for not listening and not acknowledging the facts that are presented.
Rob
I guess everyone here can see who’s “twisting facts here.”
“Moody’s Ratings downgrades Boeing’s senior unsecured rating to Baa3, outlook negative New York, April 24, 2024 — Moody’s Ratings (“Moody’s”) downgraded the senior unsecured debt rating of The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) to Baa3 from Baa2. Moody’s also downgraded the company’s short-term rating to P-3 from P-2. The long-term backed revenue bond and backed short-term revenue bond issued by Miami-Dade County Industrial Development Authority, FL, were also downgraded, to Baa3 from Baa2 and to VMIG 3 from VMIG 2, respectively. The rating outlook is negative. Today’s actions conclude the review for downgrade initiated on March 26, 2024.
The downgrades *reflect the inadequate performance of Boeing’s Commercial Airplanes segment (“Commercial Airplanes”), which has prevented free cash flow generation from reaching the levels Moody’s had previously expected. The negative outlook incorporates Moody’s view that the headwinds buffeting Commercial Airplanes will now persist at least through 2026. Annual free cash flow will fall short of the $4.3 billion of debt coming due in 2025* and also the $8.0 billion coming due in 2026. Moody’s anticipates that Boeing will issue new debt to fund these shortfalls. The pace at which Commercial Airplanes improves will dictate how much of any new debt will be used for funding the upcoming debt maturities versus being available for operations should free cash flow generation remain tempered. New debt issuance will also further delay credit metric’s multi-year march toward levels commensurate with a low investment grade rating.”
LNA: The Boeing Liabilities Problem: A decade to resolve
https://leehamnews.com/2024/08/01/the-boeing-liabilities-problem-a-decade-to-resolve/
“During the second quarter, Boeing (BA) CFO Brian West admitted that the first half of 2024 will be a cash burn period, given the problems over at Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA) with suppliers, deliveries and certification issues. Estimates varied and West was non-committal in his comments. However, he alluded to a repeat of the performance in Q1, which had a Free Cash Flow (FCF) burn rate of ($3.9bn) and an operating cash flow usage of ($3.4bn).
The second quarter results released on July 31, 2024, underlined just how badly things have deteriorated. FCF for the period was ($4.3bn) and operating cash flow was ($3.9bn).
BA attempted to mitigate the drop in cash by borrowing an additional $10bn in April, which bumped the Long-Term Debt (LTD) back up to previous highs and guaranteed that *Interest Expense will be a troubling item for them, moving forward. In Q1/2024 Boeing paid out $569m in debt servicing costs with almost $47bn in LTD sitting on their balance sheet. With the new obligations, consolidated debt now sits at $57.9bn*.”
Pedro, lol, you are just reposting the same thing over and over again, as so many here have observered and noted as your method.
That news is 18 months old, and Fitch has since reversed their assessment based on strengthening of Boeing’s position, which you falsely claimed had weakened.
Give it up, you were wrong and everyone here can see what you’re doing. Your method just doesn’t work.
Reading comprehension failure noted.
👇👇👇
Boeing had to issue shares to repay debts due!!
Can BA afford a clean-sheet design program now? No.
Why kept saying there’s no cash crisis? Jesus! Are you okay?
The first act is acceptance.
Anyone who’s capable to read those credit rating reports has a clear-eyed understanding where to focus, eg. Key Assumptions, which from the Fitch report contains minimal capex and no future clean-sheet aircraft programs and their impact assessments. Because BA has clearly signaled there’ll be NONE.
TW
Clearly Ortberg hasn’t read your post for BA to take more debts. 😅
Ortberg said today: *paying down debt is a top priority* when the company returns to profitability. He noted that the company *took on too much debt* dealing with its crises in recent years.
I’m thinking the new Airbus NB will have a composite, possibly folding wing; Al-Li fuselage; and maybe a
RR Ultrafan as one engine option.
Vincent
I agree with the plastic wing with a folding device included. You need to raise the the aspect ratio to get the cruise drag numbers you need. A folding wing isnt a big leap for Airbus and the 777x will have ironed out the cert path. I suspect there will a very high plastic content in an aluminum skinned tube fuselage. The time window will allow a lot of manufacturing process development time to make a lot of todays assumptions obsolete
Thanks for this comment, PNW. I think AB’s new NB plane- assuming it happens- will look much like present-day aircraft, with the differences primarily under the skin.
I am wondering how hard RR are working on the NB-suitable Ultrafan. My guess is they’re quite focused on it- because that’s where the money is, to quote Willie Sutton.
Vincent.
We are all sitting here assuming the customers want a new narrowbody airplane. It’s going to be a tough sell capex wise unless there is a dramatic change in the manufacturing environment. I can’t see how with the installed base of current narrow body airplanes that the operators will have any room to afford a higher operating cost coming with all the infrastructure costs associated with a growing new NB fleet. Getting to scale with new technonlgy isnt free and the OEMs arent in a position to give away anything. The A22o, my favorite skinny airplane isnt making the manyfacturer a nickle at the rates its being built. If the build rate is slow, the operators will be stuck with a bunch of unnecessary 2 fleet costs. Remember the MAX really wanted a seamless common training curriculum, it IS important. We may be stuck with the status quo and be looking at a slide in the next intro date until the manufacturability of the airplane drastically changes to provide more value to the operators. Its going to be, in my mind, a time for the good old delta airlines pretty face on old pigs way to extend the fleet lives of the 737/a32xx fleets and make a pile of money using paid for aircraft. This is a money game, and if the new airplane cant grind the economics for the operator, its tough sledding. I dont think premium seating on NBs will finance the new fleet. The funny thing about all of this is that the impact of change is inversley proportionate to fleet size. Small operators can re-equip more efficiently and make the competitive landscape even more “interesting”…..
No disagreement from me; I have thought for some time now that the airlines’ buying frenzy post-“Covid” was unjustified.
Delta looking pretty smart, pre-downturn.
Yeah, I totally agree with this, and Boeing leadership has mentioned it often in earnings calls.
Given the life, reliability, and efficiency of the current generation of aircraft, it will take either some major gains to move the market, or a replacement cycle.
You can visualize the market as a sliding spectrum, where the timing of the motion depends on the extent of the gains. Large gains will move it sooner, weak gains will move it later. With the limiting lateness being defined by the replacement cycle.
It will be interesting to see what gains are brought forward by Airbus and Boeing, and how they manage the market risk.
As Bjorn’s series has highlighted, the development cycle is now about a third as long as the replacement cycle. So the timing and estimation of the market response to gains will be critical to success.
@Mr. PNWgeek
What are your views on use of GLARE vis-a-vis AL-Li for the proposed new Airbus NB? Airbus has a large investment and recent experience in the use of GLARE (A380).
Airlines have repeatedly said we don’t want any new stuff, we got enough problems with the new stuff we got.
Now I fault the Airlines for selective memory. All new aircraft have issues and it takes 5 years+ to iron out. In this case engines are a major factor as the hulls did not change.
Both CFM and PW have given grief. Pick your shade to throw, PW had more parts failures, CFM biggest issue is not delivering (to Airbus) but they also redid the whole engine in an upgrade so there were parts issue as well as anticipated issues you have to suspect (hmm, we don’t like what we are seeing on the most advanced hours units).
Throw in new engines may (on paper) be more efficient (and long term they will be) but they are also heavier. Is a new generation of GTF be it RR or PW going to be any lighter?
The problem lies with the airlines? Who’s kidding here? CFM and P&W, like BA/BCA, overpromised and underdelivered.
The mid-2030’s is also the goal Boeing has cited for a new aircraft. Based on Bjorn’s series on certification challenges, that may be optimistic.
But I wish both Airbus and Boeing well, if either or both can pull off a new narrow body by 2035, that would be a great thing.
Agreed, I think Airbus is just making fill the void noise.
Boeing is being more realistic.
I can see the meetings with Airlines, Don’t You Dare try to foist a new aircraft onto us.
Trans
See my post below
Any word on how tariffs imposed by the U.S. may impact the engine (or other component) supply chains?
Given the current political climate, a dual-source option, with someone outside of the US, would be a prudent move.
Look for RR or Safran to benefit from this, for engine choices.
@Rob
Good comment. I too wish the same for both companies. The world needs both companies.
But I do believe that Airbus leads the way to a future NB sooner.
Yea, Boeing is happy with the status Quo. They have a huge backlog and they need to make some money.
MAX matches the A320 and it would take an all new bird to match the A321.
In the meantime the 787 is the numbers winner in wide body.
777X has good sales. Ramp up the MAX to 42 a month, get Everette running on the -10 (who knows about the -7!) . No the -10 is not an A321 but it fills a spot and it adds to the backlog.
Trans
Since you insist repeatedly the MAX matches the A320, can you explain how come “Boeing has less than 40% market share in the single aisle market”?
Reuters initially ran a story with a title: Airbus ceo remains worried about engines despite improving aerospace supply 😅
Why no one talks about next-generation WB?
AB has the A350, and maybe there’ll be a neo of it, in time. No reason for them to build an entirely new plane, though a mini-A330 / 767 replacement is an idea, I guess.
The other guys have the, uh, 777-X- if it’s ever certified and goes
into service. Some say those events will happen in late 2025 and
mid-2026, respectively- but haven’t we heard all that before?
Vincent.
An observation from the cheap seats.
You are a lot more fun read when the cynicism gets dialed back a touch. Ive been working on that by bringing out the real stories. Don’t be Pedro lite…..
PNW- I think a fair amount of cynicism re: Boeing is
fully justified, since that deeply financialized company has consistently overpromised and underdelivered for quite a few years now.
YMMV, of course.
I think maybe the problem is the simplification of Boeing issues to broad statements of inferiority.
When that is the constant message, without providing understanding or context or specificity, it comes across as a need to criticize rather than to suggest or seek improvement.
No one disputes that Boeing has had major problems. Even the people I know at Boeing, discuss that freely. But that is not the whole story, they’ve also solved major problems, and have made substantial progress.
People can be critical without hoping for or predicting annihilation. For those of us here that try to support Boeing, there isn’t the same need to tear down Airbus for past mistakes. Or even for current issues that may appear in the news and in AD’s, for Airbus aircraft. We recognize that those things are normal and in family for a working fleet.
The best approach to criticism is similar to accident investigation. You try to identify the contributing factors, and recommendations that could improve things. And most importantly, you work to discover the facts and then adhere to them, without bias or inflation.
BA “…has consistently overpromised and underdelivered”
Moreover:
– Severely outdated NB product line.
– Under continuing curatele by the FAA.
– Multiple recent groundings, across multiple product lines.
– Multiple, high-profile screw-ups (MAX, KC-46A, Starliner, 777X).
– Entangled in an extensive web of litigation, from various sources.
– Up to its teeth in debt.
Plenty of justification for cynicism.
Show us — don’t tell us.
Thanks as always, for illustrating clear examples of the problematic commentary under discussion. You managed to hit every one of my points.
You always embody them so perfectly, better than I could ever explain. It’s a service to the community to demonstrate the objective of criticism for its own sake.
@rob:
your way of thinking and arguing is afaics
the keystone to Boeing’s floundering.
There is a very good reason why lawyers and politicians don’t design airplanes ( successfully ).
Uwe, the core problem is that the facts are not altered because you don’t like that I argue them.
No matter what you and others post in opposition, the facts remain. That seems to be the major disconnect here. And it goes back a very long way.
@Rob:
Boeing came awfully close to Bankruptcy last year. That really is a reality and I don’t think any of the comments were any too dire, a lot were not dire enough or soon enough. Frankly I think they would have been better off doing bankruptcy and clearing the books.
They still are carrying 50 billion or so in debt. 5 years minimum before they break even. So its not clear sailing. The economy is going to have a disruption if its not already into it. Ironic that being at low rates on the MAX could be a benefit.
Its not inferiority Boeing has, its the massive management equalization that went on for far too long. I don’t see any future that Boeing ever is the number 1 mfg again.
I fully agree that Boeing has a great base as a number 2 mfg. If management does not start liquidating the company again.
The MAX has a great backlog. Its as good economics as the A320NEO.
787 future is golden. Its the knock out winner in Wide Body. I don’t think 3500 production is out of reason. Maybe a NEO.
777X continues to sell decently and it has a backlog that ensures a long run.
But also agree, we acknowledge the massive screw ups Boeing management has made and watch the trends which are positive right now.
Maybe the biggest irony is Boeing could have used the C Series (though cleaning the program up was beyond them at the time) and Airbus does not know what to do with it.
Boeing is so non common type rating that the C series would not be an aspect, other than glass panels a MAX is under neath it all a mechanical bird.
@TW, agreed that Boeing was in a bad place last year after the Alaska blowout incident. But bankruptcy was never on the table.
As Pedro pointed out, Moody’s dropped their rating one notch after those problems, but Fitch has already raised it back to stable, and said it may be fully restored in the next 6 to 12 months.
(see my post and article linked in the financial discussion above).
With a company the size of Boeing, it’s not that easy to sink the ship, it has a lot forward momentum. It will survive the mistakes that were made. It has lost market share but the market has grown at a compensatory rate.
Thus it’s not nearly as dire as some commenters here are suggesting.
Oh TBTF strikes again! Where’s creative destruction? The military industrial complex is ossified but hey, the primes are gobbling up money hand over fist. This is the looting stage before the final act.
Let’s see what the up-to-date Zacks metrics say.
Oh dear — not good at all.
“Valuation metrics show that The Boeing Company may be overvalued. Its Value Score of F indicates it would be a bad pick for value investors. The financial health and growth prospects of BA, demonstrate its potential to underperform the market. It currently has a Growth Score of D. Recent price changes and earnings estimate revisions indicate this stock lacks momentum and would be a lackluster choice for momentum investors.”
https://www.zacks.com/stock/research/BA/stock-style-scores
The link has a nice table that compares BA to a number of its peers — very dismal indeed.
Some parameters for BA (such as PE and PB) can’t even be calculated, due to continuing losses.
***
Consensus analyst estimates for Q3 EPS: another loss…this time -$0.41 per share…a doubling of the consensus estimated loss from 3 months ago.
Q4 consensus EPS estimate: +$0.03 per share (down 75% from 3 months ago).
Latest from Reuters is that SWA expects Max 7 cert by 1Q2026.
We’ll see…
Define “expects”…
Didn’t Ortberg said in May that both the 737-7 and -10 were slated to complete certification this year?
say*
So would WN bet on WB or NB like the A321XLR?
Some sleepless nights for those in charge of that account. And just in case they decide on the A321XLR, that’s quite ironic for BA, isn’t it? The all-Boeing 737 airline defects to AB A321. 😭
> “Should we chose to fly to Europe… that’s not a mission the 737 Max will do, so we [would] need a different aircraft” – either a widebody or different narrowbody, [WN’s] Jordan says.
AB may launch stretched A220 as early as 2027.
“niche aircraft.” /s
The fuselage skins of the future single aisle already could be a different composite than carbon fibre
Metal- fibre laminate. FML panels do have aluminium as the metal
The A380 used in its upper fuselage to save weight
“Fiber metal laminates: An advanced material for future aircraft”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924013696026520
That’s a really interesting technology. We’ll have to see how broadly it’s adopted.
Rob
This is a continuation of GLARE used in the upper fuselage of the A380. Apparently it works with no significant downsides, bit it appears to be dead ended as it isnt continued o the A350
Rob continued
GLARE (GLAss Reinforced Laminate) is constructed with very thin sheets of aluminum alloy interleaved with S-2 glass-fiber prepreg layers, all bonded using an epoxy matrix. The fiber orientation varies by grade, allowing properties to be customized for specific stress patterns. The number and alignment of layers are optimized for different parts of the aircraft.
Properties and Advantages
Lower Density: GLARE is about 10% lighter than standard aluminum alloys, resulting in aircraft weight savings of up to 30% for panels where it replaces aluminum.
Damage Tolerance: The glass-fiber layers prevent crack propagation through the thickness, increasing impact resistance and fatigue life.
Fire & Corrosion Resistance: GLARE has better fire resistance (withstanding burnthrough at 1100 °C for over 15 minutes) and is less prone to corrosion than aluminum alone.
Tailorability: The composition and orientation of the layers can be manufactured to meet precise aerodynamic and mechanical requirements, including the creation of large, or doubly curved, integrated panels.
Application in Airbus Aircraft
A380: GLARE makes up about 485 m² of the upper fuselage, including front and rear fuselage sections, butt straps, and stabilizer leading edges. Airbus selected GLARE to reduce weight (estimated direct savings up to 794 kg), enhance fatigue resistance, and lower lifecycle maintenance costs.
Manufacturing: GLARE panels are produced mainly by GKN-Fokker in the Netherlands and Premium AEROTEC in Germany; panels may consist of between 3 and 30 aluminum and glass-fiber layers, with nominal thicknesses from 1.6 mm upward depending on structural demand.
Limitations and Future Use
While GLARE is more expensive per sheet than aluminum, long-term cost-effectiveness is favored due to its lower weight and extended panel lifetimes.
Its widespread use has been largely limited to the A380, but recent cost reductions and automation may enable application in future Airbus narrowbody aircraft.
Not chat gpt by the way, perplexity finds tech stuff better
Thanks as always for the detailed summary of the technology. Perhaps as you say, it will find wider application with reduction of manufacturing costs. If there are only two main vendors then it’s still fairly specialized.
Agreed and I think the operative term to keep in mind is single aisle (or MOM per Bjorn)
Bjorn might be able to shed some light on things, but as the progression on the A330 Mk 1 to IV went, the rants were for a composite aircraft to match Boeing. So that is what they did.
Now we have the A330NEO that is making some inroads. Not even GLARE!
If we ever see a new MOM, its going to be all about cost and not uber tech. So weight, ease of assembly, ability to assemble 60-80 a month at a price point.
Composite wings and whatever material works best, the aerodynamic of being able to form that makes it a slam dunk in my opinion.
Fuselage can be a compromise that gets the lowest cost and weight balanced out.
What we are not going to see is a new wide body. Not in 30 years (China and its paper airplanes aside).
You may see an 787 NEO. You might see A350NEO in 15 years.
RR, Safran, MTU, Avio.. some interesting exploring discussions might be ongoing on a new euro NB engine. Similar to CFM, EA, IAE..
+1
You can bet on that.
The EC is actively encouraging all sorts of EU companies to join hands on all sorts of topics — e.g. advanced semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, satellite constellations, fintech, etc.
MBDA (missiles) is an example of an existing JV that can act as a model.
I’d be very surprised if any major component on the next AB aircraft derives from any US supplier.
Absolute Rubbish..
-1 …
You honestly think GE is leaving CFM anytime soon .?
Only one of many U.S. Tier 1 suppliers to Airbus..
Hexcel, Honeywell, and Raytheon are and continue to be major suppliers to all AB aircraft.
Not to mention many smaller
companies like Moog and Sesco
industries, just to name a few.
Your living rent free in your mind …Total Fantasy land..
😆
Yea, like we don’t have single aisle engines all over the place.
Yep, lets come up with a brand new one, go ahead, find a customer for it!
While I admire what RR has done as far as building a single aisle demonstrator, the only possible destination is the A220-500.
So you split the GTF market on 14 a month builds? You are going to make money how?
CFM swoops in and offers a LEAP-B adaptation. Absurd that MTU shoots themselves in the foot let alone the rest of the illogic.
Trump is going to see nothing but flare back on his mucking up the trade system and all his garbage too will pass. He just messed up a perfecly good economy and we are seeing the first winds of the Hurricane hitting.
I can only think if BA swoops in and shoots their foot. Who else?
Looks like some people have problems distinguishing between past/present and future 🙈
And who said anything about “GE leaving CFM”? CFM can remain in existence — but that doesn’t that it will be a supplier of the next AB NB engine.
Yup same feeling here. Bots?
@ Pedro
No…just an inability to grasp/accept that the world order is now changing at a monumental pace.
A large group has been used to a certain situation for decades — and there’s a reflexive denial that that situation is now crumbling.
Let’s not forget that the next Airbus NB will have a greater spectrum of NB competitors than today’s marketplace.
On that subject:
“Air Cambodia to become latest customer for China-made COMAC planes”
“SEOUL/BEIJING, Sept 10 (Reuters) – Air Cambodia said it could buy up to 20 Chinese-made C909 regional jets, adding Cambodia to a growing list of Southeast Asian customers of China’s state-owned planemaker COMAC, which is seeking to sell its aircraft globally.”
https://www.reuters.com/en/air-cambodia-become-latest-customer-china-made-comac-planes-2025-09-10/
***
COMAC is already incrementally improving the C919. What product will it be offering in 10 years time?
p.s. Cambodia evidently isn’t concerned by the lack of EASA / FAA cert — that’s now 7 Asian countries (and still counting).
COMAC will have success with the C919 in any country that accepts the CAAC certification standards. As TW pointed out, those are likely to be nations that have strong political and economic ties to China. But it’s prospects in the West remain very weak.
If CAAC and the Chinese supplier base get on board with FAA and EASA certification standards early enough in the C929 design, it could become a competitor in Western nations. There is nothing inherent in Chinese development that would prevent that.
“But it’s prospects in the West remain very weak.”
Who cares about the West?
The market elsewhere is far bigger.
The West has a large installed base — but it doesn’t have much share of the aviation market’s future growth.
***
“…nations that have strong political and economic ties to China”
In other words: most of the world.
BRICS alone accounts for 41% of world GDP (PPP) and 56% of world population. Now, add in the rest of the Middle East and Global South and see how the chips fall.
According to BA’s own forecast, market of China is bigger than that of North America. China, South and Southeast Asia will account for 50% of the growth in the global air fleet. Growth in the ME&A and Asia Pacific erodes market share of Europe & North America. How come one is still mesmerizing “the West”?? Time to wakeup. I sometimes wonder why they all sound like broken records — repeating myths that were debunked so manytimes here.
It’s just the reality of the factual data, and the capacity for production, and the capacity to service a large deployed fleet.
China certainly will make inroads into its own market, but as Scott has pointed out, that market is a long way from being independent of Boeing or Airbus. And even a longer way from penetrating major foreign markets in the West.
Those are the simple facts, and the reality. It’s not altered or obscured by insisting otherwise.
Moving goalposts?? Changes topic to avoid admission of failure to recognize the reality?
Simple facts and the reality: China hadn’t placed any major order with Boeing for like a decade despite the myth being repeated nauseatingly. What if there’s no major order for Boeing by midnight December 2, 2025 GMT+8 as I posted here:
https://leehamnews.com/2025/08/21/china-boeing-appear-near-massive-order-report/#comment-547096
It’ll take time, no different than other industries. For example: how its new generation of technologies: renewable energies, battery and NEVs (which appeared to shook the CEO of Ford that he brought one back to Michigan to “test drive”.)
Simple facts and the reality.
One of the bottom lines is the bigger the Plane, the more it has to fly to countries that require recognized certification, and China does not have it.
Is Russia going to buy a Chinese wide body? The sure as daylights not going to buy C919. Let China operate C919 into Russia, yea that is possible.
Can China get their certification recognized? Not in its present form. If they go anywhere its going to be EASA and EASA is not going to just roll over and say, oh, we trust you. They have to have the system in place that provider the documentation that confirms it.
In theory the Cheerleaders understand that. Boeing is bad because they own the FAA (well not so much).
EASA and FAA are cross checking each other and they have worked with an understand the system. China? Nope. 10 years if China gave it a good faith effort and not its our way or the highway (well Silk Road).
And regardless of what the Euro Trio writes, the FAA tried twice and gave up. China refused to adhere to the documentation requirements.
Now where have we heard that beofe. Oh yea, Boeing, who had to submit their homework over and over and over again until they finally realized that, yes, you have to write your steps of your proof out.
China is fully capable, they have an attitude problem. And no I don’t want to hear about the US, we got a Trump problem. The FAA is now holding Boeing’s feet to the mfg certifications (yea that is another part of the process, you mfg process also has to be certified)
Those who do not remember their history are going to repeat their mistakes.
The old troupe is tired. Give them a rest. How many think BA would bankrupt itself back in 2004? Did you? 😂 Can you foresee 2044? I’m doubtful.
It’s a new world out there. Tine to wake up! When it becomes “the most prosperous, most advanced, enviable nation on earth”, there’ll be general acceptance, same as EASA/FAA rn. The next shock will be for fear of being left out. Oh the tariff war is going to reduce/end America’s influence, not increase.
PS: … the US workforce will be more significantly impacted by the Agent evolution currently underway. Oops!
Air Cambodia’s ownership is shared, with the Cambodian government holding 30%, Henan Airport Group (China) at 28%, 7TRIP International (Hong Kong) at 28%, and Vietnam Airlines at 14%, though the latter plans to divest in 2026
Comac sells planes to foreign airlines that have majority chinese ownership. Same goes for government owned Chinese airlines. The party-state system dictates what and when planes to order.
Its not a big deal, but should be transparent and not irrational exuberance from the fan club
Before long, Boeing may be part-owned by the US government — just like Intel 😅
Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines are considering the C919 — neither has any Chinese stakeholder.
Let’s be clear, previous discussion is about authorization outside China. Clearly the goalposts now have to move.
Don’t forget Chinese airlines placed a major order with AB in recent years. Who said the state dictates everything? How come industry from industry in China is now outcompeting foreign competitors? Your post is nothing but cope.
Embraer is debt financing Avelon’s big order. Boeing was split from United Airlines and United Technology only because of government’s anti-trust intervention. Boeing Capital also did deals to facilitate customers. British Airways, when it was government-owned, bought engines from RR. What’s new?
“… the operators will have any room to afford a higher operating cost…”
Jesus! When was the last time BA sold planes because of “higher operating cost”?? OMFG!
I can’t remember when airframers market their products for “higher operating cost”.
Pedro. Sheesh print the whole thing
I can’t see how with the installed base of current narrow body airplanes that the operators will have any room to afford a higher operating cost coming with all the infrastructure costs associated with a growing new NB fleet. Getting to scale with new technonlgy isnt free and the OEMs arent in a position to give away anything.
This pointed to the systems costs associated with a new fleet stand up. No wonder you can’t follow it, it makes sense
Who are you? PNW??
Everyone here who told me that operators don’t want a new NB because of the costs involved with “all the infrastructure costs associated”… blah blah blah, time to read this: 👇👇😁
https://leehamnews.com/2025/09/10/embraer-e2-finally-breaks-into-the-u-s-market-following-50-firm-orders-50-purchase-rights-from-ulcc-avelo-airlines/
Remember the initial reaction to the A320NEO?
A lot of VIP personae were vocal
that
nobody wanted or needed that upgrade and
that
Airbus was doing it just to fend of the CSeries,
a massive danger to their existing NB Line.
( never understood that: if the CSeries endangered another product up first in line of fire would have been the 737NG -700, -800 )
that
Airbus was just catching up to the 737NG ( barely! )
Much is effected via fully synthetic astroturfing folklore.
Major issue with this technique is that it stretches a kind of rubber band storing energy. If you don’t manage to kill that “unpleasant” object in a shortish timeframe energy will release and blow up in your face.
competing product is buoyed.
NEO CSeries/A220 …
Pedro….
I used to post here but have been lurking a long time but with Rob calling you out in very exact terms, I thought I’d chime in again…. Especially since a good logical argument was presented that made your MO understandable…. Your not a disruptive know it all, you have a plan, and perhaps get a paycheck….. Back to lurking.
+1
Pedro,
Thanks to Rob for this
“Pedro, the answers to your questions are in the documented factual record and have been discussed here ad infinitum.
You don’t accept those answers, so you just keep asking the same questions, over and over again, hoping the answers will change. But they never do. The truth is funny that way, it’s not altered by repetition.”
76049 is in Texas by the way
Now, really back to lurking
Is this on topic or off topic? More influences are joining here? So back to conspiracy theory FUD? How low are you going for?
@ Pedro
For your own benefit, you’re better off just ignoring certain commenters here.
Oil and water don’t mix — no point in trying to force them to.
No point in risking a suspension for nothing.
More competition coming:
“First Production SJ-100 Aircraft Completes Maiden Flight”
“The aircraft was manufactured at the Production Center of the “Regional Aircraft” Branch of Yakovlev PJSC and is fully equipped with Russian-made systems, including PD-8 engines, according to the United Aircraft Corporation.”
” “Twenty-four aircraft are at various stages of completion, and this is the first to launch the series. Today marks the beginning of flight testing for production aircraft. The new Superjet variant features not only Russian-made components but also significant upgrades to the plant’s technical infrastructure, replacing legacy imported equipment with domestic alternatives,” he said.”
https://ruavia.su/first-production-sj-100-aircraft-completes-maiden-flight/
***
So, Russia has purged 3 different programs of Western components in just 3 years.
COMAC is currently engaged in equivalent de-Westernization.
But…there are commenters who posit that AB can’t substitute US parts in the coming 10 years 😅
How many of those “western” components are made in the east? Commentators look at the branding and believe they have the whole story. 😁
Abalone.
I’m not sure where your going with this BUT if AB wanted to build eurospec products clean of US components, its reasonably simple to do so. 10 years though, probably not, 3 years, probably not because nobody is turning off suppliers. But its well within ABs ability and the timing would be determined by how bad they wanted to get it done…… If there was a Trump-esq sanction turning off parts to them we would be shocked to how fast AB can make it happen
Of course it can be done — and I suspect that it’s already being worked on behind the scenes.
An important part of the nascent Great Decoupling.
Abalone
Someday soon, people here will start noticing that Ukraine is building 2.5 million-ish drones a year and look at how they removed the barriers to do that. There have to be usable lessons there about simplification of processes.
Did you see Ukraine’s nifty new Flamingo missile?
A device like that developed, and now in production, in an amazingly short timeframe.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
I wonder when AB will announce that it will no longer be making use of fuselage sections from Kinston..? 🤔
“Flamingo missile”
apparently it is indigenously Ukrainian as the Daewoo relabled “US” Chrysler Models.
Ukraine value add may be limited to assembly.
Everybody can look to the sky and dream that “someday soon” without specifics. The key is when?? Dave had also repeated BA’s “target” of $10 billion FCF from one occasion to another. And he did attach a date… but Oops! Without a specific date, we can’t even figure out how far they missed! It’s like one comfort oneself that one day one would graduate from high school or take back their territories, but… hey dreams can only last so long. 2.5 million sounds like quite a target to achieve. Is the US going to buy from them? I heard American have some supply issues. For how long they still have enough men to send to the meat-grinder? But here the subject is not about Ukraine. 🙄
“Someday soon, people here will start noticing that Ukraine is building 2.5 million-ish drones a year
Abalone.
I was especially interested with their single use 250 ect cardboard single use supply drone capable of delivering 10 pounds over 40 km. Brilliant to resupply riflemen or send med gear….. 2.5 million a year of such a diverse product line constantly evolving is a stunning achievement
You say Flamingo I say Tupolev
‘Tupolev’s primary large drone was the Tu-141 /143/243 “Strizh”, a Soviet-era reconnaissance UAV from the late 1970s capable of missions within a 1,000 km radius, weighing nearly six tons, and launched from a truck-mounted platform. ‘
Its just a new production modified version with a better small engine
@ Dukeofurl
“FP-5 Flamingo Is Nothing Like the Tu-141 Strizh: Let’s Explain in Pictures”
“Despite the popular idea, these two technologies are completely different: from body configuration to production technique”
https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/fp_5_flamingo_is_nothing_like_the_tu_141_strizh_lets_explain_in_pictures-15575.html
Drone from the 70s??? Either it’s too advanced for the 70s or too low tech for today! 🙈
Glanced sometime ago, a drone enters production with a range of 2,500 km, and endurance of 12 hours. And it’s pretty low tech, nothing fancy.
Damn. Who said it’ll take three years for AB?? 😁
Isn’t the tariffs war is about walk-away from the existing supply chain?? 🤣 Will it take ten years? Suddenly everyone is a supply chain specialist?
The key is to covertly arrange alternative suppliers without tipping off the current ones 😉
Abalone.
I agree that AB is probably decoupling from US suppliers, it makes sense. Airbus after all is a European consortium and the capture of as much of the revenue stream as possible should be one of their goals. We shouldn’t be surprised that it actually is going on.
> Pratt & Whitney On Track To Support Airbus Delivery Guidance
Also
AW: Boeing Reviving NMA? Not Likely Anytime Soon
Just keeping their name in the news, esp in light of all Boeing’s
current programs’ delays-
snoozy.
+1
BA stock fell 3.31% today.
Constant PR life support necessary.
Surprise, surprise!
“Boeing CEO says ‘falling behind’ on 777X certification process”
“Boeing () CEO Kelly Ortberg stated while speaking at Morgan Stanley’s Laguna Conference, according to a transcript of the event: “When you look at the certification progress, it’s still entering the service in 2026. Yeah. So the the mountain of work is still there. So the 777 on the 777X program. The good news is we’ve got five aircraft now into the test program. We’re flying a lot of sorties and there are no new technical issues on the airplane or the engine. So both the airplane and the engine are really performing quite well. But we are getting to a point in the certification program where we need to be burning down the certification. Think of it as for score completion of the task, and we are falling behind on the the certification in order to actually get the completion, we can go fly, but we can’t actually get the certification credit until we get this thing called a Tia . And you’ve probably seen where these Tia’s were getting incremental TS, which give us some limited capability of being able to get the the certification credit done. But we still don’t have authorization from the FAA for a good portion of the certification program. So we’re working through that right now with the FAA. But we are clearly behind our plan in getting the certification done. It’s something that I’ve asked Jay Malavi, who’s our new CFO, to spend some time as we come through this quarter, really looking at this, this schedule slip and understanding what what the implications are. And our go forward plan. And this really important because as you know, even a minor scheduled delay on the 777 program has a pretty big financial impact because we’re in a reach forward loss situation. So we’re looking at that real hard.””
https://www.tipranks.com/news/the-fly/boeing-ceo-says-falling-behind-on-777x-certification-process-thefly
***
Looks like @Vincent’s cynicism above was/is fully justified 😉
Thanks for that informative quote and link.. ;););)
#unsurprised
New CFO, eh?
Any day now 😅
Turning the corner…sure 🙈
Also: either the transcript is inaccurate, or Ortberg has appalling diction.
“..We are clearly behind our plan in getting the [777-X] certification done.” -Boeing CEO Ortberg
Does this mean that that aircraft will not in fact be certificated in late 2025, as so many outlets had been claiming just a few weeks ago?
“Boeing acknowledged it may fall behind schedule in securing certification for its long-delayed 777X aircraft, raising the prospect of another setback on a program already years overdue.”
“Speaking at a Morgan Stanley conference, Chief Executive Officer Kelly Ortberg said test flights have not uncovered new technical issues but emphasized that a “mountain of work” remains before approval. He didn’t confirm whether certification, targeted for 2026, could slip into 2027. Ortberg also cautioned that even a minor delay could carry financial consequences”
No wonder TC decided not to be the first to take delivery of the 777-9. More compensation credits are on the way, Spohr!
“We are clearly behind our plan …”
Question here must be : which incarnation of the plan
as it transformed over the years.
A recent version or is it just a general statement ..
@ David Pritchard
“…mountain of paperwork…”
Looks like Ortberg didn’t know what the certification process actually entails. Then again: Boeing has been self-certing for years, and that’s much easier, isn’t it? 😉
How come Airbus and Embraer can efficiently process the paperwork, but Boeing can’t…? 🤔
ABALONE, VINCENT
I bet this is the news that Boeing has been trying to soften with their weird new indirect 777x advertising. What I get out of it is that Boeing again can’t find the truth……….
A couple weeks they announced TIA for the 777x. Now today its incremental TIA. What craap. This means that either they lied about TIA issuance or they failed to note a downgrade of TIA from full to incremental. IN EITHER CASE, there is an ommission of facts that matter. The truth can’t hurt you if you tell it consistently. I’m so glad I’m not there any more its stuff like nothing that shakes your beliefs about their recovery
Now that traditional self-cert is no longer an option, BA just doesn’t know how to get an aircraft certified 🙈
I also immediately picked up on the TIA inconsistency: so, either they’re liars, or stooges…or both.
+1
The link between the latest reported Boeing 777-X delays and the recent odd, 777-X mainstream media advertising does seem to be a good fit, PNW.
Good thinking!
Thx. I heard from posters here that:
1) fight testing was completed (Wow!! 😱 )
2) the only outstanding issue is about HIRF!
But the new information today tells me what I should never trust…
My understanding is the MIS is subpar and old habits die hard, managers responsible in BCA/BA are still fond of “watermelons”, green on the outside and red inside.
> … as you know, even a minor scheduled delay on the 777 program *has a pretty big financial impact because we’re in a reach forward loss situation*.
Don’t forget there are still posts saying how successful the 777X program is. 🤦♂️ And there’ll be a rush of posts to defend BA.
I’m sure the Dude from Boeing will Explain™ It All to us very, very soon. 😉
“What, me worry?” -Alfred E. Neuman
Oops!
> Fitch anticipates that achieving 777X certification will further catalyze Boeing’s financial improvement. *Expected in early 2026*, the certification would unlock significant working capital currently tied up in inventory
Turning the corner?
Really?
“FAA Holding Up Boeing’s Production Rate”
“Federal Aviation Administration chief Bryan Bedford revealed that the agency has not authorized Boeing Commercial Airplanes to increase its 737 MAX production rate, and has not yet determined when that authorization may be given.
“More than that, the administrator told reporters that the agency has not yet decided if or when to end its oversight of 737 MAX production at Boeing’s Reston, Wash., complex.”
“Speaking this week, FAA’s Bedford said: “This is going to be a bottom-up process – the front-line FAA team (i.e., at Boeing in Renton, Wash.) – that’s really on them to make the recommendation of whether they feel like we’ve reached some of the milestones that would warrant any kind of change.
““None of those recommendations have come up yet. That tells me the work is still ongoing,” Bedford concluded.”
https://www.americanmachinist.com/news/news/55315461/faa-holding-up-737-max-production-rate-boeing
ABALONE
Months ago we were lamenting Boeings inability to build enough airplanes to worry about what happens if they built enough to get to their rate cap. Now we are questioning when the rate cap will be raised and by how much. It seems apparent when viewed by easily checked 3rd party sources that Boeing is delivering more airplanes than 6 months ago. The articles are now about the timing of the rate break above 38 on the 737 line and when FAA approval will be granted That wasn’t the case 6 months ago. I dont know where a corner would be or how you would describe. Today however, it would be disingenuous to take a position other than recognizing the 737 documented production system improvements/recovery.
Yes, the output is improving — certainly.
But the babysitters seem to think that the child can’t yet stand on its own feet — and that’s astounding after such a long period of hand-holding.
Makes you wonder what mess there’d be without the babysitters 🙈
ABALONE.
If they are at 38, and indications look favorable there, its not illogical to expect a few months or so of sustained production to show stability prior to getting an Renton rate bump. If I were sitting with a frozen line in Everett, my focus with the Feds would be to start that line while Renton percolates along. There is far less risk of errors standing up Everett than pushing Renton rate bumps.
“China’s COMAC C919 Could Be About To Land Its First International Customer”
“Earlier today, the Bangkok Post reported that Malaysian budget carrier AirAsia is considering placing an order for the COMAC C919. This was confirmed yesterday by Tony Fernandes, the airline’s CEO, who confirmed at the Belt and Road Summit in Hong Kong that his carrier is “in active discussions to buy the C919.””
“Fernandes added that these negotiations make AirAsia the “first foreign airline to be working with COMAC” on such a deal, which, if it resulted in an order, would mark a big step forward for the C919″
https://simpleflying.com/comac-c919-first-international-customer/
***
AirAsia is a sizable and successful LCC, with a fleet of 109 narrowbodies (all Airbus), and many frames on order — including 50 A330neos (from July this year).
Fernandes is a pretty savvy, plugged-in guy.
“Yeah, I think we’ll take a few of those.”
“First Airbus A350F’s entire fuselage arrives in Toulouse”
“The entire fuselage of the first Airbus A350 freighter aircraft (MSN 700) has arrived in Toulouse, after being produced across several Airbus sites in France and Germany, and will be assembled in the coming weeks.
“The progress was highlighted by Joost van der Heijden, Senior Vice President of Marketing at “Airbus, in a LinkedIn post.
“He mentioned that the front, centre, and rear fuselage sections have arrived alongside the wings and are now being prepared for assembly in the coming weeks.”
https://www.stattimes.com/air-cargo/first-airbus-a350fs-entire-fuselage-arrives-in-toulouse-1356437
***
Meanwhile, over at the competitor:
The B777-8F design is “80% complete”, and holes are being drilled in wing spars 👍
Any news about the 777-8F? Any??
Abalone Rob and Trans.
I really think Boeing missed the sequencing of the 777x models. When I had a vote, I always voted to do the freighter first. You eliminate so many things, no escape doors, no interiors, no vac waste, no passenger service electrics, no lav/galley tombstones. All that self loading freight stuff. You in essence design build and fly the airplane faster, get it in the hands of freighter customers way earlier and generate cash. While you are flying the freighter in cert and delivering the first of them, you created a wider window to design all the passenger requirements. You cert the delta content instead of the entire airplane and go straight to delivery’s. I just don’t understand it. You see the advantages?
ABALONE VINCENT
I bet this is the news that Boeing has been trying to soften with their weird new indirect 777x advertising. What I get out of it is that Boeing again can’t find the truth……….
A couple weeks they announced TIA for the 777x. Now today its incremental TIA. What craap. This means that either they lied about TIA issuance or they gailed to note a downgrade of TIA from full to incremental. IN EITHER CASE, there is an ommission of facts that matter.
Freighter is a cash cow to profit from the residual value of a program after commercial demand falls off and most of the tools and machinery are amortized or written off.
The longer it takes to reach and stabilize at 38/mth and increase production beyond that, the more cash BA drains.
The benchmark for quality and safety worldwide 🙈
“FAA proposes to fine Boeing $3.1 million over widespread safety violations”
“The FAA found hundreds of quality system violations at the planemaker’s 737 factory in Renton, Washington, and Boeing subcontractor Spirit AeroSystems’ 737 factory in Wichita, Kansas, from September 2023 through February 2024.”
“The FAA also said Boeing presented two unairworthy aircraft to the FAA for airworthiness certificates and failed to follow its quality system rules.
“The FAA found that a Boeing employee pressured another Boeing worker performing tasks on behalf of the FAA to sign off on a Boeing 737 MAX airplane so the company could meet its delivery schedule despite the fact the employee had determined the aircraft did not comply with standards.”
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/faa-proposes-fine-boeing-3-160340611.html
🔥
“The FAA also said Boeing presented two unairworthy aircraft to the FAA for airworthiness certificates and failed to follow its quality system rules.”
ABALONE.
Thanks, this is good news. The fines for the sins of the past are minimal. So I guess Boeing presses on with the slow and steady march forward. The continued good news is that the observation period noted ended in late 2024 and there doesn’t seem to be any linkage with this report and current processes.
Well, it’s not good news from a PR point of view: widespread shoddy standards / shortcut taking in 2024 doesn’t reassure the pubic or investors.
And, per the other link I posted above, the babysitters still aren’t comfortable leaving the child to its own devices…which suggests that not enough has been learned from those past sins –> another PR swamp.
So, all in all, it’s not a good look for Boeing.
BA stock is down almost 7% in a week.
In the same period, AB stock is up more than 4%.
So, not everyone is sharing your upbeat way of looking at this.
I get your point…but I’m not buying it.
Looking solely at Boeing as “overachieving underachiever” is insufficient.
Boeing’s “unlearning” in context of certification execution
is valid for the FAA in a similar way.
Their competence was transformed into heckling foreign certification objects. ( _Mitsubishi_, Airbus )
guessing:
Chicken coming home to roost and maybe this competence is now hitting Boeing?
Abalone
If you haven’t gotten a copy of Scott’s new book, I highly recommend it….
> Should be at least three more zeros in that price tag. The US government has made it far too cheap for corporations to endanger and kill people.
https://bsky.app/profile/wandrme.paxex.aero/post/3lynpap45fc2q
Time rewind
D Gates wrote last year after the door plug blew off a 737-9:
‘The intense backlash against Boeing after the near catastrophe aboard an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX in January wasn’t a reaction to an isolated manufacturing error but to a *yearslong decline of safety standards*.
The arc of Boeing’s fall can be traced back a quarter century, to when its leaders elevated the interests of shareholders above all others, said Richard Aboulafia, industry analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory.
“Crush the workers. Share price. Share price. Share price. Financial moves and metrics come first,” was Boeing’s philosophy, he said. It was, he said, “a ruthless effort to cut costs without any realization of what it could do to capabilities.”
To drive down costs, Boeing *chose to aggressively confront first its workforce and then its suppliers rather than partner with them*. It left both, Aboulafia said, “angry and alienated.” […]
Boeing’s leaders delivered gushers of cash to shareholders through stock buybacks and dividends — *$68 billion since 2010*, according to Melius Research — *rather than investing in future all-new airplanes*. […]
Whereas in the past, first-level and even second-level managers in the factory had come up through the ranks as mechanics and had deep knowledge of the work, after Stonecipher came in those jobs shifted to white-collar people with degrees, often with MBAs. […]
“Boeing’s delivery volumes are unlikely to catch up to Airbus this decade,” Melius Research analyst Rob Spingarn told investors at the end of March. “If Boeing does not launch a clean-sheet aircraft, it may not catch up to Airbus in the 2030s either.” […]
… data compiled by a company engineer shows a serious drop in Boeing salaries relative to inflation and the general rise of salaries in the Seattle region, a decline confirmed by SPEEA. […]
In addition, Boeing’s leadership must begin to look ahead, to speak publicly about building the next all-new jet and advancing technology to decarbonize aviation.
> FAA not moving fast enough for [BA’s] liking plus the work to get though is a lot.
😅 Spinning and the blame game has started online.
As if it’s the FAA’s lack of cooperation with Boeing causes delays!
=================
Good read.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/boeing-clearly-behind-777-9-certification-ortberg-says
Remember this 👇:
> the result of lessons learned from the MAX certification fiasco which if I remember correctly, had to do with a product definition already presented to the FAA that kept evolving without submitting these subsequent changes to the FAA prior to the certification.
I thing the A350F is Boeings next challenge. People tend to look back & see marketshare build on 35 years history.
But the 747, 767F are soon gone. And the 777-8F is a variant of an uncertified new aircraft certified as a variant, the 777-9. Delayed 7-8 years because of it, when FAA came back in power.
Looking at payloads, OEW’s, technology and track records reveals new realities in the big freighter market that few want to acknowledge.
P2F conversions is changing in paralel with A330s taking marketshare globally.
I think the A350F is Boeings next challenge. People tend to look back & see freighter marketshare build on 35 years history.
But the 747, 767F are soon gone. And the 777-8F is a variant of an uncertified new aircraft certified as a variant, the 777-9. Delayed 7-8 years because of it, when FAA came back in power.
Looking at payloads, OEW’s, technology and track records reveals new realities in the big freighter market that few want to acknowledge.
P2F conversions is changing in paralel with A330s taking marketshare globally.
Just to clarify:
the divestment of Jeppesen won’t be completed until near the end of the year and is subject to regulatory approval and customary closing conditions.
Therefore BA hasn’t received total proceeds yet!
Mid 2030s, not mid 2030. I would say that sounds optimistic of the launch is 2030. They have a giant decision to make between UDF and a higher bypass (like 15/1) geared turbofan with improved hot section.
I’d bet on the turbofan but would love to fly on a RISE powered plane.
Here’s an interesting new take on the Air India 787 crash — water leakage into the electronics bay:
“Andrews pursues lawsuits against Boeing, emphasizing longstanding technical concerns with the Boeing 787’s potable water system, which supplies drinkable water to passengers and crew.
“This system’s proximity to sensitive electronics has raised alarms through years of Boeing bulletins and recent FAA warnings about water leaks.”
“Boeing issued bulletins to airlines in 2016, 2017, and 2018, instructing them to perform waterproofing maintenance.
“These focused on couplings that join water lines under lavatories and galley areas. Andrews describes these couplings as simple clamshell devices that hold two lines together, but notes that the way the final shroud fits can loosen the latch over time, resulting in leaks.
“Reported by The Independent, Andrews highlights that FAA notices and directives have documented water leaking into equipment bays on 787s, sometimes requiring equipment replacement.”
“The electronics equipment bay, located beneath the cabin floor, houses computers controlling nearly all flight aspects, including the full authority digital engine control (FADEC).
“FADEC serves as the engine’s brain, automatically managing all performance aspects by receiving data from sensors, calculating optimal settings, and adjusting fuel flow and other parameters to maximize efficiency, performance, and safety. The FAA states that if FADEC fails, the engine fails.”
https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/09/13/air-india-787-crash-victims-lawyer-shares-new-theory/
ABALONE>
The FADEC EEC, The Electronic Engine Controller, is mounted on the engine. It would take a significant leak event to affect the EEC.
…but the FADEC receives inputs from the FMS and throttle levers, and that occurs via electronics under the floor of the aircraft.
Trans and others,
Those who kept saying BA is healthy and can borrow from the market to finance a clean-sheet aircraft, Ortberg rebutted your claims. Did he read your posts??
“The current process is standing in the way of Boeing’s next big milestone, Ortberg continued: building an entirely new plane.
That’s partly because Boeing needs… *deliver planes and generate the cash it needs to launch a new plane*.”
BA can’t even competently design a nacelle de-icing system for the MAX.
What makes one think that it can design an entire cleansheet aircraft?
#Braindrain
I find this strange.
is it a performance issue or
is this a show of dragging ones feet?
what is causal-chained to “fixing the nacelle heating” ?
Aeronautics is hard. Or as simple as BA/BCA lost its mojo.
How many who had worked like twenty, thirty years or more were let go during the last nine, ten years?
> The 787 engineer said older employees were not surprised by the news of job cuts, which he attributed at least partly to the money pit that is the Dreamliner program.
“People could see this coming,” he said. “I knew Boeing had written a check it couldn’t cash with this 787 program.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/job-cuts-planned-at-boeing/
Pedro wrote
How many who had worked like twenty, thirty years or more were let go during the last nine, ten years?
Me
Has BA changed? Really??
Read this gem from LNA in 2016:
> Notable is that at _last_week’s air show, Boeing reaffirmed its 20-year forecast that demand for the 747-8F will recover in 2019. _Today,_ the anticipated production rate hike is cancelled.
“This is Boeing,” one aerospace analyst said. “Everything is fine until it’s not fine. That’s so typical Boeing that I almost laugh about it.”
Who is going to take BA’s words at face value? 🤔
Regarding the wing:
A longer wing means higher aspect ratio (wingspan^2) / (surface area).
The induced drag coefficient is equal to (coefficient of lift ^2)/ (pi*aspect ratio* Oswald factor)…
So a higher aspect ratio means a lower coeff of induced drag if coeff of lift stays equal..