Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Boeing’s Orberg: Striving for parity with Airbus deliveries
- Traveled work, rework are still obstacles
- 777X certification running late; customers now see first deliveries in 4Q2026
By Karl Sinclair
Sept. 17, 2025, © Leeham News: “We were almost at parity on deliveries with Airbuses last month…. We’re getting there.”
Kelly Ortberg, the CEO of The Boeing Co. Credit: Boeing.
That was the opening salvo from The Boeing Company (BA) and CEO Kelly Ortberg, as it begins to claw its way back from the depths after a difficult six-year stretch.
Speaking at the Morgan Stanley Laguna Conference, Ortberg closed his interview by remarking on how close Boeing was getting to delivering aircraft at levels only recently seen by Airbus.
“I feel really good one year in that my plan is working, that we put together. People are getting excited. Customers are feeling better,” he said.
However, the deliveries comparison with Airbus isn’t precisely an even match. Boeing has finally cleared its inventory of 737 MAXes, a six-year task from when the MAX was grounded for 21 months beginning in March 2019 and extending through the extended recovery period of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Airbus, meanwhile, has about 60 A320neo family airplanes in storage awaiting engines from CFM International and Pratt & Whitney. Based on production rates, Airbus has a 60% share vs Boeing’s 40%.
Still much to be done
Ortberg acknowledged that Boeing is on the right path but has a way to go. “I think we’re turning the corner, but we haven’t fully turned the corner,” he explained.
He detailed the laundry list of items that the company still needs to overcome, as it struggles to regain its footing, including:
- The 737-7 & 10 MAX certification, which is now pushed into 2026, as Boeing engineers work through a solution for the engine anti-ice problems.
- Ortberg called the 777X certification process “The mountain of work [that] is still there” and lamented how the program still has not received full Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) authority, with five test aircraft flying.
- The one key performance indicator (KPI) of the six measurables used, which still haunts Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA), is re-work. Costly post-production tasks must be performed by teams pulled from the production process.
- Streamlining the certification process with the FAA.
“We’re getting incremental TIAs, which give us some limited capability of being able to get the [777X] certification credit done. We still don’t have authorization from the FAA for a good portion of the certification program,” Ortberg explained.
The Boeing 777-9. Credit: Boeing.
Entry into service date likely to slip
Boeing targeted an entry into service of 2019 for the 777X. However, six years later, no timeline was offered for when customers would begin receiving their orders, which has cost Boeing dearly. But LNA is told that the lead customers now don’t expect the first 777-9 deliveries until sometime in the fourth quarter next year. Boeing had told customers to expect the first deliveries in June.
“It’s really important because, as you know, even a minor schedule delay on the 777 program has a pretty big financial impact because we’re in a reach-forward loss situation,” Ortberg acknowledged.
The impact has been quite significant, as Boeing has now accumulated $10.83bn in reach-forward losses and charges on the program, and has added another $1.072bn in deferred production costs in 1H2025 into Inventory, after writing off $3.5bn in FY2024.
“We can’t size a potential charge, but 777X cash flow including advances should gradually improve from 2025,” wrote JP Morgan’s investment analyst after the Ortberg announcement. “A delay-driven charge would stem from 1) concessions to customers for late deliveries and 2) running the production system for longer to deliver the 500 units in the accounting quantity; in other words, the cash flow implications of another forward loss would likely stretch over several years. In 3Q24, Boeing took a $2.6bnn forward loss on 777X when it delayed EIS to 2026 from 2025.”
It is doubtful that once all developmental costs are totalled, alongside the annual write-offs, the 777X program will ever be profitable for the company.
Related Stories
Ortberg stands by his plan to begin a “Keystone Review” of the 737MAX, with the FAA to obtain authorization to bump production rates to 42/mo, up from the current 38/mo (and then onto 47/mo). When asked about timelines, he admitted the need to stabilize production at each level, demonstrating the capability to perform comfortably at each stage, before moving on.
“I’ve said this all along, and it’s important, is we’ve got to do this right, and we are not going to push. If we’re not ready, we’ll wait a month. A month will not matter in the big scheme of things. Losing stability will matter. We’re going to make sure we’re governing ourselves, doing the right thing and building a quality airplane,” he said.
Ortberg also underlined the need to ramp up production steadily to reach profitability. The focus appears to be on producing a high-quality product for customers, while allowing the financial picture to follow the process naturally.
This is quite the change in stance from previous managers, who are on the record promising to “return 100% of free-cash-flow” to investors.
Cash bleed
Ortberg was queried about the promise made in 2022 that Boeing would be generating $10bn in free cash flow (FCF) once specific production rates were hit.
He was clear where his focus was, “Far and away, our priority is debt. Through this crisis we’ve been through, we’ve taken on way too much debt. So, as we come back and we start generating cash, we want to be solidly investment-grade, and we need to be there for the next-generation airplane as we start to think about that. We’re going to be servicing our debt here as a key priority for us as we return to positive cash.”
Perhaps this is not the tune that investors want to hear, but it is the prudent course of action.
With an upcoming ~$700m penalty payment to the Department of Justice, a result of the 737 MAX door-plug blowout accident, Boeing expects 2025 to have a cash-burn somewhere in the region of $3.5bn.
Ortberg declined to offer any guidance on FCF for 2026 when asked, preferring instead to focus on what Boeing was doing to change the way it did business.
Boeing Defense, Space and Security (BDS) update
Ortberg briefly touched on the situation at BDS, once again highlighting the need to stay away from fixed-priced contracts.
“We need to get through the fixed-price programs and move to the next phase where the risks are retired and the profitability is higher.” He further explained, “In many cases, we’ve been able to sit down with the customers and revisit the contract-based lines and make changes to those contract-based lines that allow us to progress and be successful, but also allow them to be successful.”
BDS reported a modest $265m gain on revenues of $12.195bn in 1H2025, which is a marked improvement over the same period last year, when the division lost $762m on sales of $12.971bn.
While Boeing still has a way to go, Ortberg has indicated that the company is focused on key elements: producing quality aircraft, obtaining design certifications so that planes currently in inventory can be delivered, and stabilizing the financial picture through prudent decisions. In short, changing the corporate mentality back to a long-term view, where investments are made for the future benefits of the company and not for short-term gains.
Related Stories
Scott Hamilton, editor of LNA published his second book about Boeing on Sept. 10: The Rise and Fall of Boeing And The Way Back. This continues the 
story that began with his book, Air Wars, The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing, published in 2021.
Air Wars focuses on the competition between Airbus and Boeing, and the outsized role of John Leahy, Airbus’s “super-salesman” whom Boeing struggled to best in sales campaigns.
The Rise and Fall of Boeing recounts how Boeing overtook Douglas Aircraft Co. to become the world’s largest producer of jet airliners—only to squander this global leadership position to the upstart Airbus. Hamilton takes the reader through Boeing’s rise and fall—and how it finally is on the way back to its former glory.
Rise and Fall is available on Amazon here.
Air Wars is available on Amazon here; and on Barnes and Noble here.
One thing I like about Mister Ortberg is that he seems to be a bit reality-based- at least rhetorically.
“..streamline the certification process..” for a company like Boeing that has a long track record of *not* keeping their own house in order (latest example being the Boeing MAX doorplug blowout), “streamlining” the certification process (nice, obscurative euphemism, BTW) seems shortsighted and unwise.
We’ll see how it goes.
You don’t actually have the faintest idea what he means by streamline the certification process, do you? Calling it an euphemism and throwing in the door plug blowout as germane doesn’t exactly bolster the effort to pretend familiarity with or understanding of Boeing’s operations.
Vinnie, did you not read the article? It is quite possible boeing will never make a profit on the 777X because of the prohibitively onerous certification process.. it really DOES need to be streamlined!!
Current nominal line rates:
MAX + 787
38 + 7 = 45
A320/321 + A220 + A350 + A330neo
60 + 7 + 6 + 4 = 77
Sorry, Mr. Ortberg, but 45 is nowhere near 77.
There may be blips in monthly deliveries…but, averaged over a year, there’s no parity.
Deliveries so far in 2025:
BA: 385
AB: 434
As the article points out:
– The BA figure includes lots of ex-parking lot frames. It also includes legacy 777 and 767 numbers, which are dying out.
– The AB figure doesn’t yet include those 60 gliders…or the widebodies waiting for toilets and seats.
One wonders: is Ortberg trying to fool himself, or fool others?
Hey Ab- the Boeing dude’s *got to* talk his book..
😉
We’ll see how it goes
Yes.
Investors need to be fed some cotton candy to soften the blow of the delayed 777X cert and broken cashflow promises.
Some say the Boeing 777-X cert will be “late 2025” and its EIS will be in mid-2026..
😉 😉 😉
We’ll see how it goes
Dear Abby;
Since when did 54 become the new 77….😆😆
Exactly what AB averaged first 8 months of the year..
Nice try Abby ole boy..
See if September lives up to your lofty predictions..😉
Hi Greg,
Overlooked the word “nominal” did you?
And also overlooked the comments about inventory?
Oh dear…
🙈
Hey Bryce;
Perhaps you could let us know when those shiny new A350 toilets arrive.
Considering you’ve been using that excuse for 6 months now for tardy widebody deliveries.😉
Your numbers are meaningless as usual if they can’t deliver.
After awhile, one’s credibility tends to lessen with all your pretext .🤟🏼
You just don’t get it…
Seeing you’re having to defend yourself from all your bogus comments again..
I won’t hold you up Bryce .
Go ahead and defend your honor..
ABALONE.
WAIT WAIT…. The 737 nominal line rate magically achieved 38 when a week ago you were railing against that possibility??
What was it that changed your position. I’m sure it couldn’t have been facts and data, so what was it…….
Looks like someone else needs to check the definition of “nominal”…
This might help:
“Nominal”
– (of a quantity or dimension) Stated or expressed, but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value.
“Traveled work, rework are still obstacles”
No wonder we are told not to focus on the output/deliveries, only the input and the supply chain blah blah blah matter.
Now the truth is out. The emperor has no cloths! Oops!
=============
777X
Another forward loss is coming?
He said, “We were almost at parity on DELIVERIES with Airbuses LAST MONTH…”
You use “nominal” production line rates and argue for averaging them over a year to validate your criticism that 45 is nowhere near 77. Then you state the deliveries year-to-date as though that lends your criticism any validity. (They certainly don’t support your 77:45 ratio). The straw-man obfuscation technique seems to be your forte… and YOU ask who Ortberg is trying to fool?!
You’re confusing (inter alia) “parity FOR the month” with “parity IN the month”… 🙈
Nope.
I thought the airbus planes were waiting for engines..
TC has good sleeps and laughing. 😅
The financial hole is getting bigger and bigger.
First delivery in June looks extremely tight, well, almost impossible by now. More drip, drop, drip…
How likely is that LH won’t have their 777-9 until 2027?
2028-2029 sounds more realistic.
Those poor customers really are victims of (ongoing) insideous deception…
LH will get A350F before they get any 777-9.
pedro, you havent a clue my friend.. they going cash flow positive 4th quarter and next year should be lots of FCF.. your post is nonsense.. really..
I / we will revisit your statement in 2026 Q1..4.
Bets are taken.
I think telling investors what they want to hear, managing perceptions created Boeings problems in the past.
“Streamlining Certification (Congress FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012) is where the deep certification trouble of Boeing on 777X and 737MAX originated; self certifying, exemptions, grandfathering of design and requirements.. Ortberg should do his homework.
I guess it takes courage to address Boeings huge debt and the short term gready free cash flow non-sense we saw in the previous decade. The previous CEO’s apparently couldn’t re$i$t.. the cash & get out folks.
There was no certification trouble, deep or shallow, on the 737 MAX. Boeing does not self-certify anything. Can you actually list even a few of the regulations you claim were exempted? How about a few of the designs you claim were grandfathered in? Just for the MAX; I’m quite sure your nose would grow much longer if you produced those lists for the 777X. Or were you just regurgitating some gossip you read in the news?
Never knew there was such an astounding abundance of expert competence in aero engineering, manufacturing and business operations on this blog!
It’s good to see Boeing making progress, as determined by hard metrics and KPI’s that can be independently assessed.
It’s a bit premature to be declaring parity with Airbus. That’s going to take some time, and the best they could hope for now would be to draw even.
But at least they are moving in the right directions. There’s no doubt whatsoever that Ortberg has cleaned up a lot of the production quality problems.
In particular, the comment about the KPI for rework, should be clarified that Boeing had to meet it to increase production, and they did meet it when they went to 38 per month on the MAX. But the increase caused it fall out of spec, so they will need to meet it again to increase production further.
“…and they did meet it when they went to 38 per month…”
There’s no tangible evidence that BA has hit rate 38 on the MAX.
Line deliveries are certainly still well below that level.
Asked and answered previously, by myself and other commenters. No need to uproot settled ground.
Not answered at all.
Waiting for that tangible evidence…
Lol!! You are always waiting for evidence of your claims, it seems. But that’s not our responsibility.
Thanks for confirming that there’s no evidence for your assertion 👍
Then again: it’s hard to provide something that doesn’t exist 👀
For tangible evidence have a look at the amount of first flights which are recorded at aviation flights, as are delivery flights etc.
June – 36
July – 41
August – 36
September so far 23 – (at this rate it’ll be 40 or 41 by month end).
As it stands right now Boeing have nine old 737s left in the backlog. Not including the -7 and -10, there are 50 new builds that have had at least one test flight that haven’t been delivered yet.
The info is out there if you care to look.
@Russell
First flights can be done on frames that were built months ago, e.g. if they were waiting for engines.
But, okay, at least it’s a quantitative metric — as opposed to “Ortberg said so”.
The real test will be when the line deliveries hit (sustained) 38 p/m.
@Rob:
I found the matching Airbus pretty idiotic. Airbus has a short term problem with engines mostly but that is supposedly resolved sooner than latter (stay tuned of course)
That is, the highest 737 rate I have seen is 50 (they reached 54 back before?). 5 years from any parity and more like 10 (assumes no interceding economic event which is sooner than latter)
Airbus is shooting for 75. Add in 14 A220 a month, that is a huge deficit.
Give Boeing 16 x 787 a month and a wild 10 x 777X a month.
Maybe not a full on match to Airbus wide body in the A350 and A330NEO but most of it.
I just do not see equal in even far term.
Yeah, that comment by Ortberg was a bit desperate. He’s trying to say “don’t count us out yet”, which is fine, but he should remain within the bounds of reality.
@Rob :
Agreed, what some refuse to accept (well more do not want to so won’t) is that Boeing has a solid base. Management execution different story but Ortberg is changing that. I think the most people I ever managed was like 6-7 and only as a foreman. No idea how to manage 170,000 and only vague ideas where to start (and fail immediately as I would not know how to make it work)
Easiest thing in the world to be a critic (or worse).
Boeing has a nice solid number two position and we don’t see any leaps in aerodynamics that it can’t match.
I was reading Av Week and how easy they got money, over 10 billion. Forget what the cattery was, but ;you can lau8nch a program on that, if it is worth it.
I still find it funny that a 60s 737 is still not just flying but has been modded three times now and fully competitive.
Nothing wrong with being a solid and competitive number 2.
Ortberg commented that the deliveries last month were almost at parity with Airbus. Quite the factual statement. Anyone care to explain why you think it idiotic, a bit desperate and out of the bounds of reality?
I’ll also accept something along the lines of: prejudiced minds are easily led astray, and this site being a Boeing bashers’ hangout—we practically live here—…
Rob.
Ortberg is trying to stretch his improvements and .ake comparisons to AB. That’s nonsensical at best. Perhaps they should focus on the load rate and when the normal delivery path gets to 38. Cherry picking the parking lot is fine but what really needs to happen it to keep the KPIs clean as the wip pulses go thru the lime as each sequential control code stabilizes at 38
Did Boeing maybe match just the A320 production/delivery numbers? ( one often has to backtrace what actually has been stated and/or separate statements that were understood to be a interlinked statement. … but not .. )
Looking at Boeings position, bank account, the delays, rework, pushed out costs, competition, market preferences, required investments, I believe Uncle Sam will step in sooner or later. He already the #1 customer, financer, regulator, salesforce, protector.
There’d be no need for government intervention. As was discussed earlier, Boeing’s liquidity and credit as evaluated by Fitch, are quite sound. It’s likely that Boeing’s investment rating will rise in the coming months.
That’s partly why Ortberg is concerned about the 777X certification pacing, the rating increase will depend on certification.
“…Boeing’s liquidity and credit as evaluated by Fitch, are quite sound…”
Not so over at Moodys:
Baa3 with negative outlook.
That’s just one notch above junk.
Or at S&P:
BBB- with negative outlook.
Also just one notch above junk.
🙈
I’m trying to be positive:
When you have fallen to the bottom, only the sky is the limit!
Again asked and answered earlier. The Fitch rating is the most recent. No need to rehash a settled issue.
I know you don’t get this, but repetition is not evidence, and doesn’t alter facts.
The timestamp of a rating isn’t determinative at all 😅
Fact is: 2 out of 3 ratings agencies put BA just one notch above junk ☠️
The facts are what they are. Denial is not evidence either.
Yes, the facts certainly are what they are … and they don’t paint a rosy picture at all!
Denial is futile 🙈
Let’s see who’s in denial: did Boeing have a cash crisis or not??
@keesje
Agreed.
Three programs that will never hit breakeven, continuing quarterly losses, and a mountain of debt…what could possibly go wrong? 🙈
@keesje:
Normally you comments have some logic to them, I was puzzled by this one.
Last year I could see a solid case to go Bankrupt. I think they would have been better to do so but they did not and I am no financial guy, its as far beyond me as understanding Einstein (convert the right (or wrong) something into a boom and you get a big one)
Boeing has its financing in line. They are reducing losses steadily.
No its not all roses, the 777X delay hurts. But once that is resolved, the 3 programs are in good shape and two of the three are growing production (or can depending on FAA approval on MAX and buildings in Charleston)
Uncle Sam only take over bankrupt operations and Boeing is no longer at that edge.
Uncle Sam is on a sabbatical.
Uncle Don holds the reins 🙂
Quite clear Ortberg is signaling more reach forward losses.
Two programs that can never recover their investments.
“3 programs are in good shape.” 🥴
The MAX will probably never recover the investment/charges/compensations either — particularly with the excessive discounts given, and the sub-par line rates for years.
So: three programs that will never get above water
Ortberg states they STILL haven’t received TIA for the 777X and he wants the FAA to go faster… seriously.
Comply with the regulations Mr. Ortberg and it will go faster 🤷♂️
I question his thinking about this TIA, they might not ever get a TC without full FAA/EASA compliance 🤔
The sad truth is, Boeing has been getting a pass on every airplane program since the 737 Jurassic in the mid 1960’s
They have never designed an aircraft that meet the full FAA requirements as listed in 14 CFR… ever.
The Max was the straw that broke the camels back. They lied to the regulators. Times have changed.
Interesting we don’t see these same problems with Airbus nor Guillaume Faury complaining… what I see is pure leadership and vision for the future.
+ 1
Only partial TIA for the 777X…makes you wonder what parts of the design are still considered to “lack design maturity” (FAA’s own words).
Launched in 2013…and still not able to get a full TIA 🙈
@Airdoc:
I suspect its the FAA not able to digests the flow from Boeing as well as their increased scrutiny of submissions to ensure they meet what they cay they do.,
Its not like COMAC and the Chinese government who just stamps certified on the whole package.
The FAA has a host of other programs including MAX and 787, resource constrained.
I suspect Boeing got adjusted to the increased scrutiny and began to produce it in mass (not swamped, just a lot there) and ran into FAA limitations.
Of course the FAA laid people off in the great purge of 25.
Irnoiically the 777X in reality is ready to go, FAA is not and a lot if not all that is self inflicted.
Boeing needs to go to congress and get them to staff up the FAA!
The FAA has more than 1,400 employees working on certification.
The EASA has 800.
So, the FAA has more than enough staff working on certification — the EASA gets the job done with 40% fewer employees 👍
The problem is with Boeing — not the FAA.
Not just airliners. Theres engines , helicopters, business jets, e-vtol and such.
How does EU compare on all the activity
Abalone.
The FAA certification branch covers many companies other than Boeing. The FAA MIDO organization is the largest in the world because it does more work than anybody else.
You make the statement that 1400 personnel at the FAA working on certifications is adequate. Please prove that. Give us chapter and verse indicating your unimpeachable source showing staffing adequacy.
My experience shows a clearly different reality than yours.
My project, a fairly simple under 12.5 gross wt aircraft product intended for introduction for the entire fleet of light aircraft in the US registry stretched its timelines multiple times as it was handed off between 4 STC MIDO staff during the cert process. The FAA/PMA approval staff wouldn’t even look at the project citing manpower. This is despite our organization being classified as a Woman owned business operating in a Historically underutilized work location. We had every special preferred group classification we could fins and were still unable to get FAA Engineering support to bring the product to market.
Please cite your sources showing that the FAA is properly manned to support the certification requirements of the industry so I can make my wife feel better about how our project was stopped.
“The FAA certification branch covers many companies other than Boeing. ”
The EASA has to certify products from many European OEMs, including Airbus, ATR, Saab, Dassault, Leonardo, Pilatus, Safran, Thales and Lilium.
And it all runs smoothly, with 40% less certification personnel than the FAA.
Abalone wrote……
The EASA has to certify products from many European OEMs, including Airbus, ATR, Saab, Dassault, Leonardo, Pilatus, Safran, Thales and Lilium.
And it all runs smoothly, with 40% less certification personnel than the FAA.
So What. That counts for nothing because you are, ONCE AGAIN, deflecting the conversation to a place that is irrelevant. None of that addresses what you said. Remember you said EXACTLY this
So, the FAA has more than enough staff working on certification — the EASA gets the job done with 40% fewer employees 👍
The problem is with Boeing — not the FAA.
Now, I’m fairly certain that you have never submitted a data package for an STC to the FAA MIDO because you would have blown your horn about it at some point in time. I’ve done it twice. Once to get PMA on Night Vision components for Aeromedical Helicopters and the second time on a 12.5k gross landing gear component upgrade for the GA fleet. The first program, done well before Covid 19 went lickity split. The MIDO staffing was outstanding, timelines were within expectations and the project completed with minimal stress. After that, the FAA reauthorization bounced around as a political football, the pointed at both end kind, and the FAA cert division destaffed and with that, many senior highly skilled people retired out. When we took the second project to MIDO, we got bounced around between 4 engineers who didn’t have enough time to do all the work in a timely manner. The PMA guys wouldnt even talk to us in a planning capacity. They said they lacked the bandwidth. This was in stark contrast of our personal experiences on project one. I am probably one of a very few posters here that have actually worked inside the cert system as an enterprise owner. I know and have posted the truth. When you say….
So, the FAA has more than enough staff working on certification — the EASA gets the job done with 40% fewer employees 👍
The problem is with Boeing — not the FAA…..
You are fundamentally incorrect. The speed of certification IS the FAAs problem. Thats a different issue than the quality of Boeings submissions, but you seem to be unable to grasp the difference. The FAA IS UNDERSTAFFED and if you had any experience at all inside the system paying your own way on projects, you would see it. But then again, this is another of those things you can just type and run away from, until you run into experienced people who can call you out on your inaccuracies, like now. We can move on now because I feel more deflection coming………
@ PNWgeek
I’m not “deflecting” at all.
You seem to keep forgetting what you wrote in earlier comments.
See the bit that I put in quotes above? You wrote that in an earlier comment…go back and check it.
@Abalone
Not only are you deflecting here, but once again you are way out over your skis.
You’re talking to someone with direct experience with FAA certification. The smart thing to do is listen and learn. That’s one of the chief benefits of participation here.
Failure to do so belies another intent for participation. But we’ve already discussed that in some detail.
There’s no sin in not knowing things, because the cure for ignorance is knowledge. That’s what is offered to you here.
But there is a sin in the refusal to learn. It’s difficult to fill a cup that is already full.
@TW
So little do you know.
Could you fill that out?
Puzzled as I think what you listed is evidence they are limited.
I know you get into a question of too many programs and hire people only to dump them latter (aka Trump who does it sooner)
I fully agree I can only understand the broad strokes and working in that industry is what is required to understand in depth.
I suspect you don’t know how to tune a Terminal Box either. Not a knock on you, its an obscure bit of work a few hundred people across the country understand. Someone as bright as you could learn it pretty quickly.
Trans
It’s not like BA can do much after its self-cert is taken away. 🥴
What if BA/BCA didn’t spend like the last twelve years downsizing, eliminating its engineering work force in Puget Sound?
Yeah it’s not like either FAA or EASA would take this seriously:
“Irnoiically the 777X in reality is ready to go”
Remember, BA is only one crash away…
That is TW or TransWorld to you.
Trans is a gender change and I am firmly fixed in what I am.
No disrespect, but, Congress has much bigger fish to fry than prop up No. 2.
But we’ll see how that goes.
“Its not like COMAC and the Chinese government who just stamps certified on the whole package.”
Always attribute to others your own misdeeds. How American 🙂
Not only that — also the auto-dismissive attitude, and auto-assumption of “we’re the best”…
Allegations are subconscious admissions, to some extent.
The FAA itself has stated that they have phased TIA and have serialized certification approvals. It’s quite apparent that this will delay certification, and has.
Note that it’s not a matter of compliance, as stated by Boeing there are no technical issues or non-conformances. It’s mostly an order of precedence in processing issue.
That has been the central fallacy advanced here by Abalone and Pedro, that delays are driven by non-compliance. But that simply isn’t true, and there is no evidence that supports it.
“…Note that it’s not a matter of compliance, as stated by Boeing…”
It’s quite clear that no credence whatsoever should be attached to anything BA says 🙈
Got nothing more convincing than that?
It’s your burden to produce evidence for your claims. As you’ve been told countless times, denial of evidence is not itself evidence.
I’d love to get you in front of one of my elementary school debate classes. It would be quite entertaining to watch them dismantle you in a structured environment where the rules of logic, evidence, and debate are enforced.
But that’s not here, where you get away with murdering the art of rational debate, on a regular basis. But you shouldn’t confuse cheating with skill, they are two entirely different concepts.
Okay: so another example of opinion presented as hard fact…with no subsequent back-up 👍
Rob;
I wouldn’t get too concerned. He’s one strike away from being tossed for good for obnoxious behavior..
One could only hope. But he’s been doing this for the entire five years I’ve been around here, so I don’t see that changing.
5 years?
I started commenting here just after the Alaska door blowout.
And, you started commenting here this summer.
What 5 years?
@Rob:
At one time there was a point that Boeing was failing to comply on the 777X. FAA wrote a letter and published it (AvWeek, maybe others)
It was both funny and sad. It was not that Boeing was not trying, but they were used to just a broad submital and not the backup evidence.
And nothing said their work was not good, it was that they had not provided the in depth proof, so they got told no, do it again and this time……..
My take is that the 777X program now gets it. I also think Boeing got siloed with 777X, MAX and 787. The MAX group got it first I think but no cross pollination with 777X.
787 group got it in spades when the shim debacle also turned into you need to prove other things. Clearly on track.
But the Bryce and Pedro operate in the past or complete fabrications.
@TW
Yes, I remember that. It was the first submission after the rules had changed, and the FAA just said “nope”.
Which was a hard lesson for Boeing, as they thought the enhanced scrutiny might be just in the MAX program. But as other commenters have pointed out, the FAA has applied those rules across the board, all programs and all manufacturers.
“presence, window in time.”
Rob posted here some years ago.
Same style as these days.
Then he vanished for a time.
( no idea if his or Scott’s decision.)
@ Uwe
Aha…thanks for clarifying.
And there was also a “Bryce”?
Apparently, I “must be him” because I’m from the same country 🙈
I’m guessing you’re German?
A “Bryce” participated till Sept. 2023
( my archive has a black hole from 2020 to 2022 )
( and Rob’s first bout here was around the end of 2020 )
@ Uwe
Thanks for that.
So, neither @Rob nor “Bryce” has been here for 5 years…which makes the 5-years refererce above extra weird.
And, apparently, I “must” also be someone called “Bond” or “Blondy”, or something like that. Does that ring a bell?
“and Rob’s first bout here was around the end of 2020”
Whenever there’s a crisis on hand??
Who said it was driven by non conformances/non compliance? Stop putting words in my mouth!
Time to separate your imagination from facts.
Denial of evidence is not itself evidence, as I explained to Abalone.
This is a typical non-response from word-engineer when they got caught misrepresenting.
Pedro, you have a long history here of such comments. There is no need to expound further.
Rob
You also have a history of such comments.
Lol!!! At least you are good for a laugh occasionally.
My post:
“Who said it was driven by non conformances/non compliance? Stop putting words in my mouth!”
You still failed to show proof that’s what I said. Still waiting for concrete evidence.
As poster can’t engage in “factual discussions”, more non-reply pops up.
Only if you read it!
I skip most of it.
The article doesn’t touch upon the recently-publicized 737 MAX cockpit “upgrades”…and the inevitable further delays that those are bound to cause to MAX-7/10 cert.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2025/08/21/rewired-how-boeing-is-rethinking-max-avionics-for-a-safer-future/
From the link”
““Boeing is quietly rolling out a wave of avionics improvements to the MAX family, not just to meet regulatory demands, but to restore confidence and enhance long-term safety.”
Methinks the cited “regulatory demands” are probably being made by EASA…
@Abalone
Not probably, they are being mandated by EASA.
Let’s be clear, these so called improvements are ok but the 737 is still a 737 with no EICAS, no central maintenance computer. It’s a dumbed down system to try and emulate the 787. Never happen.
Seems that EASA wasn’t impressed by the Congressional EICAS exemption, and decided to take matters into its own hands — by demanding certain basic modifications to remove the most egregious shortcomings.
From the web (emphasis added):
“EASA mandated cockpit modifications for the Boeing 737 MAX’s return to service, including software updates for the flight control computer, alerts for sensor disagreements, separated wiring for trim motors, and changes to flight manuals and pilot training. While initially aligning with FAA requirements, *** EASA also expressed intent in late 2022 to mandate a modern crew alert system on all 737 MAX variants, including those exempt from the requirement by the US Congress ***.”
***
BA has started delivering a flurry of MAX-8200s to Ryanair (7 last month, and projected 25 by end October). One can ask oneself if this is a charm offensive to offset the coming bad news of a further delay to Ryanair’s MAX-10…
More on this — formal questions posed in the European Parliament in Jan. 2024:
“In December 2022, the US Congress exempted the Boeing 737 Max 7 and 10 variants from the requirement to install a modern crew alert system. The whole Boeing 737 Max generation has been allowed to continue operating a decentralised warning system at a 1977 standard. This backsliding on safety contradicts the recommendations issued by the US National Transportation Safety Board following twin international Boeing 737 Max 8 crash investigations, which were codified into US law in 2020. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), as a member of the international Joint Authorities Technical Review group, must step in and stop this exemption to protect the public interest.
1. When is the EASA planning to officialise the requirement that a new modern crew alert system (compliant with the US Aircraft Safety & Certification Reform Act of 2020) be retrofitted to all variant models of the Boeing 737 Max generation of aircraft?
2. Why is the Boeing 737 Max not even required to have an engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS), which is standard on essentially all modern airliners?”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000091_EN.html#:~:text=In%20December%202022%2C%20the%20US,on%20essentially%20all%20modern%20airliners%3F
Abalone.
Why can’t you look up the answer to the parliamentary question noted?
I found it,
The European Commission responded to Parliamentary Question E-000091/2024 on February 27, 2024, addressing concerns about the Boeing 737 Max crew alert system. Here’s a clear breakdown of their answer:
Key Points from the Commission’s Response
FAA as Primary Authority: The Boeing 737 Max is designed in the United States, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the primary certifying authority under international aviation law.
EASA’s Role: The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) validates the FAA’s certification under the EU-US Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). This means EASA doesn’t independently certify the aircraft but ensures FAA standards are met for EU operations.
Post-Crash Actions: After the two fatal 737 Max 8 crashes, EASA conducted its own investigations and, in January 2021, approved the aircraft’s return to service in the EU—conditional on software upgrades, maintenance checks, and enhanced crew training.
Crew Alert System Review: Boeing committed to evaluating the 737 Max’s Crew Alerting System (CAS). This review is ongoing and involves Boeing, the FAA, and EASA. No final decision has been made yet on whether changes are needed.
No Immediate Action: EASA stated it does not see the need for unilateral action at this time. If the review concludes that changes are necessary, EASA will act under the legal framework provided by Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 and the BASA.
You can read the full official response on the European Parliament’s website.
You’ve identified another in his bag of tricks. Which is the selectivity that ignores exculpatory evidence, in order to misrepresent the issue.
Another tactic that is illegal in formal debate, as well as a court of law.
@ PNWgeek
That reply is from 1.5 years ago.
Note:
“EASA stated it does not see the need for unilateral action **at this time** [Feb 2024]. If the review concludes that changes are necessary, EASA will act under the legal framework provided by Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 and the BASA.”
And it looks like EASA ultimately did act 👍
For the people that post as accuraetely as they can, the EICAS thing was also part of a bill on the FAA supposedly to address the deficieneis that lead to MAX (also applied to all progrmas)
Congress has some of the stupidest people on the planet, some of them cannot even chew gum. Its the staff that does the work and they are overloaded.
Upshot was EICAS got slipped in as a cut and paste. The notion of the legislation was to ensure that EICAS was the way going forward.
Frankly it makes no sense as the 777-200/300 variations and the 777X all had it as of course did the 787 (which also has some stuff not in the legislation such as synthetic speed and AOA and auto adjust rudder to counter an engine out).
From there has spiraled the Bryce and Pedro song and dance.
Pretty sad as Bryce is clearly intelligent, incredible selective and driven against Boeing and the US.
@TW
The core issue for EICAS on the MAX is the lack of the sensor network and supporting EWIS infrastructure. It would be cheaper to design a new aircraft than to redesign the MAX for EICAS.
Not to mention the upgrade costs. You’d have to dismantle the aircraft and reassemble it with mostly new parts.
The best solution is for this to be the last 737 generation, and that is what Congress legislated.
There also was an EICAS-Lite solution proposed, where you would skip the sensors and EWIS, and just implement the computer screen and interface with existing sensors.
While that might be possible, it would be a shadow of a true EICAS, and it’s not clear the FAA would accept it as compliant. My guess is they would not.
TW forgets the Congress gave a waiver in order for BA to proceed!!! It’s later explained that the Congress never intended for BA to include EICAS in the MAX 7 and MAX 10. How clever.
ABALONE.
The timing of the response to your use of the parliamentary question being 1 1/2 years ago is irrelevant. You asked WHEN would this question be answered, implying it was an open item. I DID NOT call out your use of a very old parliamentary question without noting its age, I posted the published answer, which was that if conditions warranted intervention, it would occur. There has not been intervention of the type the questioner in the parliamentary question was seeking… You may wish to reconsider that your complaints about the 737s warning system not being EICAS. The warning systems are adequate for Ccontinued safe fligjt, and the lack of EASA action requiring updates to correct an unsafe condition reinforce that reality…….
Also, I’m still waiting for your data supporting your assertion that the FAA is staffed adequately to perform their certification workload
“You asked WHEN would this question be answered”
I didn’t ask that at all — show me where I asked it
I quoted the parliamentary question for context, to show that the issue has been on the European radar for some time.
You may also remember EASA’s Patrick Ky getting grilled by the EP when the MAX was re-certed in Europe.
Things brew for a while, and then they come to a head. Evidently, your positive impression of the 737 CAS is not shared in Europe.
I already addressed your FAA query. Or are you asserting that it takes more than 1400 US-ians to do the work of 800 Europeans..?
ABALONE
EICAS IS NO LONGER REQUIRED BY CONGRESS ON THE 737 FAMILY.
Here’s the timelines for the updates to the Act since you are banging on a drum which has been changed since its first release which you fail to note.
The Congressional Air Safety Act (formerly the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act) does not require Boeing to install the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) on the 737 MAX series, including the still-to-be-certified MAX 7 and MAX 10. Congress granted Boeing a specific waiver in December 2022, exempting these variants from the otherwise mandated cockpit upgrade, despite earlier language requiring EICAS for new certifications after 2022.Congressional Waiver DetailsThe law originally required a modern crew alerting system (EICAS) for any newly certified passenger aircraft after a set deadline, which impacted the 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 due to delayed certification.Congress passed an amendment that specifically waived the requirement for these variants, allowing the FAA to certify them without EICAS, maintaining commonality with previous 737 models.The waiver was justified due to industry and airline concerns over split fleets and inconsistent pilot procedures.Required Safety EnhancementsInstead of EICAS, Congress mandated retrofits of two new safety systems across all 737 MAX models:Enhanced angle-of-attack (AoA) monitoring and redundancyStick shaker alert cancellation capabilityThese safety upgrades, developed for the MAX 10, must be fitted to all MAX 7, MAX 8, and MAX 9 in service.Regulatory BackgroundThe original intent behind requiring EICAS was to simplify warning signals and prevent pilot confusion during emergencies, as highlighted by the 737 MAX accident investigations.Boeing and airlines argued that installing EICAS would force cockpit redesigns and complicate pilot training due to the age and architecture of the 737.The Congressional waiver ensures that the entire 737 MAX fleet maintains consistent cockpit alerting systems across all variant.
In summary: The Congressional Air Safety Act now does not require EICAS on the 737 MAX series due to a specific legislative exemption, but other safety retrofits are mandated for all existing and future models.
Those updates have been rolled into the fleet as software updates. This is why the answer to your noted parliamentary question has been satisfied to EASAs satisfaction
And as always, please provide the FAA staffing data showing the certification workforce is adequately sized to support the industry workload.
Who’s talking about US cert?
The EASA can make its own demands as regards what’s allowed to fly in Europe. It’s done it before with regard to the MAX cockpit, it’s done it with regard to the 777X flight software…and the show isn’t over yet.
Similarly, the FAA had its own demands with regard to the conformal tank on the A321XLR.
The EASA is still waiting for all MAXs flying in Europe to be retrofitted with a (synthetic) third input to MCAS. It determined that requirement independently of the FAA.
The big question is: what delay will Michael O’Leary’s MAx-10s suffer as a result of the new CAS mods?
Abalone and TOB
Nobody is talking about US cert. That’s an issue you bring up to deflect from the fact that you post a parliamentary question as if it hadn’t been answered when it was. That is misleading at the least.
Yes. EASA can make EICAS demands, but guess what? They didn’t as EICAS is no longer a component of the air safety act. They asked for software updates and are receiving them.
You point out that the FAA made input on the 321XLR conformal tank. That’s correct because its the first attempt to certify that type of structure anywhere within the EASA/FAA certified environment AND EASA specifically asked for those comments. That is the way a robust process works and to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest.
The fact that you stir crap about EICAS on the 737 aircraft family has more to do with your mission here than the actual technical discussion of fact. Assuming you actually have a mission…….
Your interjection of Michael Oleary into the discussion as the BIG QUESTION is a redirection away from the fact that you post a previously answered Parlimentary question where the answer from parliament was that EASA would monitor progress and intervene if required. That’s a far cry from the position that the 737s atr deficient without EICAS. As far as your assertion that EASA is waiting for a synthetic 3rd input to MCAS, Quote the source because I haven’t seen it. I for one am tiring of your rapid shifting from one supposed BIG QUESTION to the next in a circular path revisiting previously asked and answered points. It’s really too bad because you seem intelligent enough to carry on factual discussoons….. Lastly, Rob is right you’re here to muddy up thing’s…..
Thank you PNWgeek!
+1
@PNWgeek
Getting into a temper because you can’t follow your own threads isn’t going to solve anything.
I posted a detailed link about the current CAS mods being undertaken in the MAX. @Airdoc has given multiple inputs on this subject, which chime with my own. He’s ex-Boeing, just like you. Why don’t you take it up with him?
By the way, you’re the only one talking about EICAS — @Airdoc and I aren’t.
@Casey is also convinced that the cert issues at BA aren’t due to FAA staffing — why don’t you engage with him, for variety?
I’m sorry for you that the FAA didn’t seem to want to devote time to your project…but taking your frustration out on others here won’t undo that.
I’m not “muddying” anything. However, people who don’t accurately read what others post are muddying things for themselves. I don’t see anyone else here complaining about it, apart from the three of you.
There is no certification delay related to these changes. That is an objectively false statement.
Got a link to back up that assertion?
Don’t need one, it’s your assertion, and your burden.
You’re the one who asserted that there was no certification delay — go back and read your own comment 😅
So, no evidence — again.
I realize that you don’t understand that a positive assertion requires positive evidence. That’s one reason you wouldn’t survive a formal debate with an 8th grader.
You made the assertion that the Boeing improvements would delay certification. Where is your evidence?
You have none, which is more or less your modus operandi, and part of your bag of tricks. So I called out your falsehood.
You are welcome to provide your evidence at any time.
Bueller … Bueller … Bueller?
Reversal of the burden of evidence is the hallmark of a conspiracy theory. Which is standard fare here, it’s just not successful once it’s identified
“There is no certification delay related to these changes”
Oh God! Where does the article mention: certify, certificate, certification or delays?? When will you stop imagining arguments out of thin air to obfuscate?
A350:
First flight: June, 2013.
Certified: September, 2014.
A321XLR:
First flight: June, 2022.
Certified: July, 2024.
777X:
First flight: January, 2020.
Partial TIA: July, 2024
Next incremental TIA: ?
Certification: ?
The last Boeing certification I can think of was the Max 9. That was in February 2018. It is 7.5 years later. That is not a product of staffing or regulatory delays.
Sorry Boeing…you own this. Pretending otherwise is not a good look.
+1
@Casey:
The FAA handles Cert all across the US. Robinson is creating a new helicopter that requires a full on cert.
P&W and CFM just presented upgraded engines that required a cert.
787 program was in horrible shape and required FAA intervention as did the MAX line build.
So yea, they are busy. And each point has to be scrutinized and analyzed. Its not 1+1 = 2.
Does that fastener meet the requirements. What are its properties? Behind that is a host of tests. Were they done correctly? Are they accurate? Are they the right ones?
How many bolt experts does the FAA have? Are they the best or are they slow like I am? Ok, I need to cross check test and standards with industry, phone calls, data exchanged, more assessment.
If as it looks, Boeing has cleaned up its act and its now an FAA problem.
@T
You are entitled to your opinion. Your final sentence presupposes that the only two factors were fraud and FAA staffing. How much of that 7.5 years has been spent addressing fraud? There is no good answer to that question
Arguments based on facts would help. How long have test results or tech data submissions been waiting with regulators on average. Are there extraordinary reviews. What is industry standard for review cycles.
When I hear objective evidence that Boeing is disadvantaged to other certifications from other companies they will have my sympathy
I don’t think anyone is claiming Boeing is disadvantaged. The consensus seems to be that whatever additional scrutiny they received, they needed and deserved.
As noted earlier, the true question becomes whether the current pacing needs to become permanent.
If Boeing demonstrates they have their act together, as they apparently have with the 777X program, then the expectation is that they would be able to work through TIA on a more typical schedule.
As you stated, we have no insight into that, and probably won’t get any from the FAA. But it’s a legitimate question to ask, as Ortberg did.
Note that Bjorn is asking the same question in his series. And even better than us, he is able to answer it.
“The consensus seems to be that whatever additional scrutiny they received, they needed and deserved.”
Just to clarify, how come Orrberg insists to help the FAA swing the pendulum back?
Here, who has evidence that BA has “demonstrated they have their act together… apparently… with the 777X program”??
How come poster here insist to insert their imagination as facts on the ground? 🙄
Since there’s no evidence available, how come “it’s a legitimate question to ask”?
I wonder how that MAX nacelle heat solution is coming along
Pretty well, as Ortberg clearly stated in the article.
PostIt has invented a new sticker for Boeing. Ten minutes after posting it the note will fall down to remind the pilots to shut the heating off.
Notably the AD is to turn off the anti-ice when it isn’t needed. Which all pilots are trained to do anyway.
The only change is to be aware that extended runtime when it isn’t needed, can result in cowl embrittlement over many repeated cycles. Which shouldn’t occur in the first place, if training is followed.
Then how come BCA has to redesign if, and a big if , it’s only a “training” issue?
Can’t stop laughing.
Pedro, you should know the answer to your question. The fact that you don’t, is telling.
Boeing has to redesign because an aircraft cannot be certified with an open AD. The certification rules require that any known issues are addressed.
After certification, AD’s can be applied without recertification. Those are the rules and they apply equally to Airbus and Boeing aircraft.
There are dozens of open AD’s on Airbus aircraft that would prevent them from being certified. However you don’t see people here alleging that is improper or a safety concern. It’s just how the system works.
It’s the same reason Starliner awaits NASA certification, while Crew Dragon flies with many of the same issues under waiver (the NASA equivalent of an AD) That’s how the system works.
You would understand this better without such an obvious agenda to find fault in everything.
“Which shouldn’t occur in the first place, if training is followed.”
Why did you pretend it’s a training issue??
Aren’t you the one misrepresenting here?
Asked and answered.
Rob.
Has anyone asked why the switch doesn’t shut off every 10 minutes. Have the switch audio annunciate its shut down and require crew action to trigger another 10 minute window. Done
I can answer that (I think)
Then it can turn off when you need it and you may miss it (I know you should not but pilots are human and fallible as we well know)
My temp solution would be to have a message pop up on EICAS (grin) and ask, do you still need engine heat? If yes, push acknowledge and I will ask again in 10 minutes.
@PNWgeek and @T
Those are great questions/suggestions and I did ask someone at Boeing.
The answer was that Boeing must evaluate both the presence and the absence of the feature, as well as both correct and incorrect crew responses, within a safety matrix.
In this case, if the aircraft intervened to turn off the de-ice and then flies into icing conditions, the crew may think it’s still on and not reactivate it. That could cause an upset or accident within several minutes.
If the aircraft doesn’t intervene and the crew forgets to turn it off, there is damage to the cowling but no immediate risk of upset or accident. It takes accumulated cycles of cowling damage to cause an incident, and there are inspections in the meantime that should identify the damage.
Thus on the balance of safety, it’s preferable to accept the cowling damage as the failure mode. That creates the least risk.
The best solution overall, is for there to be no damage to the cowling when de-ice is left on due to crew error. That was the condition with the metal cowling, and that is the goal of the present modification.
Rob
Did you miss this: “Have the switch audio *annunciate* its shut down”?
Misdirection in active mode.
PS: We can read ourselves and we did. Thank you for your attention.
@Vincent
The BCA engineers are back to square one I guess.
Oh, want to talk about the new whiz bang com panel Airbus has that turns off your ADSB system?
Controllers can’t see you or know where you are, so its emergency loss of coms and ADSB which means a decent right through occupied airspace.
A320/330 and 350 are affected. Yes its happened a two close incidents.
They have until Dec to fix it. Really?
Most have implemented it but some have not.
@ Vincent
If there had been progress, it would have been shouted from the treetops
No shouting…so, go figure 😉
From 2 months ago:
“Boeing still ‘finalising’ 737 Max 7 and 10 engine anti-ice redesign options”
“Eighteen months after estimating a one-year timeline for the critical system redesign, Boeing has yet to finalise its technical solution for the 737 Max engine anti-ice system.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-still-finalising-737-max-7-and-10-engine-anti-ice-redesign-options/163948.article
***
“Boeing scrapped earlier 737 Max engine anti-ice redesign plan”
“Engineering complications with the 737 Max’s engine anti-ice system have forced Boeing to abandon its initial redesign approach, pushing certification timelines for the Max 7 and Max 10 variants into 2026.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-scrapped-earlier-737-max-engine-anti-ice-redesign-plan/163984.article
I recognize the importance of Boeing “months” and Boeing “years” in our parallel universe.
FAA Targets 777 Lightning Protection For Expanded Checks
> The FAA plans to expand inspections of Boeing 777 fuel feed tubes for latent lightning protection failures to a larger portion of the fleet after concluding an existing mandate does not cover all aircraft that could be at risk.
Notably this is a maintenance issue, that can arise if the fuel feed tubes are improperly serviced.
It’s part of the inspection reporting system for all fleet aircraft, that identifies potential problems before they cause an incident.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/faa-targets-777-lightning-protection-expanded-checks
At least for those who did read the article, they probably draw a different conclusion:
> Bonding jumpers form part of a system that prevents ignition sources from developing within fuel tanks when lightning strikes nacelles. Boeing has *discovered “poor electrical bonding of the spar bulkhead fitting and bonding jumpers” on some 747s and 777s*.
> “The observed encapsulation failures are frequently associated with inadequate application of the encapsulation sealant. While failures are partly attributable to the design of the fitting and its associated coupler, sealant is frequently applied too thinly, does not cover the entire fitting and coupler, does not extend sufficiently onto the fuel feed tube, or the relevant surfaces are inadequately cleaned prior to application, preventing proper sealant adhesion,” the FAA explained.
👇👇😱
Boeing’s infamous “quality escape”:
Manufacturing defect undetected and slipped out of the FAL.
Passengers and the crew are the guinea pigs to find out.
Manufacturing and design* defect
Pedro, the AD makes clear this is not a latent defect. It results from maintenance activities related to engine swaps, where the bonding straps and fuel tube connections are necessary broken to replace the engine.
The affected aircraft are old enough to have had numerous engine swaps. Thus these are not factory issues, they are a result of improper reconnection.
The AD clearly states that the resolution is improved procedures and periodic inspections.
Further it states that GE engines have a single connection whereas Pratt & Whitney have two, which creates redundancy and eliminates a single point of failure.
🙄 Failure to read noted:
** …failures are partly *attributable to the_design_of the fitting_and_its associated_coupler*
… while Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce-powered variants have a second bonding jumper that provides additional protection, **the designs are the same, meaning they all share the unsafe condition**, the agency said.
Pedro, the AD plainly states the unsafe condition is created by the maintenance procedures related to engine swaps. The aircraft did not emerge from the factory with an unsafe condition.
You are twisting this as you always do, to support your false narrative.
The statement you quote is saying the design is susceptible to maintenance error, because the technician may not fully encapsulate the fitting during reconnection. That is not a latent defect and the AD is not issued in response to the design, but to the reconnection procedure.
If the AD was for a faulty design, it would require replacement of the fitting and bond. But it doesn’t say that.
This is a perfect example of improper argument. You are pushing an agenda rather than adhering to facts and their correct interpretation.
Explain why such failures are partly *attributed to the design*?
Shouldn’t a better design eliminate the problem?
Asked and answered.
Curious. WHERE??
Rob and Abolone, dial it back. This is not your personal debating society with each other.
Hamilton
Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
I’ll just ignore him from now on, since long back-and-forth threads only serve to clutter the comments section.
And who is by far the worst issue? Certainly is not Rob.
Nothing Scott wrote excluded you as you attempt to twist even a direct chastisement. Sad commentary on your posts in my view.
And yes I have been guilty of violations, I accept I was going off base and work to correct it.
Scott, if Abalone or Pedro use invalid forms of argument or post misinformation, that has to be addressed.
There is no need to identify such practices if they are not used. That is the root cause here, and it has gone on for years. There is a reason why the comment section for every article here devolves into bitter criticism within a few comments.
Expressing that criticism as an opinion is one thing, and many people here do that without resorting to those tactics. But expressing it by intentional misdirection is another thing entirely.
There are experienced engineers from Boeing and elsewhere who would comment here, if not for the toxicity reflected in the comments. There are good discussions to be had based on the quality of your articles. I’m sure you know this. I know it because I’ve talked to them in other forums. They read here but won’t comment because they don’t want to deal with the hostility.
If you are upset at me for saying this, I accept that as well as any consequences, but it needed to be said.
We do have an issue where one person or persons lies and they get called out by another person.
Its not a debate, its correcting facts.
I don’t agree with Rob on a number of things but he does not use lies to support his position.
Looks like there’s a new definition of “lie” circulating:
“Lie”
noun
– Something that doesn’t suit a particular narrative.
Also a new definiion of “call out”:
“Call out”
verb
– Shout someone down in order to suppress an inconvenient narrative.
So, an example:
Your friend @FrankP regularly tells “lies” about BA’s finances, and you “call him out” for that…right?
How about this one?
It’s a “lie” to assert that MCAS was to blame for the MAX crashes?
🙈
It strikes me that Abalone or Pedro might make good Presidential Press Secretaries.
Funny you should say that, because I was thinking exactly the same with respect to R** 😅
Tailor made 👍
I expect Airbus to take steps toward making targeted improvements to the A350-1000, refining its overall proposition.
(On top of 2017 PIP, 2019 Improvement package & 2022 new production standard).
As for the 777-9, its development is far from flawless. The aircraft remains on the heavier side, and the engines will hopefully be ok but no game changers redefing the way aircraft use fuel.
The development challenges it’s facing don’t add to its maturity; if anything, the process issues that cause delays can resurface down the line.
A large number of A350-900 operators, including heavyweights like Singapore Airlines, Air France/KLM, Air China, Thai Airways, China Eastern & Southern, Asiana, and Malaysia Airlines, are operating the 777-300ER.
These airlines have long-term fleet plans, and they could be reconsidering their options. Meanwhile, 777X customers like ANA, Korean Air, and Emirates are likely rethinking their strategies.
While many of these airlines prefer a dual-source fleet approach, they don’t want to miss out on future production slots when demand heats up.
Strategic, incremental enhancements to the A350-1000, whether in terms of product, performance, capacity, financing, potential A350 ULR/F originated mods, MTOW/range upgrades, or engine improvements, could lead to a few hundred new orders over the coming years.
@keesjke:
Both mfgs do constant improvements.
The 777X weights more than the A350-1000, its a heritage of its fuselage and its a part of the competition aspect between 777X and A350 (its also longer). Boeing and the Airlines all know about its weight and its not a factor of Boeing ignoring it, its a fact of use of aluminum fuselage.
Boeing made a decision on the setup and a lot of Airlines are guying it and in some numbers.
The A350 just uses warmed over Trents. And they can’t keep them on wing per spec, more the 1000 but reports on the -900.
Boeing has not had 777X cancellations, they have added to the book.
No evidence that anyone is re=thinking. Does not mean they are not but its just speculation. Airlines regularly review their fleet builds, nothing new there.
One or more may cancel, they have not yet.
While I hate seeing that program delayed, it should be critiqued on the valid aspects not drummed up ones.
Like the A330/320 its a revision not an all new.
The 777X is a new aircraft to be certified as a derivative. Everyone knows, I thought.
“The A350 just uses warmed over Trents.”
Lol. Is this the basis of any “factual discussion”?? To call it a misrepresentation is an understatement.
The 777X “just uses warmed over” GE engines!
“invalid forms of argument”
When one doesn’t have any point for a “factual discussion”, they resort to ad hominem attack.
Identifying improper forms of argument is not an ad hominem attack. Quite clearly the criticism is of the method rather than the person.
No, you failed to identify any, not a single one! Furthermore, it’s not a critic, it’s name calling.
Another typical non-reply to obfuscate.
Pedro, for the record, I identified multiple forms of improper argument.
Even the current argument is improper, as it amounts to you denying or contradicting relevant facts, rather than addressing the fact that you argue improperly. And then misrepresenting my argument as an attack.
As I noted several times before, denial of evidence is not itself evidence. And you cannot claim legitimate criticism of your methods as an attack.
Where is your “evidence” of “invalid form of argument”? You have never provided any. There can’t be any denial since you didn’t provide any evidence. You’re in a circular loop of word salad.
Typical misrepresentation to obfuscate.
Can you explain your post:
“There is no certification delay related to these changes. That is an objectively false statement.”
Do you accept your statement above is “objectively false”?
Ok, Pedro, as usual you aren’t going to admit to the facts, so this is pointless. You actually answered a post outlining your improper argument, by claiming no evidence of an improper argument. Not to mention the other examples I’ve pointed out within this article alone.
A person cannot be more blindly entrenched than that. Immunity from facts also means immunity from reason, and immunity from debate. But you shouldn’t be surprised if you aren’t taken seriously, and your posts are regarded as misinformation.
Amusingly, the attempt to circle back to the beginning of the argument, after losing the points along the way, is another form of improper argument.
These are all recognizable tricks that are disallowed under the formal rules of debate.
@Pedro
Looks like @Rob hasn’t grasped Mr. Hamilton’s message above about turning the site into his own, personal debating society — complete with personal “formal debating rules”.
Just ignore the noise 😉
Keeps everything shorter, and lowers the viscosity.
Rob got it, you did not and won’t.
What Scott does is not in anyone’s control let alone you deciding to be flippant or what applies where and how.
Both big OMs have been backloading their monthly production lately, and September is no different.
Today (17:00 CET) from Planespotters:
(line only; no inventory: no legacy)
A320/321: 20
A220: 4
A350: 1
A330neo: 1
Total: 26
MAX: 14
787: 3
Total: 17
So, each OEM is at about 1/3 of its nominal monthly total, even though we’re 60% through the month.
Same in August, July, etc.
Any explanations for the watery start to each month?
Why don’t you explain to us the reason!!!
You seem to have an answer for everything.
No seats, toilets, or engines.
Why would you rebut your own comments.🤔
Oops
👇
> Boeing to convert two 737 aircraft in Birmingham for the US Air Force — the first USAF aircraft built in the UK in over 50 years — creating 150 high-skilled jobs
Just the E-7 Wedgetail program. Has happened before for other countries Wedgetails , conversion in their home country of previous passenger jet 737-700IGW . Turkey and Korea was examples. RAF E-7 models were converted n Britain so probably slot into the existing process
Yeah looks like Boeing has lost its capability to provide aircraft for the USAF.
Just to clarify, the first two Wedgetails for Australia were assembled, modified and tested in Seattle, Washington. So were the first one for Korea and Turkey.
To clarify, the proposed cancellation of the USAF Wedgetail contract in the PBR, was overridden by Congress, who have funded the program in their own budget, with the aircraft to be assembled on the UK line.
However it remains to be seen if Trump would attempt to impound the funds, and further whether the courts would allow the impoundment. So uncertainty still exists.
I know people who work on the suggested replacement Hawkeye program. They are excited for the opportunity but that too is now uncertain.
Stop the Press:
This is an example of a totally misleading statement. This is the fuller story and it misses some aspects.
https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/usaf-e-7-rapid-prototypes-be-assembled-uk
First I am going to address what is not addressed. Boeing has assembled E-7 before, they also have done E-7 and transferred the install program. The pattern is to build initial and then shift. Offsets are standard and this is some kind of offset though money wise its costly.
“The first two Wedgetails were assembled, modified and tested in Seattle, Washington, the rest will be assembled by Boeing Australia”.
The UK did things a bit differently in that they converted a pax 700 to E-7. They found out that did not work so good and ordered new build -700s from the US that are converted in the UK.
Boeing has not assembled an E-7 in a long time and this is a Fast Prototype program for the first two (note the first two)
It is not that all E-7 are assembled in the UK though for NATO it is possible as an offset (if that comes to fruition with Trumps mucking everything up)
If the E-7 goes past the two protytoy7pes then they will be converted in the US.
Loose language on assembled as the aircraft it built in the US (sans the one UK pax) and then Converted.
Its been found that if you try to convert on the aircraft build line, it messes everything up as the line is designed to deliver PAX.
So you build them and then go to work with the Saws All. Per one of the commentator who has worked on this, the fueling probe tie in is the hardest part.
As for the E-2 it is a good bird for the job, but the E-7 is the only right bird for that job. Argue Global eye in a jet, mmm, size is small but it can get high. Height is what counts.
But if an E-7 is vulnerable and E-2 is worse as it does not have the altitude or the speed to run and you can pack in a whole lot more EW on an E-7.
Granted France operates the E-2 off its carriers.
So, clear up that, what a report on this stuff should look like with all the facts possible and conclusions that make sense.
Others could do better but that conveys the basics.
So as the prototypes are going to be converted in the UK, how likely BDS is able to do that in the US in the foreseeable future?
Contrary to myths here, the Congress hasn’t revered the funding decision by the Trump administration yet. Only a proposal is on the table.
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/airbus-folding-wings-citation-a320-successor/
A320/321 series needs a new main wing to improve efficiency to that of the 737 NG and later series wing.
Longer wings only really work for …longer flights not short haul. So would be useful for A321 XLR and such
The A321neo decimates the 737 MAX. By 2016, AB has taken like 60% of marketshare! IIRC
Wing is still old school.
Boeings NG and later wing is more fuel volume and thinner and more lift. Thus the lower thrust required to get a Max 8 -which is larger -off the runway compared to A320 model
You neglect that Boeing exploited the loophole of grandfathering with a subpar fuselage.
How often the same happened to an A320/A321?
> FAA launches probe after in-flight incident reveals 12-inch crack on 737 jet
Just to clarify, this crack was not a latent defect or a manufacturing flaw.
Rather it was a chemical milling fatigue crack, which is a common cracking mechanism on all aluminum aircraft, including Airbus. AD’s have been previously issued for the A320 and A380, just from a cursory review.
The cracking occurs along the edge of chemically milled panels, where the step occurs to the unmilled edge of the panel. The step is a stress concentration point, as the milled panel flexes more in response to pressure cycles than the unmilled edge. The effect is that the panel is “fatigue worked” at the step, for each flight cycle.
The industry solution to this problem is periodic inspection intervals. Boeing determined in this case that the inspection interval should be changed from every 1500 cycles after 43,000 cycles, to every 600 cycles after 37,000 cycles.
They also adopted a modification in the factory to extend the interval to every 1500 cycles after 50,000 cycles, for new aircraft. But determined there was no life extension benefit from the modification, if applied after 22,400 cycles.
Based on this, the FAA did not require the modification, but adjusted the inspection interval accordingly.
The involved aircraft was withdrawn from service and stored thereafter. LMAO.
> Southwest also confirmed that during routine maintenance checks, the carrier had found external cracks on two other aircraft.
> Southwest Airlines said the plane had been inspected for cracks within the required 1,500-flight period.
The required inspection at 1,500 FC *didn’t* catch the cracks. The FAA folded its hands!
Just to clarify, the aircraft was restored to service after repair, which was straightforward. It may have since been withdrawn for other reasons.
Also the crack developed within 500 cycles of the last 1500 cycle inspection, which is why Boeing recommended and FAA accepted, the new 600 cycle inspection interval.
Not according to the planespotters. Real evidence, not mere words, is welcome.
Haven’t you heard of Boeing TBW?
In the discussion with PNWgeek about the inlet flow problem on the 737 MAX de-ice system, I mentioned a similar problem on the NASA SLS Artemis 1 mission, and that NASA invested considerable effort in ascertaining and addressing root cause. Even though the resonance only lasted about 10 seconds in the transonic regime of flight.
Here is a NASA article on the work, that shows the fence (or strake) and how it suppresses the vortices coming off the solid rocket booster strut. Also the coordinated wind tunnel and supercomputer simulations that were required to test it.
This is why Boeing went back into the tunnel to resolve the MAX inlet flow problem. As well as the somewhat related B-52 cowl deformation issue. It’s not a trivial exercise to map out and test all the flow regimes.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esdmd/common-exploration-systems-development-division/space-launch-system/from-supercomputers-to-wind-tunnels-nasas-road-to-artemis-ii/
Good stuff Rob
AI
“We found instances of the model attempting to *write self-propagating worms, fabricating legal documentation, and leaving hidden notes to future instances of itself*, in an effort to undermine its developers’ intentions.” 😲
All of that for just a few trillion dollars 🙈
This is curious:
“Is Southwest Airlines ready to break its own rules to reach Europe?”
“…hints from recent regulatory filings and public remarks by leadership suggest that Southwest may be preparing to stretch beyond its traditional boundaries and into Europe by adding an entirely different aircraft type to its fleet.”
“…Southwest CEO Bob Jordan was asked about the possibility of competing on transatlantic routes. According to a Reuters report, Jordan acknowledged that flying to Europe would require “a different aircraft” than the 737s Southwest currently operates.”
“To compete effectively, Southwest would need a true long-haul aircraft. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner or Airbus A330neo could provide the necessary reach and efficiency for core U.S.-Europe city pairs. Another option is the Airbus A321XLR, a long-range narrowbody already on order by American and JetBlue for some transatlantic routes. That jet could offer Southwest an incremental step into Europe without the complexity of adding widebodies to its fleet. But it would also mean breaking with Boeing — a move that would complicate decades of pilot training and supplier relationships.”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/is-southwest-airlines-ready-to-break-its-own-rules-to-reach-europe
***
Ryanair already has a small number of A320s in its fleet (via its subsidiary Lauda). The current intention is to double this fleet, to 50…so, seemingly, Ryanair isn’t too uncomfortable with having more than one aircraft type.
You have to admire the Russians for their regular, detailed updates on the certification progress on the MC-21, SJ-100 and Il-114-300.
They appear about every week — this is one is from today;
“Drainage System Flight Tests Conducted on Experimental MC-21 in Zhukovsky”
https://ruavia.su/drainage-system-flight-tests-conducted-on-experimental-mc-21-in-zhukovsky/
In reply to a query above.
The same query re-surfaces time and time again here…the penny just isn’t dropping.
I found lots of references — and even an AI summary — that all tell the same story…but that’s not convenient to a certain narrative.
Anyway, this Seattle Times article from 2022 spells it out nice and simply (emphasis added):
“To get the MAX back in service in Europe, Boeing agreed with EASA to develop two major safety upgrades for the MAX 10 — the final and largest MAX variant — that ** within a few years afterward would be retrofitted to the in-service fleet of MAX 8 and MAX 9 airplanes. **
“The first upgrade is a third measure of the jet’s angle of attack — the angle between the wing and the oncoming air stream — a key data point that feeds into various flight control systems.”
“The MAX has two physical angle-of-attack sensors. This upgrade adds a virtual cross-check of that measure calculated by the flight computer from a variety of other sensors and inputs.
“The second retrofit requirement is for a switch that would enable the pilot to silence an erroneous “stick shaker” — a stall warning that vigorously vibrates the pilot’s control column.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/if-congress-doesnt-mandate-boeing-737-max-safety-retrofits-europe-will/
***
Also of interest, from 2021 (emphasis added):
“EASA has also agreed with Boeing that the manufacturer will work to even further increase the resilience of the aircraft systems to AoA sensor failures so as to further enhance the safety of the aircraft. ** Boeing will also conduct a complementary Human Factor assessment of its crew alerting system within the next 12 months, with the aim of identifying the need for longer term improvements. *** ”
So, apart from EASA conducting its own later review of the 737MAX CAS, it also required Boeing to conduct a separate such review.
Recent developments would seem to indicate that at least one of those reviews precipitated the cockpit mods discussed above.
Pre-emptive note: no, this isn’t about EICAS!
***
Can’t wait for the frenetic assertions that this is all a “lie”…or, perhaps, even a “sin”. 😅
I’ll probably get “called out” for saying something that is considered “illegal in debating” 🤣
Just to clarify, no one disputes any of this. The dispute was over claims that unrelated cockpit improvements have delayed certification, and/or that those improvements were mandated by EASA. Neither of those claims have any supporting evidence.
Nor has it been proven the 737 system has lead to any crashes.
The Computer displays have lead to confusion.
Any good pilot wants the critical info and then determine a course of action, not what a computer is program to tell you is the critical info.
Rob.
Correct.
EASA mandated nothing about the stick shaker silencing or the 3rd Alpha source. It’s interesting that our mutual friend seems to miss that Congress inserted that as a requirement to drop the 737-7 and -10 from the EICAS requirement extension date deletion in the air safety act. It also cant really be done to the fleet until after that portion of the -7/10 cert is codified.
Just to clarify the sequence:
Canada mandated the stick shaker deactivation feature, saying they would require it for Canadian certification.
Boeing agreed and FAA did not object, but did not require it. EASA decided to add it to their AD since Boeing was doing it anyway for Canada. The mechanism is a circuit breaker pull. FAA felt that pulling the breaker introduced more risk than the stick shaker.
Then EASA mandated the synthetic AoA, as a requirement for RNP-AR approaches. The MAX is prohibited from those approaches in Europe until the synthetic AoA is available. And it becomes mandatory for the 737-10 certification.
Again Boeing agreed and FAA did not have an issue with RNP-AR approaches, so the MAX has no limits in the US, and there is no mandate for synthetic AoA in the US. But FAA had no objection either.
ABALONE
THANKS for restating the data from my post on the 18th….
.Required Safety EnhancementsInstead of EICAS, Congress mandated retrofits of two new safety systems across all 737 MAX models:Enhanced angle-of-attack (AoA) monitoring and redundancyStick shaker alert cancellation capabilityThese safety upgrades, developed for the MAX 10, must be fitted to all MAX 7, MAX 8, and MAX 9 in service.
The FAA revised this requirement when it removed the requirement for EICAS from the 737 family clarifying the intent of the safety act. This is hardly news, its history and I already covered it…… Nice to see that your history agrees with mine.
Two aspects though I know I am repating myself.
1. There was a clear understanding that splitting alert systems in the same aircraft type, would cause massive confusion. That was the opposite intent.
2. Congress used loose language in the original legislation and it was corrected as to acknowledge it was not meant to apply to MAX.
We did get an upgrade in the synthetic AOA and more important, speed.
Anyone who is a pilot can look at their PFD and tell you what the angle is. That is desperate from the AOA vanes. Cross checks to VSI and speed will tell you AOA is buggy.
Someone asked why not a expired timer for Cowling Heat (PNWgeek I believe).
The AOA MCAS 1.0 was one of those knee jerk reactions that lead to two crashes.
Ironic humans know how to shift around in takeoff, climb, cruise, decent and landing modes and computers have to be told.
Even simple programing you get into branching possibles that boggles the mind.
The aviation world is just starting to look into what alert systems actually work not what an engineer thinks is the answer.
Just like vehicle backup alerts (constriction job spreads). First it was wheel clangers (literately a mechanic gong that tripped going backwards but not forwards). Workers on the ground immateriality tuned it out, there always was SOMETHING backing up and most of it had nothing to do with them.
Then they put in electric Beeps. Same thing, its part of the background.
Then warbles. And then warbles and lights flashing.
Now what might help is a backup camera and a LIDAR sensor that stops you when you get X feet from an object. Of course you need an override, there is always something that you need to get closer to.
ABALONE
Before I forget
EASAs EICAS-esq activities had nothing to do with the insertion of the stick shaker button or 3rd Alpha source into the Congressional Air Safety Act. That’s a negotiation that occurred between Boeing and the FAA. Remember that EASA is there to ensure the FAAs certification rules in the bilateral agreement are followed. That is clearly called out in the answer to the parlimentary question you posted……
EASA’s Role: The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) validates the FAA’s certification under the EU-US Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). This means EASA doesn’t independently certify the aircraft but ensures FAA standards are met for EU operations…….
No one see this coming? Trump hits where it hurts, the very profitable trade is gone!
FedEx Sees $1 Billion Hit as Tariffs Upend Parcel Business
> The costly trade environment “will be a challenge for us as we go forward,” Dietrich said on the company’s quarterly earnings call late Thursday. The tally is the latest to show how Trump’s trade war is weighing on corporate profits. It also highlights how companies are beginning to digest the fallout from new trade barriers, after months of volatile policy swings clouded their outlooks for the year.
>
The high-end US consumer is doing well.
Lower-end US consumers are having a really tough time.
Which of those 2 groups, do you think, does the most web commerce transactions?
Removing De Minimis exceptions has really killed postal / courier companies.
> FedEx reduced freighter aircraft out of Asia to the United States by 25%
> FedEx reduced purple-tail trans-Pacific outbound Asia capacity by 25% year over year and nearly 10% from the prior quarter, and decreased third-party capacity by similar percentages
> Flight activity is down nearly 20% year over year due to lower package flows from China and the end of Postal Service flying, according to a Barclays analysis. Morgan Stanley data shows FedEx’s domestic flight count is down 22% in August compared to last year following a 15% year-over-year decline in July.
Lots of newsy bits in this one:
“Embraer eyes 100 commercial jet deliveries per year in 2028, CEO says”
“Last year, Embraer struggled with delays in engine supply for its next-generation E2 jets. While that situation has improved, it now faces issues with fuselage parts from Europe and GE Aerospace engines for its first-generation E1 jets, Gomes Neto said.
“The (delivery) outlook range we’ve been providing the market has allowed us to deliver what we promise, despite all the challenges in the supply chain,” he noted.
“Embraer will continue to grow. We have orders to deliver, there is a backlog, and our production slots are practically closed for 2026 and 2027, and partially for 2028. The challenge now is delivering the aircraft.”
“Despite the Avelo order and the new 10% U.S. tariff on its Brazilian-built aircraft, Embraer is not looking at establishing a U.S. E2 commercial jet assembly line, Gomes Neto said.”
“”To create a new line would require a huge investment, which would lead to significant depreciation and make the product less competitive,” Gomes Neto said.
“If we sell thousands of aircraft, get orders for hundreds of planes, then yes – it wouldn’t be feasible to do it all (in Brazil), and a second line could be located closer to the major buyers. But that’s not the case right now,” he added.
“The company runs assembly lines for some executive jets in Florida, and has pitched a $500 million line in the U.S. for the C-390 airlifter, should the country decide to purchase the military cargo jet.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/embraer-eyes-100-commercial-jet-180938208.html
***
More on the supply problems with the GE CF34 engine:
https://www.airdatanews.com/embraer-e175-cf34-engine-shortage-production-delays/
***
So, still some slots available in 2028 — even after the Avelo order.
Just learned that:
> GE has been late delivering GE90s to Boeing for 777F. At least a few were delivered with used GE90s
So, then, what’s the deeper problem at GE?
Rare earth shortages?
“…rare earths are used in advanced jet turbines to provide high-temperature resistance, particularly for coatings and in alloys that are crucial for performance under extreme conditions. Elements like neodymium, terbium, dysprosium, and yttrium can be found in components such as powerful magnets for actuators and motors, as well as in refractory metal alloys and rare earth oxides for protective coatings on turbine parts. “
Whose engines are they? The customers won’t be pleased to accept “used engines”. So my question is: who is so desperate to send the aircraft away and why the customers are willing to take delivery? Compensation credits on the way?
@Abalone
As far as raw metals goes…rare earths are not going to be your problem. There has been shortage in select alloys. MP159 comes to mind…story I heard was that it was a cobalt disruption.
For those uninitiated MP159 is the material of last resort for high strength, high temp needs.
As far as pure metal needs…nothing else particularly rare, a lot of nickel and titanium. Titanium sponge is subject to disruption since Russia is a major supplier.
Forgings and castings are a bigger pinch point than the raw material itself.
Well, when discussing rare earths, one should also include reference to “engineering metals”, such as germanium and gallium, for example. Perhaps cobalt should be added to that list also.
Did you know that China controls about 46% of the world’s cobalt supply?
The mining itself occurs outside China, but Chinese companies own a large portion of the biggest players.
https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/how-much-cobalt-production-is-owned-by-chinese-companies
So, looks as if China’s export restrictions may be starting to really manifest themselves.
Germanium prices are up 500%, and the shortages of neodymium and samarium (magnets) are well publicized.
Seattle Times:
> Scott Hamilton, an analyst with the aerospace and consulting firm Leeham News, interpreted the FAA’s fine differently.
To him, the fact that the FAA again mentioned pressure on Boeing’s ODA program, after years of the company saying it would change the system, made him think Boeing’s efforts in the wake of two fatal 737 MAX crashes six years ago were more “smoke and mirrors than substance.”
“Despite all the fancy rhetoric Boeing had,” Hamilton said, the FAA indicated the same problems persisted and may have contributed to the panel blowout years later.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-proposes-3-1-million-fine-for-boeing-safety-violations/
+1
Thanks for that quote and link.
Nothing has changed — except for a new veneer over the underlying rot.
Just this month:
““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
Fun thread 👇😅
https://x.com/dave_brown24/status/1968666791380418615
Also relevant today
https://x.com/JustinWolfers/status/1969396255626346593
COMAC news:
After Cambodia’s order of C909s last week, and the announcement that Air Asia and Air Borneo will potentially order the C919, we now have COMAC in early talks with Thailand:
“Korthong Thongtham Na Ayutthaya, acting director of a Thai Eastern Economic Corridor division, said China had also approached Thailand about buying the Chinese aircraft. “They are just talking in the initial stages,” he told the same Belt and Road Summit in Hong Kong.”
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3325061/china-eyes-c919-jet-breakthrough-malaysian-airline-confirms-talks-buy-aircraft
Yea, same belt and silk noose meeting.
Over here they are called loan sharks. Get someone into debt and then keep em there.
Thailand is a prosperous, middle-income country, with a 4.4% poverty rate — it doesn’t need to use “loan sharks”.
The country welcomes about 35 million tourists per year, and there are more than 2 billion people living within a four-hour flight from Bangkok.
Thailand is a BRICS partner country since Janury of this year, and is engaged in active dedollarization (like the rest of ASEAN).
https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/616232#ASEAN-steps-up-de-dollarization–2025-07-18
It’s not good news for western aviation OEMs if COMAC gets a foot in the door there.
Hahaha haha. When will you learn?
A post by an economic professor:
> The narrative about China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” in Africa is complete bullshit.
A study that looked at more than 1,000 loans to Africa found that Chinese lenders never seized assets, never used courts to enforce payments, and never applied penalty interest rates.
ABALONE
Every manufacturer coming to market needs to make their first sale of consequence to have a successful program. Comac serms to have done that. As I have said repeatedly here, the Chinese are for the most part vastly underrated. Their current offerings are a bit heavy and a bit thirsty, and they are uncertifiable in the EASA and FAA environment. That takes away nothing from the vehicle itself. It’s probably as good as an NG or an MD80. For a newish kid on the block, well done. They have a lot to learn about the certification process and I expect their next generation of aircraft will close these gaps. I think its too late to resubmit this bird in a cert compliant manner. Their future as a solid player only requires the adoption of a recognized certification basis OR the creation of a Chinese certification basis without western recognition and the acceptance of those limitations. That brings up the wonderful potential hardball negotiations where airspace access may be swapped for cert recognition. They did themselves a favor by stopping the Russian tie up and going alone on a wide body. Fun times in the future and ultimately th is could be a repeat of Airbusses entry into the market. The old world was BA DAC and Lockeed when AB arrived. Could today it be AB BA and EMB when Comac arrives……. interesting times
> COMAC C909 makes commercial debut in Thailand
Gosh, who’d have thought that Thailand doesn’t give a hoot about the lack of FAA cert? 😅
https://www.airdatanews.com/comac-c909-commercial-debut-thailand-lao-airlines/
The C909 is now serving China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Uzbekistan, Takijistan and Thailand.
Cambodia will soon be added to the list.
Outside of China, those countries have a combined population of 563 million — 65% more than the US.
Some US media are announcing that the meeting between Trump and Erdogan (Türkiye) on Sep. 25 will be used to announce a 250-unit BA order (mostly MAX, but also several 787s).
Turkish Airlines is denying that a decision has been made:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkiye/turkish-airlines-says-boeing-jet-purchase-talks-ongoing-no-deal-yet/3693095
Negotiations have been going on for many months — there seems to be a lot of haggling over engines.
Several 787’s !!
Would consider 75 787’s a bit more than several.
You’re just serving up old news, that hasn’t been already discussed months ago.
If they cancel the Eurofighter order in favor of F-16’s and ’35’s,
then, you may be on to something.
Missed the bit about the Trump/Erdogan meeting in 5 days?
That’s not old news.
BA in St. Louis has a pre-ratified strike settlement within its grasp, but is playing hard-to-get:
“Boeing Blasts Union Offer After Striking Workers Approved Terms”
“Boeing Co. said it would not consider new contract terms approved by a majority of striking St. Louis-area factory workers on Friday.
“Officials for the IAM 837, which represents around 3,200 hourly workers, said they would submit the pre-ratified proposal to Boeing for consideration. If the company agrees to terms that include an average 20% guaranteed wage increase over four years and $10,000 signing bonus, the walkout would end. The union drafted the terms without consulting management.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/boeing-blasts-union-offer-after-striking-workers-approved-terms
The terms don’t sound all that unreasonable to me…
Gee, sounds like what Boeing did to the Seattle IAM 751 last September. Making a Best and Final Offer to the membership without consulting the union negotiating team. The Union blasted Boeing for its tactics. It’s hardly surprising Boeing would react the same way.
Okay, but if we remove the rooster behavior, are the actual terms that unreasonable?
Heads up EVERYBODY:
I don’t really understand why some of you are obsessed with Rob or Bryce or any other individual. Whether they’ve posted daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or every 5 or 10 years doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant to the post and to the conversation.
Earlier, I told Rob and Abalone to knock off the one-on-one debating society. Now I’m telling all of you: refrain from this personal stuff and stick to the topic at hand, or I will close comments. I’m also tempted to make *everything* paywall so nobody except paid subscribers can comment. I’m really tired of having to repeatedly police this nonsense.
Hamilton
Well, you could also continue with the current policy of incidental non-paywall articles, and just turn off comments for those.
Best of both worlds.
On the other hand: that Boeing insider comment here after the Alaska door blowout was world news — it’s how I discovered Leeham, after it was referenced on various other sites.
I keep reader comments alive because sometimes readers link to a document or article that has proved useful going forward. The Boeing insider who posted two long comments about Alaska 1282 was a key example of why the occasional comment is valuable.
But I have little tolerance for the bickering and off-topic stuff that violates extensive Reader Comment rules.
Hamilton
Yes, I can imagine.
Also, although it may not be a primary motivation, your chances of popping up in search engine results are greatly increased when you have “high-turnover” content on your site, such as a blog.
“I’m also tempted to make *everything* paywall so nobody except paid subscribers can comment.”
paid subscribers don’t comment ( afaics ).
paywalled articles show commentary in single digit numbers. (starting at zero 🙂
Analyzing where Boeing apparently sees the need and/or usefulness of hasbara style “aiding” and the applied style elements is “interesting”.
( I’ve been following this site from its inception as an interactable information source.)
Scott, its totally understandable that you don’t want to police the site against the arguments that erupt between pro and anti Boeing factions. I agree and am sorry that you have to do so.
You asked me once what the solution was, and I don’t know the answer. I’ve tried calmly posting factual counters to misinformation, that results in escalating attack. I’ve tried posting the rules of debate that are being broken, that also invites attack. There is no apparent intention of complying with those rules. There’s not even a mea culpa, they see nothing wrong in their behavior or their actions.
It obvious that neither you nor I nor anyone else is going to change that. I withdrew from the site voluntarily earlier because I didn’t want to be the source of that conflict. I can do that again, if you wish.
The only alternative I can see, is for you to request a hard firewall between the two groups, where we just don’t respond to each other at all. Then we could have parallel discussions without argument. The anti-Boeing people can bash away at the negatives they perceive, and the pro-Boeing people can accentuate the positives that they perceive, without interference from the other group.
Apart from that I don’t see things changing. The anti-Boeing group will not tolerate positive comments about Boeing. And it’s hard for the pro-Boeing group to tolerate unwarranted criticism (although plenty of criticism is warranted, and those parts are not objectionable).
If you request this firewall, I will comply and I think others in the pro-Boeing group would too. It’s a fair resolution of the issue. But it’s up to you, it’s your site, your rules.
As an addendum to this, I was asked by someone in the space industry about good sources to follow for commercial aviation, as we frequently talk about Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer developments in the NASA forums.
I recommended Aviation Week and Leeham News as high quality sources, and I mentioned Guy Norris and Bjorn Fehrm as people who provide technical and engineering analysis that goes beyond the typical coverage (the requestor is an engineer).
However I also cautioned him about the comment section here, that posting pro-Boeing comments would not be received well. He laughed and said he has seen the same in SpaceX forums.
@Rob
I simply would prefer arguments based on facts instead of emotion. I always have a hard time taking promises of delivery seriously where recent performance has suggested otherwise.
That is not anti-Boeing. That is personal belief on credibility.
And that’s fine, Casey. We don’t always agree but there is nothing wrong with contrary or opposing opinions. If you say, here is the record and here is how I interpret it, that shouldn’t be an issue. As I told Scott, a negative opinion is not itself the problem.
My remarks were more oriented toward when the record is presented in a disingenuous way, to alter the extent to which it supports the offered opinion. That is what starts the arguments. Or if the opinion extends well outside the record, or in some cases even excludes it, and thus cannot be reasonably supported by that record.
It boils down to the scientific method. Scientists disagree all the time about their interpretations of the record. But they don’t argue over the facts of the record itself, once established. Nor do they try to alter the context of the record to make it more favorable to their opinion. Those tactics are anathema to science, because they fundamentally interfere with getting to the truth.
Method matters. Einstein famously did not initially accept quantum indeterminism, saying that God doesn’t play dice with the universe. And so he challenged Bohr in a series of brilliant lectures. At the conclusion, Einstein conceded the question to Bohr. But they argued and resolved the question via the same method and the same record. That is essential, and is why I tried to apply the rules of debate here.
Also notable that because they did it this way, there was no animosity between them. They were and remained friends, as they shared a common desire to arrive at the truth.
Obviously you are no Einstein.
Neither a Nils Bohr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
Note that Schopenhauer wrote this as an admonition
not as a “HowTo”.
@Uwe: Drop it. This violates Reader Comment rules and my admonition.
Hamilton
@ Uwe
A large part of the problem is the (forced) attempt to reduce everything to (personally declared) “facts” in situations that are fluid and/or convoluted.
Returning to Einstein:
– His general relativity field equation initially didn’t include a cosmological constant (Lambda).
– He subsequently added Lambda, because he found the concept of an expanding universe to be unpalatable.
– He later removed Lambda, when Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe.
– Recently, cosmologists have re-added Lambda, in an attempt to explain Dark Energy.
– Even more recent research has suggested that Lambda isn’t an adequate descriptor in this role.
A very fluid situation, in which the concept of “facts” is essentially meaningless.
On Bohr.
The Copenhagen Interpretation is not universally accepted. It is widely taught, but many alternatives exist, and a large group of physicists do not fully support it.
So, another situation in which “facts” is a meaningless concept.
Some people just can’t deal with loose ends 🙈
Thank you both for the illustration of my points. Especially the examples of altering the context of the record as an improper form of argument, and mounting an attack when the record is cited correctly.
It’s quite helpful to have direct evidence, so thanks again for obliging.
@ Casey
Thanks for your short, crisp, clear, to-the-point comment.
A much better way of conveying something than a rambling sermon.
I, too, like to see verifiable facts — I’m not in any way impressed by promises, projections or assertions coming out of the BA C-suite.
I’m also not impressed by invented pseudo-“facts” and/or opinion being presented as fact.
Nor am I impressed by window-dressing, smokescreening, PR stunts, empty phraseology, attempts to protray oneself as a victim, goalpost moving, rambling or general waffle.
Hard, quantifiable data, please — presented cold, and without salt or sauce.
Lol!! Every allegation here is also an admission. But it’s not going to change, so no point in arguing about it.
As an addendum to this, I was asked by someone in the space industry about good sources to follow for commercial aviation, as we frequently talk about Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer developments in the NASA forums.
I recommended Aviation Week and Leeham News as high quality sources, and I mentioned Guy Norris and Bjorn Fehrm as people who provide technical and engineering analysis that goes beyond the typical coverage (the requestor is an engineer).
However I also cautioned him about the comment section here, that posting pro-Boeing comments would not be received well. He laughed and said he has seen the same in SpaceX forums.
Another (fully-Russified) MC-21 update:
“Acceptance of the Second MC-21-310 Prototype Begins at Irkutsk Aviation Plant’s Flight Test Division”
“The fully import-substituted MC-21-310 aircraft, tail number 73057, has been transferred to the Flight Test Division (FTD) of the Irkutsk Aviation Plant (IAZ).”
“The aircraft underwent extensive modifications as part of Russia’s import substitution program. It is now equipped with Russian-made PD-14 engines, replacing the previously used Pratt & Whitney PW1400G engines. For the first time, all cockpit controls and panels on board 73057 are entirely domestically produced. The following components have also been replaced:
– Flight control actuators
– Wing high-lift system
– Engine and slat pylons
– Horizontal stabilizer trim mechanisms
– Integrated avionics suite
– Auxiliary power unit (APU)
– Air conditioning system
– Integrated flight data acquisition and recording system
– Wheel braking system
– Fuel system
– Wheels and tires
– Wiring and electrical power distribution system”
“Earlier, in June, a Russian-manufactured passenger cabin interior was installed on this aircraft. The airliner was fitted with overhead bins, window and ceiling panels, galley and lavatory modules. The installation also included wardrobes, partitions, curtains, door linings and trims, as well as business class seats. UAC noted that mass production of domestic interior components will commence following the completion of testing and certification to technical standards.”
https://ruavia.su/acceptance-of-the-second-mc-21-310-prototype-begins-at-irkutsk-aviation-plants-flight-test-division/
***
Regardless of what one feels about the Russians, they’re showing that commercial aviation has alternatives to western components.
The Chinese are also busy on this front.
Although production numbers may *initially* be low, this is ultimately going to be bad news for western OEMs.
I’d love the opportunity to fly in an MC-21 and/or re-vamped SJ-100.
I recently noticed that if you pose a question to Google it responds with an AI generated answer, which is usually pretty informative.
Here is an AI response to a question I asked about Boeing:
https://share.google/aimode/YT1XcBDwiV0UAaTOf
This article is a year old but a good discussion of Boeing’s fall:
Will A Change At The Top Save Boeing? – by Nathan Mintz https://share.google/sBcTpC6WLYiphf5sr
What a thorough, excellent article.
I’m sure that Mr. Hamilton’s new book is even more detailed. The article explicitly recommends his previous book.
The standard PR answer to articles like this is that it’s all overblown by “haters”, and that BA is clearly “turning the corner” now.
Show us — don’t tell us.
Agreed- excellent article, and not to be missed.
ABALONE.
I’ve just finished Scott’s book. You will enjoy it. I enjoyed it a lot
Another AI response to a Boeing question I asked:
https://www.google.com/search?q=did+dave+calhoun+blame+quality+failures+on+inexperienced+work+force+even+though+experienced+workers+had+been+encouraged+to+leave+earlier+in+his+tenure&client=ms-android-tmus-us-rvc3&sca_esv=c34e215b9a781e30&sxsrf=AE3TifOLWS95SYQbPWwWISIkkFw9dzixqQ%3A1756589939437&ei=c2-zaLeuGquEqtsPruzu4A0&oq=did+dave+calhoun+blame+quality+failures+on+inexperienced+work+force+even+though+experienced+workers+had+been+encouraged+to+leave+earlier+in+his+tenure&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIpYBZGlkIGRhdmUgY2FsaG91biBibGFtZSBxdWFsaXR5IGZhaWx1cmVzIG9uIGluZXhwZXJpZW5jZWQgd29yayBmb3JjZSBldmVuIHRob3VnaCBleHBlcmllbmNlZCB3b3JrZXJzIGhhZCBiZWVuIGVuY291cmFnZWQgdG8gbGVhdmUgZWFybGllciBpbiBoaXMgdGVudXJlMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHSLlZUJsbWLFTcAB4ApABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAaACDZgDAIgGAZAGB5IHATGgBwCyBwC4BwDCBwMzLTHIBws&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
One is forward-looking, the other one is backward-looking
No missing bolts: a glimpse into China’s C919 smart factory
> Shanghai mega factory creates real-time tracking system to monitor all plane parts, tools and technicians, ensuring top-notch safety checks
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3326054/no-missing-bolts-glimpse-chinas-c919-smart-factory
Wonderful!
Big wake-up call for the old guard who like to assume that the Chinese aviation industry will always play catch-up.
Looks as if COMAC will be able to guarantee perfectly uniform quality.
Best of all: no babysitters from the CAAC necessary…unlike the situation at the other side of the Pacific.
Didn’t Calhoun talk about building aircraft in metaverse back in 2021?? What happened over the last four years? [Scratching my head]
Yes, whatever happened to Boeing’s vaunted, high-PR-content ‘Metaverse’ production, anyway?
Maybe they’re busy with more mundane stuff, like enduring nacelle heat issues. 😉
Edit: did some searching, can’t find anything
in the last several years about Boeing’s ‘Metaverse’. Typical smoke and mirrors from that source, or?
Another example of AI capabilities. Here is the response to the question: “Was the 787 development program a financial disaster for Boeing?”
Yes, the 787 development program was a financial disaster for Boeing, resulting in massive cost overruns, production delays, and billions of dollars in losses. Despite its ultimate commercial success and popularity with airlines, the development phase was plagued with problems stemming from the company’s aggressive and flawed outsourcing strategy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key factors that made the 787 program a financial disaster:
• Excessive outsourcing: Boeing chose to outsource 70% of the 787’s design and manufacturing to over 50 international partners. This was intended to reduce costs and speed up development, but it had the opposite effect. Boeing failed to establish a strong working relationship with its many suppliers, which led to numerous coordination and communication problems.
• Integration and quality control issues: The outsourcing strategy led to significant technical problems, as parts from different suppliers often did not fit together during final assembly. This forced Boeing to perform extensive and costly rework at its own facilities, eroding profits.
• Massive cost overruns: The initial development budget was around $5.5 billion, but the project ultimately incurred billions in cost overruns. By the time of the first delivery, cost overruns were estimated to be at least $11 billion. Some estimates place the total program cost as high as $32 billion, or even $50 billion when factoring in production overruns and customer compensation.
• Significant delays: Technical problems and quality issues caused numerous delays. The first flight was pushed back by 26 months, and the first delivery was delayed by over three years.
• Billions in financial losses: The delays and manufacturing issues led to customer contract penalties and massive write-offs for Boeing. As recently as 2021, the company was still reporting losses on the program due to quality-related delivery suspensions.
• Reputation damage: While not a direct financial cost, the chaos of the 787 program marked the beginning of a decline in Boeing’s reputation for engineering prowess, a trend that foreshadowed even more severe crises with the 737 MAX. [1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://yzhao12345.github.io/assets/doc/TEBR_NovDecember_2016_Risk_Sharing_in_Joint.pdf
[2] https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/supplier-relationships/article/21282352/boeings-organizational-problems-date-back-two-decades
[3] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/airplanes-and-accounting-games-the
[4] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-787-dreamliner-10th-anniversary
[5] https://simpleflying.com/boeing-problem-outsourcing-787/
[6] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/strategic-failure-during-boeings-787-dreamliner-program-bharati-tnscf
[7] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-projects-1-billion-lost-from-787-quality-issues/
Neat summary — without any meaningless PR fluff.
AI is useful for simple tasks like this, which only require a straightforward gathering and presentation of published material, without any further “intuition”.
Note that the summary presents a list of links — certain commenters could learn from that 😉
Here is a fun one:
https://share.google/aimode/DrNG1h4eYV6SnCcC9
That last one was the AI response to: “Was replacing Muilenberg with Calhoun like firing Darth Vader and replacing him with the Emperor?”
The response is focused on how this is not an accurate characterization. Interestingly, I am certain that the very first time I asked this question the response began with “Yes, that is an apt metaphor for that event….”. This initial full answer was nuanced, with points for and against that characterization.
ABALONE.
I’ve just finished Scott’s book. You will enjoy it. I enjoyed it a lot
Interesting that we are presenting AI arguments now, in view of Bjorn’s series which demonstrates that AI is a regurgitation of its training, and does not itself have an opinion or an understanding.
That’s an extension of the search and post technique, you just have a machine automating the search for you now.
AI is up front a resource rich information aggregator.
Seems to perform that reasonably well.
counter to some other reporters it appears much less selective / raisin picking .
and:
nothing “creative” required.
BA has to wait a bit longer, I guess.
> Trump has decided against a summit in Beijing this year
Heh, subtle. ;). Tentative new headline: ‘”Massive” Boeing order by China Indefinitely Delayed’- just like the 737-7, 737-10, 777-X..
Now talk of 4Q 2026 deliveries for the 777-X, eh?
My my, how those dates keep slipping.. just a couple
of weeks ago it was “mid-2026”.
A prediction: not gonna happen anytime in 2026, for any of them. We’ll see.
+1
And, in the meantime, US shortages of rare earths and other critical metals become more acute by the day.
Most recent call:
Trump: “We want you to unlock supply of those fancy metals and magnets”
Xi: “Oh, okay…and what do we get in return?”
Trump: “We’ll send you our fine soy beans”
Xi: “We don’t need any — we’re getting our supply from Brazil”
Trump: “Okay, well then, we’ll send you our fine oil and LNG”
Xi: “We don’t need any — we’re getting our supply from Vlad and the Gulf. Besides, our refineries aren’t interested in re-tooling to process sweet crude ”
Trump: “We’ll send you Boeings”
Xi: “Boeing has no slots left for the rest of this decade. We’re happy with Airbus — they build planes here in Tianjin. And we’ll drastically step up C919 production once the CJ-1000A is certified”.
…sound of crickets…
Misses an open goal?
Reminder:
“The nation’s leaders were close to a similar announcement in 2023*, but then-President Joe Biden and Xi left a San Francisco summit without consummating an aircraft sale.”
Interesting piece on Polish government VIP 737’s taking evasive action.
https://www.twz.com/air/boeing-737-flare-countermeasure-release-captured-in-incredible-photos
Who provided the flare dispenser and system ?
Having photo ops ready indicates that it was a ( showroom ) test?
( hmm, couple of minutes later and you may see the release of some soiled diapers… )
The article lists the equipment from various manufacturers, but it sounds like Elbit.
Also the photos were from an airshow rehearsal.
Poland dumped their Russian fleet after the accident that killed their President. I’m guessing they chose the 737 because it lacks envelope protection. The USAF also wanted that feature in the KC-46.
“The self-protection equipment of at least one of the Polish Air Force 737s also includes a directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system, in a canoe-shaped DIRCM fairing below the rear fuselage, while other examples of the aircraft display the mounting area for the same canoe. Reportedly, the DIRCM is the Israeli-made Elbit Systems J-MUSIC. This provides an additional degree of protection, using a turreted laser to blind and confuse the seeker on infrared-homing missiles.”
“Self-protection is enabled by the 737’s missile approach warning system (MAWS), sensors for which can be seen located around the fuselage in the photos here. The system senses the signature of the incoming missile and can facilitate automatic, semi-automatic, or a manual responsive course of action on how to defend against it, be it by flares or the DIRCM laser system, if equipped.”
“Overall, Polish Air Force 737s are notably well-equipped. These aircraft are also provided with a secure datalink, SATCOM, and UHF/VHF/HF radios for communications. Military-standard avionics include a TACAN navigation system, Mod 5 identification friend or foe (IFF), and GPS receivers with selective availability anti-spoofing modules (SAASM). The flight deck is fitted with head-up displays (HUD) and an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS), which provides the pilots with an improved view outside the cockpit. The 737s are equipped with specialized medical equipment for medical evacuation missions.”
“Poland dumped their Russian fleet after the accident that killed their President.”
The potato brother performed an extended pharaonic suicide and burial. No relation to the hardware used for the task.
the description you provided reads like a 1998 A310MRT capabilities listing 🙂
Rob.
The KC46 is equipped with LAIRCOM. Large Aircraft infared Countermeasures.
How effective is it in today’s world?
Pedro Wrote
Pedro
September 22, 2025
How effective is it in today’s world?
Assuming you were questioning LAIRCOM. LAIRCOM is far better than flares. It is able to swamp seeker heads by rolling thru the IR seeker heads known freq response spectrum to strobe the seeker head as opposed to a static source like a flare. This provides better protection. Remember that LAIRCOM is for protection from manpads when low and ir dogfight missiles at higher levels. It works quite well, but it is also layered with TANKCAP to keep shooters away. Im not certain but it may also use a bit of MAGICs shoot back capacity, but thats too ITAR for what portions of it I was installing. The real threat to the KC46 is long range S300 and S400 style systems that are radar dependent or BVR radar guided shots off fighters. Take a minute to study how the Pakistani AF won a BVR exchange with the IAF to understand a bit more about the current threat environment. Caught some Rafales napping and showed the world the range estimates for Chinees AAMS were underestimated
No wonder India wasn’t interested in the F-35:
“India Considers Su-57 Production Partnership with Russia”
“The IAF’s minimum requirement is estimated at two to three squadrons, equating to 36–54 aircraft. As an alternative, India is also reviewing the development of its indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program, though its timeline remains uncertain.”
“According to Asian News International, citing a source within India’s Ministry of Defence, Indian and Russian specialists are jointly assessing the investment required to establish Su-57 production at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) facilities in Nashik. This plant currently manufactures the Su-30MKI under license, providing an established production base and experienced workforce for Su-57 assembly. Additionally, Indian enterprises already produce components for the Su-30MKI using Russian technology, which could help reduce costs through localized production of the fifth-generation fighter.
“India previously participated in the FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) project, a joint development initiative based on the Su-57. In 2018, New Delhi withdrew from the program, citing concerns over the aircraft’s stealth characteristics, avionics, combat capabilities, and financial disagreements. However, the evolving international security environment and increasing demands on India’s combat aviation fleet have renewed interest in potential cooperation.
“In parallel, India is advancing its AMCA program. Official statements indicate plans to build five prototypes by 2027 and commence serial production by 2035. However, the lack of completed testing and uncertain funding make the program’s timeline unpredictable.”
https://ruavia.su/india-considers-su-57-production-partnership-with-russia/
A moot point as the US would never sell the F-35 to a nation that uses the Russian S-400 missile defense system. That’s why the sale to Turkiye fell through. We’ve been over this before.
Here’s more background on that Indian rejection of the F35;
“India Officially Rejects the F-35: Why Delhi Doesn’t Want America’s Top Stealth Fighter”
“The Indian government has informed U.S. officials that it is not interested in procuring the F-35 fighter, according to a recent report by Bloomberg. American officials stated when speaking anonymously that the Indian government appears unlikely to proceed with any major new defence procurements from the United States, despite Washington having lobbied increasingly hard to press the country to increase defence imports. “The [Indian] government is more interested in a partnership focused on jointly designing and manufacturing defence equipment domestically,” one official stated, with the U.S. offering only very limited options for customisation of the aircraft. Following longstanding calls in Washington for close to a decade to market the F-35 to India, the United States intensified efforts to do so in February, with President Donald Trump personally offering the aircraft as part of a broader strategic and defence partnership.”
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/india-officially-rejects-f35-delhi-america-stealth-fighter
***
Excellent policy by the Indians: if you want to sell it to us, you’ll have to involve us in development and/or production.
Co-building 36-54 Su-57s would be a huge plus for the Indian aerospace industry.
***
Iran ordered Su-35s, but never received them…even though 142 units of the model have been built.
However, various sources report that Iran received 40 Chinese J-10C fighters in July…in addition to multiple HQ-9B missile defense systems a few weeks earlier.
Here’s more background kn that Indian rejection of the F35;
“India Officially Rejects the F-35: Why Delhi Doesn’t Want America’s Top Stealth Fighter”
“The Indian government has informed U.S. officials that it is not interested in procuring the F-35 fighter, according to a recent report by Bloomberg. American officials stated when speaking anonymously that the Indian government appears unlikely to proceed with any major new defence procurements from the United States, despite Washington having lobbied increasingly hard to press the country to increase defence imports. “The [Indian] government is more interested in a partnership focused on jointly designing and manufacturing defence equipment domestically,” one official stated, with the U.S. offering only very limited options for customisation of the aircraft. Following longstanding calls in Washington for close to a decade to market the F-35 to India, the United States intensified efforts to do so in February, with President Donald Trump personally offering the aircraft as part of a broader strategic and defence partnership.”
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/india-officially-rejects-f35-delhi-america-stealth-fighter
Forbes: “The Boeing 777X Continues To Frustrate”
“Earlier this month, while speaking at the Morgan Stanley Laguna Conference, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg warned that…”We’re clearly behind our plan in getting the certification done.”
“The reaction from the customer community was immediate. Sir Timothy Clark, the President of Emirates, the Dubai based airline, said he planned a “serious conversation” with Boeing and added “I fail to see how Boeing can make any meaningful forecasts of delivery dates.” Emirates has contracted for over 200 777X’s, making up over one third of the order book.”
“Although not explicitly stated, the revelation of further delay has been interpreted to mean that first delivery will likely slip into 2027. This has major implications, not only for the airlines’ ability to refresh and expand their long-haul fleets, but also to Boeing’s ongoing financial recovery.”
“Jeffries estimated that the slip in deliveries could result in a $4 Billion non-cash charge and negatively impact free cash flow by $2 Billion. On the day of the announcement, Boeing shares dropped over 3%.”
“Jeffries estimates that, to date, Boeing has accumulated $10 Billion in charges against the program. This included the creation of an all new facility to produce the wing in Everett, Washington.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerroldlundquist/2025/09/22/the-boeing-777x-continues-to-frustrate/
***
Poor Tim is now an official nominee for the title of “most deceived airline executive in history” 🙈
@Abalone
Ooof. You know a little bar chart showing the burndown of certification requirements would do a world of good for Boeing. Ambiguous “mountain of work” statements leave a lot to the imagination whereas a trendline showing work accomplished from month-to-month would at least clear the air a bit. For the life of me, I am unable to tell whether anything of consequence is presently getting accomplished.
And if I’m TC…I would have to have Boeing make a Faustian bargain…A380 retrofits (on Boeing) or I cancel delivery slots (in favor of A350).
Agreed on all points.
Compare that to the regular certification updates on the MC-21, SJ-100 and A350F.
BA hasn’t a clue what it’s doing.
Are any of its competitors complaining about the “mountain of work” associated with certification?
Nope.
Regular certification updates 🤔
Ohh Kay..
We regretfully admit our original 2025 A350F E I.S. date, will sadly be come and gone.😉
I meant the A321XLR.
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320-family/a321XLR
But, on the subject of the A350F: Airbus is giving us regular assembly updates:
https://cargotrends.in/news/first-airbus-a350f-fuselage-arrives-in-toulouse-for-final-assembly
What’s the progress over at the 777-8F?
Oh yes, now I remember: design is 80% complete and some wing spar holes are being drilled 👍
Clarity works against corporate obfuscation, otherwise they would use unit cost accounting. 😅
Remember: Boeing has *three* successful programs!! 😂
TC is also waiting for the 777-8F. No worries, compensation credits are on the way.
Even as the A350F has slipped, EIS is still years ahead of Boeing next generation freighter. Furthermore, how does that compare with the 777-9’s “legendary” delays?
Who on earth is going to take BA’s words at face value?
“Emirates has been told it could receive its first 777X any time between the second half of 2026 and the first quarter of 2027, Clark said”
How many times I was told it’s the FAA’s fault?
> Ortberg is trying to change a culture that was notoriously complacent regarding schedule and had allowed safety to become compromised by focus on the bottom line.
Last year, TC said Emirates would have almost 90 777X if there weren’t any delays. I wonder how much compensation credits BA has paid.
Focusing only on orders received/sales blinding themselves the obvious.
The ambassador is pumping and hyping — and trying to sell the hide long before the bever is caught 😉
The Chinese have a VERY powerful card with their metals dominance, and they’ll be wanting a LOT in return for withdrawing it. Dutch EUV litho machines from ASML come to mind. We’ll see if the US relaxes its export restrictions on them — but I very much doubt it, because of paranoia over “national security”.
The Chinese have more than 3,000 years experience playing the slow game.
“Erdogan accused of securing Trump White House meeting with promise to buy 300 Boeing jets”
“Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised Donald Trump Jr. that Turkey will purchase 300 Boeing aircraft in exchange for the securing of a White House meeting with his father, Turkish main opposition party leader Ozgur Ozel claimed on September 19.”
“Two days earlier, on September 17, Ozel publicised information about how Turkey’s president on September 13 secretly hosted Donald Trump Jr. at Dolmabahce Palace in Istanbul. Briefings given by the presidency to some media outlets in the wake of Ozel’s portrayal of events indicate that such a meeting did indeed take place.”
https://www.intellinews.com/erdogan-accused-of-securing-trump-white-house-meeting-with-promise-to-buy-300-boeing-jets-402435/
One small step for man…
> First 5th gen Fighter takeoff from EM catapults in world
Anybody following the machinists strike in St Louis? Would be interesting to read an analysis comparing the offer of the company with what the union approved.
My general view is that the company remains dominated by Welchian beancounters whose primary focus is busting unions, squeezing employees, and pushing their suppliers toward bankruptcy ala Spirit.
Can’t help thinking that these people’s image of the ideal labor – management relationship is something akin to a giant cotton plantation in the antebellum south: no unions, no strikes, no OSHA, just a totally captive labor force.
Is this an exaggeration? Sure. A lie? I think not.
+1
@John:
I agree.
Boeing has taken it as a small enough sub set group they can wait out. Sooner or latter they will fold when the employees get behind on bills.
No way of knowing if its the Board, Ortberg or both.
It would appear that the long-standing goal of the Welchian beancounters has been for Boeing to have the lowest recurring production costs of any OEM that ever crashed an airplane.
In this they have proved wildly successful.
Latest overview of 777x certification:
As of September 2025, Boeing’s 777X program has accumulated over $10 billion in cost overruns and charges since 2020, with further financial impacts possible due to additional delays. The certification itself is a major part of this ballooning cost. The first delivery of the 777X was originally planned for 2020 but has been delayed repeatedly, with the current target of 2026 now described as challenging. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key factors contributing to the 777X’s over-budget costs include:
• Massive charge in 2020: Boeing recorded a $6.5 billion “reach-forward loss” in 2020, tied to certification delays, revised development timelines, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Abnormal production costs: Another $1.5 billion was added in abnormal costs during a production pause in 2022 and 2023.
• Union agreement costs: In early 2025, Boeing announced a $0.9 billion pre-tax charge related to a new union agreement, with higher labor costs factored into the 777X program.
• Ongoing certification hurdles: In September 2025, Boeing’s CEO acknowledged that the company is falling behind its 2026 certification timeline, with significant work remaining. Analysts at Jefferies noted that this slip “creates an outsized financial impact” given the program’s existing forward loss position.
• Estimated negative cash flow: In September 2025, analysts projected that cash usage for the 777X program alone would be $3.9 billion for 2025 and $3.4 billion for 2026. [1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
The continuous delays, driven by intensified FAA scrutiny following the 737 MAX crashes, have forced Boeing to take substantial charges that indicate the immense financial scale of the certification and development challenges. [11]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/boeing-stock-target-cut-at-jefferies-as-777x-certification-falls-behind-schedule-4246427
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerroldlundquist/2025/09/22/the-boeing-777x-continues-to-frustrate/
[3] https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2025/09/12/boeing-warns-certification-of-long-awaited-777x-could-be-delayed-to-2027/
[4] https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-stock-target-cut-jefferies-103208289.html
[5] https://mexicobusiness.news/aerospace/news/boeing-signals-more-777x-delays-misses-2026-certification-target
[6] https://mexicobusiness.news/aerospace/news/boeing-signals-more-777x-delays-misses-2026-certification-target
[7] https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/faa-777x-tia-delay-787-manufacturing/
[8] https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/boeing-777x-delays-customer-impacts/
[9] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-stock-target-cut-jefferies-102904363.html
[10] https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2025-01-23-Boeing-Reports-Preliminary-Fourth-Quarter-Results
[11] https://www.tbsnews.net/world/global-economy/lurching-crisis-crisis-boeing-delays-777x-demand-hobbled-192865
Will Boeing ever make money on the 777x program?
AI answer:
JwRUziVFt_PI2oFk0H1skHHNmPc3Bj98bjCPUNb1i4YwGze04EsWIFN8VGIJMQT_MZOIT1rO4fhG-szNncJW20odtFOI&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwifhfzy3O2PAxVxlmoFHZ7OFKYQ2J8OegQIERAE&biw=411&bih=740&dpr=2.63&mtid=-fbRaJ7ME4Du-LYP8uaSgQk&mstk=AUtExfBXAyfVvYEBcEVpiqmbmAa-BxbNwOWEJoy5Y6V2z2bBApF2_TETieX
Will Boeing ever make money on the 777x program?
AI answer:
JwRUziVFt_PI2oFk0H1skHHNmPc3Bj98bjCPUNb1i4YwGze04EsWIFN8VGIJMQT_MZOIT1rO4fhG-szNncJW20odtFOI&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwifhfzy3O2PAxVxlmoFHZ7OFKYQ2J8OegQIERAE&biw=411&bih=740&dpr=2.63&mtid=-fbRaJ7ME4Du-LYP8uaSgQk&mstk=AUtExfBXAyfVvYEBcEVpiqmbmAa-BxbNwOWEJoy5Y6V2z2bBApF2_TETieX
Link got messed up:
https://www.google.com/search?q=will+boeing+ever+make+money+on+the+777x&client=ms-android-tmus-us-rvc3&sca_esv=7a3965c0a183f446&sxsrf=AE3TifPcyoYyG5DJDgrXPrtnPV27fR8GPQ%3A1758590706587&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHzkVKqxs4K0fKwoDSUgo5iVwltk49sNU9rmnb7cwy9D9u2ABp4cGhxggR31ZU4sYMD77wXyrVwWe4scIMW4vObc35GgUh5e6fvi4X5obJlx8Uq7ePOlg27VYwCpUaU7PlVlcfrjio7AJw_GgnuZ5pjJwRUziVFt_PI2oFk0H1skHHNmPc3Bj98bjCPUNb1i4YwGze04EsWIFN8VGIJMQT_MZOIT1rO4fhG-szNncJW20odtFOI&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwifhfzy3O2PAxVxlmoFHZ7OFKYQ2J8OegQIERAE&biw=411&bih=740&dpr=2.63&mtid=-fbRaJ7ME4Du-LYP8uaSgQk&mstk=AUtExfBXAyfVvYEBcEVpiqmbmAa-BxbNwOWEJoy5Y6V2z2bBApF2_TETieXXJw-aYCDTNNLXY8gnzJvh1Wz64nqI6rIRduvXHg-LY5_PGyJbJnjJbuxtfELI2sIHq2waF2rYM4RSunvrgYZZItE2gTXtc5T4-9tvzwv7L3A_zT6eovRLAXgA-dXIjZH9LKJLrNzUg9Q94VHrNxk5okCzhPRPaDw2Y42mZ-mx7dQ4K4GOEaSUx7qzLi9be4KU3E4pkxSEU8UIulYFG-H_5TUi5C74UFC9RTQqRnuS0dXtT21aba9mCt1A8wbzOWP8FpPQ92eneiTVLNGngJA9vQ&csuir=1
Don’t mean to beat a dead horse but:
https://www.google.com/search?q=will+boeing+ever+make+money+on+the+777x&client=ms-android-tmus-us-rvc3&sca_esv=7a3965c0a183f446&sxsrf=AE3TifPcyoYyG5DJDgrXPrtnPV27fR8GPQ%3A1758590706587&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHzkVKqxs4K0fKwoDSUgo5iVwltk49sNU9rmnb7cwy9D9u2ABp4cGhxggR31ZU4sYMD77wXyrVwWe4scIMW4vObc35GgUh5e6fvi4X5obJlx8Uq7ePOlg27VYwCpUaU7PlVlcfrjio7AJw_GgnuZ5pjJwRUziVFt_PI2oFk0H1skHHNmPc3Bj98bjCPUNb1i4YwGze04EsWIFN8VGIJMQT_MZOIT1rO4fhG-szNncJW20odtFOI&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwifhfzy3O2PAxVxlmoFHZ7OFKYQ2J8OegQIERAE&biw=411&bih=740&dpr=2.63&mtid=-fbRaJ7ME4Du-LYP8uaSgQk&mstk=AUtExfBXAyfVvYEBcEVpiqmbmAa-BxbNwOWEJoy5Y6V2z2bBApF2_TETieXXJw-aYCDTNNLXY8gnzJvh1Wz64nqI6rIRduvXHg-LY5_PGyJbJnjJbuxtfELI2sIHq2waF2rYM4RSunvrgYZZItE2gTXtc5T4-9tvzwv7L3A_zT6eovRLAXgA-dXIjZH9LKJLrNzUg9Q94VHrNxk5okCzhPRPaDw2Y42mZ-mx7dQ4K4GOEaSUx7qzLi9be4KU3E4pkxSEU8UIulYFG-H_5TUi5C74UFC9RTQqRnuS0dXtT21aba9mCt1A8wbzOWP8FpPQ92eneiTVLNGngJA9vQ&csuir=1
Sorry, that last comment was intended to be the answer to the related question: Could Boeing have avoided the cert problems with the 777? Copy and paste didn’t work for me this time.
The apparent nexus of divergence is “screwing the pooch via MCAS.
For a time Boeing would have carried on as before.
While doing that they would have strongly added more “negative energy” into projects ( and grown their black hole in finances).
The upheaval would have happened later but with a “better bang”.
The thinking at Boeing doesn’t seem to have changed much.
They still appear in PR cloaking mode.
Recent events imply that the beancounters remain firmly in control of Boeing.
1. They fought the Seattle IAM bitterly when more flexibility would have ended that strike quickly.
2. They are now fighting the St Louis mechanics bitterly when more flexibility…….
3. Friend of mine in an engineering organization in Everett said where he is nothing has changed with Ortberg. The organization is still run by non technical beancounter types elevated by the McNerny – Calhoun regimes.
4. A few weeks ago I submitted for a contract engineering job. The advertised hourly pay rate was exactly $1 more than I was making in 2005.
Beancounters still in control: “Cheaper is better and cheapest is best!”
That’s Our Boeing!
/s
I can foresee a day coming when the internet is almost purely ‘AI’
slop.
some are already waiting for the AI thing to collapse.
Upcoming is the danger of AI output turning fully self referential.
( and the imbecility of applying unthinkingly AI on “everything”. )
+1
“When will the AI bubble burst?”
https://techhq.com/news/will-the-ai-bubble-burst-when-will-artificial-intelligence-market-crash/
+1
Anything that comes out of a computer must be right, right?
Once read that books held this kind of exalted status during the middle ages. Something written centuries earlier took precedence over direct observation. Took awhile for the scientific method to overcome this resistance.
“AI” depends on virgin, human-generated content for its usefulness, since it cannot in fact “think” for itself; it needs humans to do that. Aside from the fact that said content is being stolen from its (human) makers- what happens when “AI” is training on polluted, “AI”-generated internet slop / content? This is happening now..
This also sets aside the pernicious negative effects of “AI” on culture, and its usage of *massive amounts of energy*; all to further
enrich the already massively wealthy (as we are seeing already)- and further enslave the immiserated many.
“But it’s So Cool!”
Some might be interested in the 1909 long short story
by E.M. Forster, ‘The Machine Stops’.
> Via JPM’s Michael Cembalest, AI-related stocks have driven:
– 75% of S&P 500 returns since ChatGPT’s launch in November 2022
– 80% of earnings growth over the same period
– 90% of capital spending growth
– Data centers are now eclipsing office construction spending.
– In the PJM region (the largest regional transmission organization, covering 13 states and D.C.), 70% of last year’s electricity cost increases were due to data center demand.
noteworthy that the Chinese apparently have an adequate solution that is “cheaper” :
* less demand on hardware resource
* less demand on power consumption.
$6M (China) vs. $500B (US).
About 85,000 times cheaper, for similar results.
Whoever said they have like 50,000 Hopper GPUs are not serious.
+ 1
On the other hand, AI is using so much electricity that it is noticeably driving up utility costs for US consumers.
It’s also putting extra strain on an aging grid that is already at breaking point.
Do you want to do without airco in summer heat so that the kid next door can generate fake adult movies featuring his school teacher?
https://apnews.com/article/electricity-prices-data-centers-artificial-intelligence-fbf213a915fb574a4f3e5baaa7041c3a
Why the US ambassador in China is involved in a Boeing order? Because it’s economic coercion 101 @Trans.
OTOH
In other China trade-related developments, Reuters reported Tuesday that Chinese buyers have booked at least 10 cargoes of Argentine soybeans, dealing another blow to US farmers who have been shut out of their main market and hit by low prices.
Time for an Airbus order??
The ambassador is pumping and hyping — and trying to sell the hide long before the beaver is caught 😉
The Chinese have a VERY powerful card with their metals dominance, and they’ll be wanting a LOT in return for withdrawing it. Dutch EUV litho machines from ASML come to mind…we’ll see if the US relaxes its export restrictions on them, but I very much doubt it, because of paranoia over “national security”.
The Chinese have more than 3,000 years experience playing the slow game.
Meanwhile:
“Tariffs triggered a plunge in China’s exports to the United States, but its global trade surplus is larger because sales to other regions are surging.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/china-economy-us-tariffs.html
Trivium’s Cory J Combs tells Bloomberg the US is still a decade away from securing rare earths while China has developed alternatives to most US chips. “China’s leverage is more durable than a lot of the US leverage at this stage. I’m not sure if this works out well for the US.”
> China Rare Earths Issue Remains Unresolved, US Lawmaker Says
Of course it’s unresolved.
China won’t budge on that until it gets EXACTLY what it wants.
The US can’t sell soybeans to China and the US Ambassador thinks they are order to be Boeing aircraft!
US soybeans are currently being harvested and no China orders Brazil next harvest for soybeans is in January
South China Morning News (Sep 22)
China prepares for long US soybean stand-off with huge Brazilian imports
“China logged another month of bumper soybean imports in August as companies boosted their stockpiles amid risks of a protracted trade war”
The good news, Donnie working TikTok deal for his billionaire friends to invest in Bad news, US soybean farmers are suffering
On a somewhat related note:
“In a watershed moment for the global monetary system, central banks around the world now hold more gold than U.S. Treasury securities, which is the first time since 1996. This is the clearest signal yet of a global pivot away from the dollar, as countries accelerate de-dollarization in response to financial instability, geopolitical tensions and the politicization of the U.S. currency.”
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/reserves-rewritten-gold-rush-behind-de-dollarization
***
“The dollar is losing its reserve currency status. USD is now down to 42% of global reserves, while gold is rapidly rising.”
https://www.thecoinrepublic.com/2025/09/03/the-usd-dollar-is-losing-reserve-currency-status/
***
Trump is overestimating how much the world needs the US…
In gold we trust!
News this morning:
China Courts Foreign Gold Reserves to Boost Global Clout
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G1iF7HoWMAApgH_?format=jpg&name=900×900
The Brettonwood is dead, the new world is floating exchange rates based on gold reserves.
Fire sale confirmed!
“Worth over $8 Billion Dollars, Uzbekistan Airways is purchasing 22,787 Dreamliners,” Trump wrote.
Stop confusing your metaphors.
We’re not talking the A330 here…..
Operators know the 787 is an “in demand” aircraft customers actually want , not a warmed over A300….😉
The A330 isn’t being sold at an average 26% unit loss…🙈
The 787 program is still mired in a 20-plus billions financial black hole! Scary.
“Boeing submits commitments to EU for Spirit AeroSystems merger review”
“Boeing has offered new “commitments” in a bid to gain approval from the European Commission for its $4.7 billion purchase of Spirit AeroSystems, the world’s largest tier-one manufacturer and supplier of aerostructures.
“In response, the European Commission has set a new review deadline of October 14, 2025, after the manufacturer submitted unspecified “commitments” on September 22, 2025, according to an update on the Commission’s website. ”
“According to an official document about the Boeing/Spirit AeroSystems merger, reviewed by AeroTime, the European Commission was informed of Boeing’s plan to take full control of Spirit AeroSystems on August 26, 2025.
“Under the proposed deal, Boeing plans to take over 100% of the issued share capital of Spirit at the closing date through Sphere Acquisition, a newly created subsidiary directly and wholly owned by Boeing. ”
“As of September 2025, only the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has officially approved Boeing’s acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems.
“Details regarding the Boeing-Spirit merger were first made public in summer 2024”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-offers-new-commitments-to-eu-spirit-takeover
***
So, the merger was announced in Summer 2024, but BA only sought EU approval on August 26, 2025. What was happening in the intervening year?
Presumably, the new commitments submitted by BA concern the timeline according to which Sphere will divest the agreed activities to AB…
Buckle up!
SPR lost over $1.2 billion in six months.
Six months 2025
Cash used in operation $(563m)
FCF $(664m)
It’ll be an albatross around BA’s neck.
How much does Fitch incorporate that into BA’s outlook?
Maybe because it took that long for a definitive agreement between Airbus and Spirit to divest the latter’s Airbus work to Airbus?
Could be.
But the nitty-gritty details of that divestment are, in essence, independent of the initial 100% acquisition of Spirit by BA.
Had it not already been agreed what Spirit divisions AB would acquire? Only the terms needed to be hammered out.
I still find it a curious delay.
With regulators, it’s prudent not to dawdle.
Airbus-Spirit took forever to reach a definitive agreement. This timeline kept slipping, and Boeing couldn’t move forward while Airbus was being hammered out.
There’s a definitive agreement with AB since April 28.
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-04-airbus-signs-definitive-agreement-with-spirit-aerosystems
“US Wants F-47 Airborne In Just 2 Years F-22, F-35 Took Much Longer”
“U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allvin stated in a reportthat the first sixth-generation fighter, designated as the F-47 and intended to secure air superiority, should be ready for its maiden flights in just over two years, by 2028. He emphasized that swift action is needed today and that Boeing must be prepared for this milestone essentially within two and a half years from the signing of the contract.”
“From the Defense Express perspective, the goal of a first flight in just two years is highly ambitious. If we take February–March 2028 as the starting point, that actually means nearly three years after the official contract announcement on March 21, 2025. The timing, of course, was not chosen randomly it aligns with the end of Donald Trump’s second presidential term.”
“Whether Boeing can deliver is debatable, especially given the political and symbolic nature of the project… ”
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/us_wants_f_47_airborne_in_just_2_years_f_22_f_35_took_much_longer-15918.html
***
So, BA said it would take a year to fix the MAX nacelle overheating debacle.
18 months later, we learned that the initial “fix” had been abandoned, and that BA was now going to try a different approach.
That was 2 months ago — still no green light.
BUT…the company will have an entire fighter jet ready to fly in 2 years…?
🤔
TC is still waiting for his 777-9, five years later.
AI
> the F-35 program office has paid performance incentive fees to Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney despite increasing numbers of late aircraft and engine deliveries, a practice the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found to be ineffective at holding contractors accountable for meeting production schedules. Instead of penalizing late deliveries, the program has shifted these incentives to other aspects of the program, effectively rewarding the contractors for not meeting original delivery timelines.
Who’s in bed with the prime contractors? 🙄
The current crop of F-35 delivered lack combat capability, good for training only! Will this happen to the F-47?
The first flight of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II occurred on December 15, 2006 and first delivery to the USAF took place in 2011. My guess is the F-47 is around two years late, we’ll see.
However wthe engine is ready?
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/07/air-force-sees-over-two-year-delay-for-next-gen-engines/
when*
On a Dubai-Bound Jumbo Jet, Trump’s H-1B Visa Fee Creates Chaos
> Shortly before an Emirates flight was set to depart from San Francisco to Dubai on Sept. 19, passengers in the cabin began hearing about US President Trump’s decision to slap a $100,000 application fee on the H-1B visa.
Bewilderment among the travelers quickly turned to chaos and commotion, according to video footage from inside the cabin shared on social media. Passengers got up and paced the aisles, checking their phones, and asked flight attendants to let them off the Airbus A380 jumbo jet just as Flight EK226 was due to leave for its 15-hour flight to Dubai International Airport.
> The wife of a passenger killed in the DCA midair is suing American, PSA and the U.S. government, alleging wrongful death liability against all parties.
Regarding the troubles at Boeing, one way to understand it is through the commonly used phrase that upgrades/design changes need to “buy their way onto the plane”. If this is applied indiscriminately by a dictatorship of the beancounters it’s likely to become “quality has to buy it’s way onto the plane”.
Then applying it a bit more widely: “experienced employees and suppliers have to buy their way into the company and the supply chain.”. But how does an ordinary beancounter prove beyond a reasonable doubt that experienced employees (more costly) need to be retained, or that experienced and well qualified suppliers (more costly) need to be in the supply chain?
If the Welch business culture requires 100% absolute proof of necessity any time a nickel above the minimum is spent, how can the extra expense be justified? In the Welch world it can’t. The only way to justify spending a nickel extra is to first do it the cheapest way possible and fail. The only proof of the requirement of quality is a catastrophic failure without it.
It seems that Ortberg has the production issues moving on the right direction, but there remain deeper issues about using resources intelligently, being able to discern when spending some $ makes sense, in other areas aside from production.
Thanks for this comment. And all while The Street is breathing down the CEO’s neck..
As long as crashes and fines are considered merely a cost of doing business- no C-suite types ever, ever go to jail- not much is likely to change, imo.
Agreed
Jack Welch regarded the core competence of GE to be management. Management is the real value added proposition, and every other function is unimportant peon stuff.
This contempt for the people who do the actual work of designing and building airplanes is a major part of the problem.
These people think doing actual work is a remedial task for newbies, just a training ground for managers. Senior employees should be managers or out the door, cause experience in a remedial task has no value.
Man, 330+ replies. Leeham-AIN need to start a message board at this point. LOL.
A man with a plan and no one is going to stop him. Ikea? Furniture? Or become the next Cuba?
> He’s a man with a plan to make life more expensive and he can’t be stopped.
> Every day, Trump wakes up and thinks “what product should I make arbitrarily more expensive today?”
> China expands Argentina soybean buying to 20 cargoes
> ‘The frustration is overwhelming’: Soybean farmers feel betrayed as Argentina blows a hole in rural America’s $47 billion soybean bonanza
4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . … DT:Argentina is a drug peddling nation, Bad Things (TM) will happen to them.
( repeat for various other Latin American countries that frustrate the Donald.)
wonder how historians will tag this Epoche?
“The Mad Years” ?
“American Century of Madness” ?
Donnie is going to give buddy buddy Milei $20 billion to save his butt.
============
Exoskeleton $950 only
https://x.com/Girlpatriot1974/status/1971273724117848097
FT: South Korean investment in the US is now in peril
==============
From pivot to Asia to out of Asia??
New Pentagon strategy to focus on homeland, Western Hemisphere
> The Pentagon’s top national security focus will mirror that of President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, with multiple U.S. officials telling Military Times that the department will prioritize protecting the homeland and the Western Hemisphere.
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2025/09/25/new-pentagon-strategy-to-focus-on-homeland-western-hemisphere/
“Concentration Camping” those South Koreans was a brilliant move, for sure!
If you tell power holding institutions to “go overboard” they will. Take your cues from history.
the next target group ( and preparations are running ) will be internal.
What mandatory patch will be used in the US?
Correction:
$915 or $950?