Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Perspective on Boeing’s 737 replacement
By Scott Hamilton
Sept. 30, 2025, © Leeham News: The Wall Street Journal billed the story as an exclusive, and it did contain details previously unreported.
But the fact that Boeing is working on a 737 replacement isn’t new, even if Boeing has been super-quiet about it. The breadcrumbs have been dropped into public sight all along, and within aviation circles, more has been discussed as well.
Under former CEO David Calhoun, he and other executives discussed the 737 replacement in the form of the transonic truss brace wing (TTBW) single-aisle concept. The very wide, thin wing had about 35 feet of folding wing (as opposed to the folding wing tips on the 777X).
Boeing and Airbus are designing future wings with long folds to allow much greater wingspan than today’s wings. The future folding wings will have a much long fold than the Boeing 777X. Credit: Leeham News.
What Boeing didn’t say publicly, but which was known within aviation circles, was that Boeing was also designing a conventional wing-and-tube 737 replacement in parallel. Boeing always has a Plan A and a Plan B under study, so this was no surprise. But a former 737 program engineer told LNA that Boeing needed a Plan B in this case to serve as a baseline against which the TTBW could be compared for efficiency.
When Calhoun’s successor, Kelly Ortberg, killed the TTBW, Boeing said research and development on the wing would continue. Of course, it would be a replacement for a 737. Why else continue this very specific R&D? Not inconsequentially, Airbus has long been designing a folding wing “Wing of Tomorrow” for the A320 replacement.
Furthermore, the underlying research into the TTBW’s fuselage and systems may be applied to a new airplane, just as elements of the Sonic Cruiser made their way into the 787 in the early 2000s.
New Cockpit design
The Journal also reported that a new cockpit design was underway. While this specifically is new information, it’s certainly not revelatory. Airbus has a common cockpit design across its entire series of legacy aircraft. (The Bombardier-designed A220, originally called C Series, is the sole exception.) This common cockpit design has been a sales advantage Airbus held over Boeing for decades. Any all-new airplane Boeing does will be common with the 787. No surprise here, either, especially considering the 737’s cockpit design has roots to the 1960s and has been patchwork-upgraded ever since.
Visit to Rolls-Royce
Rolls-Royce UltraFan engine. Credit: Rolls-Royce.
The Journal reported that Ortberg visited Rolls-Royce to learn more about its UltraFan engine, which has been under design for years. Interesting, but not necessarily significant. Earlier this year, Boeing issued a Request for Information (RFI) to Rolls, GE Aerospace, and Pratt & Whitney for updates to each of the engine programs. Boeing routinely issues such RFIs. Rolls has its UltraFan; GE has its RISE Open Fan; and Pratt & Whitney has its Geared Turbo Fan (GTF). GE also has its Plan B, a conventional turbofan, in the background of development, and PW has an Open Fan under development as its Plan B.
It’s important to note, however, that a 737-sized RR UltraFan (around 35,000 lbs in thrust) isn’t the only engine of interest to the market. It’s also studying a larger engine in the 40,000 lb thrust category and above. The US Air Force issued its equivalent of an RFI for a 45,000 lb thrust engine to replace the aging PW 2040 engines on the C-17, which Boeing made. Rolls-Royce is providing the engines to replace the ancient ones on the B-52, made by Boeing, and Boeing won the contract from the USAF to swap out the engines. It’s only natural that Boeing will want to do the same for the C-17 should the USAF proceed with a contract.
The 45,000 lb thrust engine is also just right for the former New Midmarket Aircraft (NMA) Boeing was designing from 2012-2020. Calhoun killed this project when he became CEO in January 2020. Aviation Week magazine reported this month that Boeing was working on resurrecting this design, a report Boeing downplayed—but it’s true. Boeing still sees a need for the Middle of the Market for which the NMA was intended, but it has no engine for it. Neither GE nor PW is currently pursuing this engine—only Rolls is. This would also be of interest to Ortberg.
Boeing’s got to be ready
Boeing’s product development remains at a lower level as it recovers from six years of consecutive crises. Certification of the 737-7, 737-10, and 777X is the top priority for its engineers. Returning production of the 737 and 787 to 2018 levels, before the MAX crisis began in March 2019, is essential. Delivering the 737-7, 737-10, and 777X to customers is vital. It’s the cash flow and profits from these programs that will enable Boeing to pay down more than $50bn in debt; in 2018, its long-term debt was $10.6bn. Then Boeing can ramp up development of its new airplane, or airplanes.
Airbus’s CEO, Guillaume Faury, has been very public about the company’s plans to decide on which engine will power its next new airplane in 2027, followed by a program launch in 2030 to replace the A320neo family. Faury talks about an entry into service in 2038. Boeing’s 737 production line is sold out through 2031, based on a projected production rate of 57 per month, based on post-Paris Air Show data. Boeing has landed hundreds of MAX orders since then.
Boeing must be ready to move when Airbus does.
Of course it’s working on a 737 replacement. It would be corporate malpractice not to be.
Read about how Boeing developed an entirely new airplane and the re-engining of the 737 in parallel in The Rise and Fall of Boeing, And the Way Back.
Boeing always studies two or more concepts in parallel, and that’s what it’s been doing about a 737 replacement. Rise and Fall details how Boeing became the dominant airliner provider in the world, its fall from leadership and how it is making its way back from financial disaster and safety failures.
I understand Boeing would prefer to recover a bit before launching a replacement…just not sure how tenable that position will be once Airbus announces its propulsion decision in 2027. An Airbus announcement also conceivably takes engine maker developent options off the table (by companies not wanting to pursue concurrent development programs). Afraid industry is not going to give Boeing a hall pass until 2030.
The other scenario (and less likely)…Boeing has come to the conclusion that Max7 and Max10 is simply either not going to happen or happen so late as to make them irrelevant and is thus throwing in the towel and going to an earlier launch of a new aircraft.
There is no evidence to substantiate “throwing in the towel” on the MAX 7 and 10. Bringing those aircraft to market is completely consistent with the development of a replacement aircraft for the 737 family, in the late 2030’s.
Of course Boeing is doing both. There is at least a decade before a replacement would be available from either manufacturer.
BA continues to throw good money after bad for derivatives of limited market value.
2015: AB took 60% of marketshare. BA’s response: it’d cut its headcount in respond to a “crisis”. 😅
By Boeing shares, you can vote!
Better yet, get elected to the board and get a bigger vote!!!!!! Go for COB or even CEO. This is Boeing, sky is the limit.
Sans that it ain’t your money is it?
Why don’t you try that yourself?
I know how the corporate world functions in a late stage capitalist society.
Buy.
bye! Boeing shares. ?
bit of a freudian slip :-)))
“BA continues to throw good money after bad for derivatives of limited market value.” – Thanks to Harry Stonecipher’s short-term vision!
Boeing has sold something like 5000 MAX. For a bad money throw, not too shabby!
They have a nice backlog on the 777X.
The issues the management inflicted on Boeing is not at issue. They did, hopefully (stay tuned) its no longer.
Where they go from here? I would keep mfg the MAX because it sells well and who quits selling a good seller? Its a good way to go more broke.
No question Boeing should have had the NG successor de singed and ready to go, starlight conventional with the most modern aluminum wing as possible.
Then they could have NEOd it. They didn’t, what they came up with is equal in economics to the A320NEO. So the A320 is not optimized as Boeing has the newer wing, Boeing does not have the architecture to jump over Airbus.
In the meantime Boeing needs to get its house in order financial and management wise – do they just shut the doors?
All the naysayer options make zero sense as its either do that or keep making aircraft they should not keep making.
I know there are schools that teach logical thinking.
“Boeing has sold something like 5000 MAX”
Boeing has _orders_ for 5000 MAX. currently.
They may have got advances in scope of signing orders.
Not yet their money.
But probably turned to smoke long before parts for those orders find their way into storage for assembly.
@ Casey said:
“The other scenario (and less likely)…Boeing has come to the conclusion that Max7 and Max10 is simply either not going to happen or happen so late as to make them irrelevant and is thus throwing in the towel and going to an earlier launch of a new aircraft.”
+1
Occurred to me also the monent I read this news.
Zero evidence of anything
Classic case of (probably) a fact that then is spun off into strange conclusions.
I find it difficult to introspect Boeing’s motivational activities.
Interaction with the workforce seems to carry much spite.
( and expresses itself as negative fallout via being destructive for production quality.)
Retreating from promises ( fixed sensor redundancy ) made in connection with an upcoming sub type would fit the pattern.
👇👇
Ouch!
> It’s also not that simple. Knowing how to certify an aircraft again is a core competency that Boeing doesn’t have today and is trying to regain. That is step number one. Without that, nothing new is coming.
https://bsky.app/profile/jonostrower.com/post/3m232s646qs2x
Another timely and accurate quote, and link. Thanks-
+ 1
Pedro.
Agreed.
Thats why so many of us were screaming when BA backed out of the Embraer deal. The high value item there was a separate uncompromised EASA compliant certification path. But, so much for actually getting value for the tie up. Id have rather paid for Embraer and added debt than pay the breakup fee. The Cert path is that valueable
Not something I thought of, now I have to think about it, darn.
Well done, when you get people thinking its a good thing.
TRANS.
WELL THINK DAMMIT……….
In another world, they call me Alternate Thought Guy.
Cheers
Not limited to Boeing.
FAA had lost “some fingers” in that domain too via political actions.
Today: Two sightless arm in arm. 🙂
First Of All The 5X Is Closer To The Boeing 767-300 The 5 X Competes Against Airbus A321LR
lead me : 5X ?
Of course Boeing is as always working on a replacement and there was always a plan B. The question is will it be only GE/SN or an RR option?
Not sure who SN is?
Safran.
Thank you I was being lazy .
Por nada.
Got it, they are not a full participant in the single aisle arena and per agreement with GE won’t be.
Seems you left PW out.
This from one who should rely on spell check.
I think RR will find a way into the NB market. We’ll see.
I think that’s a virtual certainty.
The market is certainly big enough for new players.
Obviously they are going to try.
I would put it as PW and RR right now, GTF is the key. PW is ahead of everyone in practical application and the next mods to take advantage of GTF.
CFM is using RISE as a developmental project that gets them a core and gears. Not the same as a full on GTF.
And the big question is does Boeing go single mfg or a choice?
Equally do the airlines want anything new, they have just suffered grievous blows on various engines and how willing they are to take a chance is a good question.
CFM 56 and V2500 are looking pretty good!
Does the market support more players? We had two before and then only had one sans PW putting some serious bucks into the GTF.
I don’t know that any of the sayers have any financial data that says there is room for 3 successful.
PW would be out on their ear if not for Airbus.
Combined with Airbus’ CEO’s recent remarks and the fact that several research programs are now reaching TRL 5–6, the outline of a new evolutionary narrowbody (NB) is starting to take shape:
* High-aspect ratio wing, likely with extendable tips
* Engines with high BPR, OPR, and EGT
* Six-abreast cabin, AKH container compatible
* Fuselage frames with composite panels, enabling flexibility in mass production and ensuring maintainability
* Single-class capacity of 160–240 seats; aiming higher risks missing the large 150–200 seat market segment
The key question IMO is whether Boeing intends to compete in the lower NB segment, where the A220-300 and -500 will be positioned. In my view, it’s unrealistic to design an aircraft that can both carry 200 passengers across the Atlantic and remain light and efficient enough to compete effectively in the massive 150-200 seats < 2 hrs segment. If Boeing continues to pursue an NMA strategy, it may still have the option to go smaller and lighter with its own NB development.
How to finance all is a different question. Strong US government support / guarantees seem inevitable in the current situation.
@keesje
That is another element completely. You do not counter an A320 replacment and an A220-whatever with one aircraft. Does Boeing really have the bandwidth to launch two programs at once or do they stagger them if they really want a full suite of competitive product.
All good questions and points.
The data we have is the MAX-8/9 sells well as does the A320.
Ok, the A321 is selling better. Pull the market data (someone not me!) and tell me, do they use the 240 pax max (pun) or 220?
A220? Not anywhere near as good as MAX-8/9 (not sure to call them one or two category, -10 would for sure be a category with A321 (sort of but call it ballpark)
So, what is the market really? Over 50% of the A320 series production is the A321.
While the A220 can be made longer, that is contentious in do you do X and make the range longer or accept a shorter range than the -300?
The A220 has a somewhat MAX like issue, its cockpit is not at all Airbus. Not even close. And no you can’t change it without huge costs. Its not just software, its control positions and that would require a recert.
So, A220 continues and Airbus uses a 500 to fill the A320 slot and no cockpit commonality. In the meantime Boeing offers a 787 common cockpit.
The so called MOM is a smaller selling segment (think 767 or 787-3).
So which do you go for?
I think its a MAX replacement all the way (upgauged a bit) but its the numbers and mfg in play and the need to make as much money as soon as possible.
You can do a MOM latter with a common cockpit.
Boeing has a competitive product in the MAX, but as all know, its a very dated architecture. Airbus has a commonality problem and selling into a diminished A320 segment.
A220 would fit Boeing better as they are not common cockpits anyway but thats long off the table.
The A220 is also not part of Airbus supplier system and its volume is low so getting stand alone larger discounts is not to be had.
You are correct that 737 and A220 both differ from A320 in UI design.
You overlook that 737 and A220 UI design is nearly half a century apart. The A220 is a modern UI(+hardware) design.
A320 and A220 differ in philosophy but not in being up to date.
Will Airbus offer Airbus cockpits for A220 some day? Maybe starting with A220-500?
@hbl:
I haven’t the faintest idea. 🙂
it would integrate the A220 closer into the airbus abstracted plane UI.
it would create a PITA type problem on the sales side? fracmentation.
I think Boeing cedes the lower end of the NB market not just to Airbus but also Embraer.
This seems likely to me. Global South + India could be a potent combination (as some here have alluded to).
Vincent.
There were strong rumors that when Boeing dropped out of the Embraer deal that Hindustani was all over the chance for the tie up. I can see the Ejets being built in India for that market and it very well could have the economic wherewithal to get into mainline aircraft and build bigger ones.
Thanks for that very interesting backstory, PNW.
The India situation is a lot of questions.
First, Embraer has continued to try to get into China (blocked out of course, can’t have competition)
I do not think it matters, but it does close a possible no matter how unlikely, so going with India is a commitment.
India for whatever reasons has had a very mixed mfg in aircraft. No ingenious design has been successful (the one trainer light attack is barely in production and a US engine)
They have been a sub manufacturer of Russian fighters for a long time and successful including the engine builds.
They do not have the govt model China does to force through a new aircraft regardless of the cost.
Russia is not a market, they have their own delusional setup.
So where does the money come from and who commits to enough production to get a project going?
China can under cut them in any of its Silk Noose Roads scam.
Any Brazil India offering puts them in direct opposition to China aspirations.
BRICs may have common dislike in the US (can’t blame them) but that does not make a more than convenient counter block for some things and not others.
Trans
You have to visit social media to see how vocal (Indian) posters are about missing the boat, unlike the Chinese! 😂
I don’t understand. 737’s and A320-family planes will be in service at least until the 2050’s.
Based on all the pronouncements a couple of years ago about the imminent end of the world, it seemed pretty obvious all the elites at Davos were certain the next generation of commercial aircraft would be powered by Greta Thunburg’s tears.
This doesn’t seem to be moving in that direction at all.
with new wing riveters (purchased in March 2024 but still not delivered) going on the existing Renton 737 production line (e.g. $100 million plus) they are not investing this kind of money for 10 year production run. So one of two choices, no real replacement of the 737 for 20 years or the next generation single aisle will have metallic wing My bet with the C Frame throat going from 96 inch (current Gemcor wing riveters) to 120 inch throat for the new WRS, they have already decided the wing will be metallic for the next aircraft.
It will be interesting to see if Boeing Renton can really handle the (remote operation) operatorless wing riveters with digital 4.0 technology or will this be another 777 FAUB failure!
Good points.
Good Lord…a metallic wing?
Even the “lowly” Russian MC-21 has a carbon composite wing:
https://simpleflying.com/mc-21-wing-world-first/
The difference -MS 21 a production rate at best in the future.. say 6 a month with carbon fiber non autoclave black wing “The dry carbon ribbon is heated with a laser, bonded to the previous layer and formed layer by layer”
So what wing technology for 60-70 a month rate for 737 replacement? Autoclave technology would be too capital intensive!
Russia becomes import-independent both in composites and technological equipment
https://ruavia.su/russia-becomes-import-independent-both-in-composites-and-technological-equipment/
As I understand it, Russia has shifted to domestic in the composites arena.
Not good domestic, added a lot of weight but domestic.
A220 has composite wings.
It all has to do with cost and build rate as well as wing efficiency which is the main contributor to aerodynamic improvements (tubes don’t) so there is a major push to composite of some kind.
I see the push to take X and assuming Y, but the MAX will be in production until 2040. So you got two wings (767 and MAX) that use aluminum.
I don’t see aluminum long thin wings being strong enough for the weight penalty .
Boeing does not know what tech they will use.
Pls do not seriosly take 99% of the Russian aviation-related articles.
From Russia with pain,
yours.
@ Alexander A
One could just as easily give advice not to take 99% of Boeing PR seriously.
To be correct and clear up the problem with snap canned response.
Russia PR is not Boeing PR.
The right analogy is Russia PR vs US PR.
In short you have a logic bust.
Having read the Russian PR and seen good reporting by Mentour in the Russian arena, yea, you are taking the the PR hook, line and sinker.
No question its within the construct of your world, but it does not begin to mean its factual.
And from someone that is there (taking him at his word as it follows the background of what most of us know) you are telling him Russia is Boeing which is terribly confused. They are not by the way.
In a real debate the moderator would stop the discus ion and explore the illogic of what was presented.
Deflecting Boeing PR into national PR is one of those points of debate that would not be allowed, it would be exposed for what it was and you would not be allowed to continue to use it as ruled out of order.
Google AI:
The MC-21 wing is primarily manufactured in Russia using a proprietary, out-of-autoclave (OOA) resin infusion process, where dry carbon fiber is infused with resin and then cured in an oven, eliminating the need for a traditional autoclave.
UWE.
RTM and its cousin VARTM are both methods to impregnate fibers inside the bag. Neither is especially complicated and both are developments that have been in large scale production in the fiberglass boating industry for literally decades. The use of either process in a wing is liable to leave weight on the table as one trades a bit of interply compaction thru resin richness necessary to overcome localized resin starvation. Control of bleeder material used for resin content control is the key to tuning the laminate schedule for max fiber content/minimum weight. There are years worth of articles and case studies on the process in Professional Boatbuilder……
Actually it is, both Airbus and Boeing are moving forward with more efficient technologies.
Both have also looked into electric and hybrid and hydrogen and sustainable fuels, all things that were proposed. As Scott noted, the value of that research is not lost, it’s just incorporated in other ways.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding here about research and how it becomes applied. The majority of research doesn’t pan out into production as originally conceived, but it informs other research that eventually does.
Rather than triumphantly declaring “epic fail” for those efforts, it would be better to acquire some understanding of the learning involved. That’s where the true value resides.
Absolutely. Bombardier did a lot of research when they settled on the carbon wing and li al fuselage for the C Series / A220. It might be a better than 50/50 bet that this hybrid is the baseline technology for all future narrow body airlines from all the manufacturers.
Agreed, That is my starting basis as well.
Don’t you think an elliptical fuselage would be rather out of left field?
PEDRO
I believe Bjorn showed an aerodynamic issue with an oval fuselage having more surface area than needed to fly a container and 6 abreast single aisle.
Twin-asile to improve turnover time for the plane to accommodate higher capacity
[Deleted. Off topic. Editor.]
Full on agreement with Rob.
Both the materials and more electric morphed over from the Sonic Cruiser.
As a concept it gave airlines a clear marker to look at, can you make money on speed or do you need efficiency.
Management mucked up the program by scattering it all over the globe and making it a you design your part without a Boeing overlay.
In the end that is what Boeing had to do, form full spectrum teams of engineers, logistics and accounting and ensure it was all in place at most of the participants. As I recall it was 20 person teams, they never knew what discipline they would need if not all of them at any given site.
Despite the mess, the 787 is setting a record for the most mfg of all time in Wide Body. The base idea was good, execution per management that only wanted a show for share jack up almost sunk it.
Good in theory. At the end of the day, as proven in BA’s decision to go for the MAX, resources, cost and expediency won.
Both wait for new engines, thermoplastic fuselage and system for single pilot in cockpit
It seems those technologies are well underway and could be fielded in the next decade.. e.g. CFM RISE was launched 4 years ago.
EASA has nixed a single person cockpit
Does not mean the rest of the World will not approve it.
I doubt the US ever would.
Brazil I doubt as well.
That leave who?
I am amazed that anyone would even consider flying as a passenger on a single-pilot airliner.
“What, me worry? Moar Tech will always, always save us!” Darwin Award candidates..
Moar Tech > Moar Centralization of control > Decreasing human autonomy. Thanks, but I’ll pass.
you’ll get “no warm pilot at all” in not time!
Just wait and see :-))
TRANS
EASA has nixed single pilot operations, NOT single pilot manning. There are gains to be made, especially in long flights for staffing some of the crew complement ground based and flying remotely. Having a pilot monitoring 3 or 4 airplanes from a remote location is what I think we will end with
Pretty soon our sky is filled with CCAs.
Claes
Sikorski outfitted an ATR 72 for Fedex Freight to test single pilot software. I think the intermediate step for 121 operators would be to put 2 man cockpits in the airplane with remote pilotage available. That way you could transition to single pilot with a second pilot ground based, and he can watch multiple airplanes. That way you can sneak up on the change without a bunch of hardware changes.
I believe that is why EASA nixed it.
The layers of complexity and safety to have something like that work when you can’t even design software that works right, hmmm.
Equally as a pilot, keeping ahead of an aircraft if you single most critical duty.
So a bored buy sitting on the ground that has not done the planning and has no interchange or awareness of the aircraft or pilot parachutes in and makes it all better?
Mission impossible
+1
It can be managed if you have low latency sat comm. Not in the U.S.A.
Just to clarify one point in the article, Boeing suspended the construction of the TTBW prototype because the technology was not ready.
But it is still being actively researched. There is development money and people at both Boeing and NASA are still working on it. But the construction phase is halted for now.
As far as the alternate Plan B aircraft, as the article states, that too will rely on the high aspect ratio wing. The differences with the TTBW are mostly structural (cantilever vs truss), but much of that research applies across both programs.
I think that generaly is accurate but with some nuance.
Calhoun seemed bound to the TTBW and from my standpoint, I think its interesting but I don’t see it as a given. Both on the tech end but you also have that Truss that is like prop jobs (TP by any other name) and a will airlines buy it and will the public accept it (gambling in other words)
Good ideas and approaches come out of it regardless. Either Ortberg wants to see a lot more evidence or the engineers are telling him, cool idea, it has aspects that won’t work without a lot of development if ever.
And you always have to take the public into account, they have gotten fixed ideas of what a proper aircraft looks like.
It’s still too early for claims of a new clean-sheet development. That’s why there’s noise spread around. The difference in development stages between AB and BA is undeniably substantial: AB will fly its wing of tomorrow soon. Not only that, AB is also looking at how to derisk the program — including mass manufacturing. While obfuscaters are busy talking up quality assurance programs like KPI. 🤦♂️ What’s entertaining is it’s told the installed base of current narrow body airplanes doesn’t have any room to afford higher operating cost from the new aircraft!
AW’s headline doesn’t sound like optimistic about the NMA.
Certifying a high wing airplane for wheels-up or water landing it is a concern.
As Scott noted, it’s likely that both Airbus and Boeing will have offerings in the mid to late 2030’s.
The true unsupported claim is that one will while the other won’t. That appears to be unfounded speculation.
“unsupported claim”
probabilities, judgement from recent history.
We’ll revisit that in a couple of years.
@ Pedro
Also not to be overlooked:
AB has plenty of cash to fund a new program.
BA doesn’t. And it won’t have until it’s had many very profitable quarters behind it. Consensus EPS for Q3 is still negative. Q4 also.
So what?
They scrapped enough cash up to buy Spirit.
They are saving money on not going through with an expensive TTBW conversion off the MD chassis. They got 10 billion for Jeppenesen.
Research is low cost and they can fund that. They funded the new fighter program.
If I recall correctly, it’s an all-stock deal. 🤭 Don’t you know?
> “The merger is an all-stock transaction at an equity value of approximately $4.7 billion…”
https://investors.boeing.com/investors/news/press-release-details/2024/Boeing-to-Acquire-Spirit-AeroSystems/default.aspx
Thanks for that quote and link.
I don’t mean to make fun of a simple typo, but the idea of Boeing scrapping cash is worth thinking about
True
We all remember how BA canceled its own development and “rushed out” a half-baked design to “match” AB’s neo and what happened next!
Lol, the aircraft which competes very well in practice, despite the desperate claims to the contrary. And has nothing whatever to do with the current development cycle.
Yeah, grounded for like 21 months, has to sell at 10% discount of fair market value to push the txrd out the door. The show must go on!!
Time to go touch grass.
MAX sales: 6,782
A320/321neo sales: 11,256
A220 sales: 941
So, the MAX is
essentially outsold 2-to1.
Also, the MAX has a very meager presence in the EU, after multiple NG operators jumped ship.
Great competitor 👍
BA has three programs, all considered to be great successes by some here.
ABALONE
Great numbers. Comparing all A320s delivered with 737s delivered in the same time gives you these numbers. Sales of Airbus vs Boeing aircraft is very dependent on definitions of how you count firm orders, LOIs, LOUs, MOUs and Options. Then we have to take into account Boeing must comply with ASC909 and drop unrealistic orders.from eht totals, something Airbus is not required to do…..
Better numbers are actual delivery of 737s and A320 family aircraft back to FEB 1981, the 320 programs first announcement.
Airbus A320 family (everything for the family is since its 1 Feb 1981 launch):
Deliveries = 12,198 (program total / all of which are since Feb 1981).
Boeing 737 family (all models) — deliveries from 1 Jan 1981 through latest published year (2025 in the source):
Deliveries (1981 → 2025) = 11,499.
I computed this by summing the published per-year Boeing 737 deliveries for each year 1981–2025 from the Boeing/Wikipedia deliveries table. The same data shows 711 deliveries were done before 1981 (1968–1980), giving the program total shown in the sources (~12,214).
What was it that Boeing lost due to their 737 MAX/MCAS debacle? Something on the order of $15-20 billion, IIRC. Good thing they got that all sorted out. 😉
Boeing 787: Millions still lost on every frame sold; no viable path to profitability (per Bjorn Fehrm / Leeham).
Boeing 737-7: uncertified, and many years late; first delivery date unknown, EIS unknown.
Boeing 737-10: uncertified, and many years late; first delivery date unknown, EIS unknown.
Boeing 777-X: uncertified, and many years late; first delivery date unknown, EIS unknown.
Would it be unfair to mention, too, that Boeing is presently over $50,000,000,000 in debt?
Gee, I wonder which company- Airbus or Boeing-
could really be in a position to launch a new plane
program in the foreseeable future? I won’t even mention Boeing’s carefully self-inflicted engineering brain drain..
Vincent.
All fair points
Yep
And Boeing could borrow 15 billion in a heartbeat do bring out a new aircraft. Actually it would be a line of credit.
Factually its not all due until you hit production so its over time and if the Boeing factories are doing well, they retire other debt.
Trans
Too early to dream 🤦♂️ Why don’t you run to join their board and ask them how likely and what are the consequences if they go out to borrow $15 billion “in a heartbeat”? I bet the stonk will crash and Ortberg would be fired!
PEDRO.
The MAX was created because the Operators said no to a proposed clean sheet airplane…… We know this because Jon Ostrower published the article long ago. Your not following the facts and I’m not surprised by that. Oh yeah, the fuselage in this proposed airplane was composed of many small composite panels joined together, predating the A350s assembly method.
Ostrower, Jon. “Boeing Patent May Provide Glimpse Into 737 Replacement Plan” Flight Blogger September 23, 2010
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/09/boeing-patent-may-provide-glim.html
Look at the Secret Projects Web site for the entire discussion, its fascinating
Yes, I remember that article. It was not a need jerk as many think. As is the case here, there was a Plan A and Plan B. The airlines did not want to pay for Plan A or wait for it. The funny thing is Airbus’s Leary was actually relieved that Boeing did not go clean sheet.
As has been pointed out, it is a magnificent engineering success in creating a fully competitive offering out of a 60s low to ground setup.
That does not erase or ignore the two MAX crashes nor the door plug blowout.
Plan B 787 has also been a huge success. Its gone onto be the best selling wide body of all time, it will be the most produced in 5-10 years and then it will continue to set records.
The “huge success” is likely a money-losing program! 🥴😎 We live in a multi-universe!
Yes, it may be an overall money loser, but the money is already lost. It was spent on development and testing and rebuild etc. New build 787 carry that burden, but not building more 787s doesn’t remove the burden. So it is good business to continue to build 787s.
@ Thomas Benedict
Boeing is still generating active losses on all its quarterly shipments.
That’s present tense — not past tense.
In Q2, it shipped 150 commercial aircraft…and it lost $2.9B doing so.
A hint: the average revenue per frame (i.e. selling price) at BA is lower than that at AB — you can easily calculate that for yourself from the quarterly reports. Since the frame-averaged costs at BA are higher than said average revenue, you get a net loss.
“it may be an overall money loser, but the money is already lost. It was spent on development and testing and rebuild etc.”
How come deferred production cost continues to pile higher?
See also my comment below about how BA won orders by “unbeatable” prices, not even BA itself can achieve!
That guy should have been criminally prosecuted.
PEDRO
Scott has a different story in his book
Pg 129 and 130
Cheers
I presume you’re talking about his newest book. I will be ordering it this holiday season…
SAMW
Why wait for the holidays
@CASEY, Boeing launching both an NSA and NMA seems a longshot, but they could consider a common fuselage, cockpit, tail, cabin, systems for both, with 2 sets of wings/engines optimized for the different applications.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Dx0gGsBCkOs/WgLiTqRDa8I/AAAAAAAADOw/-K2ZnN38_eIvPxqBOewk1Hyv1B6SbST6wCLcBGAs/s1600/Boeing%252520MoM%252520NSA%252520797%252520MNA%252520A322%252520Airbus%252520keesje_zpsyczimwib.jpg
It would probably be 2 for the price of 1.5 and offer significant operational (e.g. pilot) and sustainment advantages. Foldable wingtips would be avoided, saving weight, costs and complications.
Time for Embraer to also enter the mainstream NB market, e.g. in cooperation with India.
The more players, the merrier.
I suspect that Embraer could beat BA on EIS and product appeal.
+1
The forward-thinking engineers that Boing wanted actually
work for Embraer..
ABALONE
Hindustani was rumored to be looking really hard at taking up BAs merger when BA pulled the plug. Had that happened, Indian coproduction leads the way to a potentially strong world wide competitor.
I didn’t miss anything. What’s entertaining is obfuscator created a strawman for argument sake, which is not based on what I posted.
Boeing stopped its own development and rushed out a half-baked design which is well-documented here and else where. Obfuscator can only create smoke and mirrors: operators said no. No, Boeing hadn’t made up its mind and no program was launched. AB shown customers their A320neo program and customers jumped in and placed orders. That forced Boeing’s hand to scrap its new aircraft.
You can buy the book by Mr Hamilton and read the chapter one:
> Airbus forced Boeing’s hand on the cusp of a huge order from American Airlines for the A320ceo/neo family. When Boeing learned of this, the decision was rushed, within two days, to launch the re-engined 737 *rather than a new airplane design*.
> Boeing had shown *concepts* of such a plane to customers. And *no firm decision had been made internally* by Boeing what direction it would go.
And the rest is history: a knee-jerked, rushed, botched, reputation-flushing, balance-sheet-destroying, market-share-eroding, overly re-warmed “success” story.
Hey, the MAX only cost Boeing $20,000,000,000 – and who’s counting? No need to get into customer trust, safety, and goodwill..
What customer really said no to:
> “Boeing was asleep at the switch,” recalled an American official, still with the carrier in 2020. American had been asking Boeing for an upgrade to the 737NG in response to the A320neo. Boeing didn’t believe American would leave the exclusive agreement. Thus, the opportunity for Airbus. “It caught a lot of people by surprise.
> American fleet planners found the neo economics compelling, especially compared with the aging MD-80 fleet, said the American insider. But Boeing, he relayed, was confident American would not order from Airbus, and it didn’t up its game, offering only more 737-800s and a batch of -900ERs. *American simply had no interest in the latter airplane*.
> This was a Tuesday. Boeing salesmen spent all day and night Wednesday coming up with a re-engined 737 program, terms, and conditions. Jim McNerney, then the CEO of The Boeing Co., stepped in and decided to launch the re-engined 737, *killing Albaugh’s dream, and that of many others, of an entirely new airplane*.
Thanks for those quotes.
+ 1
Don’t you just love commenters who provide relevant quotes and/or links?
No need to, of course, because @Pedro’s assertions are all perfectly backed up by the public record 👍
Careful @Abalone. No personal attacks.
Hamilton
Oh, sorry, Mr. Hamilton — wasn’t at all intended as a personal attack.
More of a general musing on evidentiary standards.
But, I get it 👍
Abalone. I love quotes. Heres the wrap up of the Max vs New airplane quoted directly from Scotts book, Page 130. It confirms EXACTLY what I have been saying all along. Boeing was offering a new airplane and the operators demanded the reengined airplane. So Boeing released the 737RE, The Max
SECOND BEST SOLUTION.
Many of the factors that played into the decision on whether to proceed with a new airplane design or go with the (re-engined) 737RE have already been laid out in these pages. What Boeing wound up with was what one former employee called the second-best solution from its perspective. But the 737RE was the preferred choice of the operators. The new -technology problems, production woes and industrial disaster of the 787 program which negatively affected 747-8 development, hung over the prospect of a new 737 replacement.”
“If the better airplane were to win, we would have never had a 737MAX. We would have had a brand spanking new airplane that would have replaced the 737″, the former employee said.” The MAX was created because it was the second choice of Boeing and it was the first choice of the operators. The new airplane was a much better airplane. None of the operators would buy it because they were happy with the margins they were making with the 737 fleet. They didn’t want to upset the apple cart and take on the extra risk of doing all the changes to put a new design in service”.
Although some engineers believed the 737s new design didn’t offer significantly better economics than the 737RE, those promoting the new airplane- Albaugh and Blair in particular- believed that on paper it was a fabulous airplane, much better than the MAX, but everybody passed on it.
The A320NEO forced taking the second-place airplane to the operators who wanted a derivative instead of a new airplane, and the second place, weaker airplane was what was built, said the former employee.
This passage is exactly the story I have been telling from day 1. The operators passed on the new airplane and forced the derivative.
Now lets look at the whole “Boeing rushed the MAX to market legend. Starting on Page 129 of Scotts book we find this passage.
These were all good reasons to choose the 737RE over a new airplane and the decision was made rapidly once Arpey called McNerney. But the narrative that would emerge in 2019 that Boeing “Rushed” the MAX, as the plane was branded, to market, is just plain wrong. The decision was made in two days, but the airplane had been engineered for several years. Detail design was needed, to be sure, but with a projected EIS of 2017, six years hence, it just isn’t true that Boeing rushed either the basic design or detailed design
Worth adding that the MAX would sell and the replacement would not.
Obvious decision..
PEDRO.
Read Hamiltons book, peek at page 129 and 130, it’s the full story of the decision-making process to go with the MAX. Argue with Hamilton. He said the MAX was never rushed.
from pg129
These were all good reasons to choose the 737RE over a new airplane and the decision was made rapidly once Arpey called McNerney. But the narrative that would emerge in 2019 that Boeing “Rushed” the MAX, as the plane was branded, to market, is just plain wrong. The decision was made in two days, but the airplane had been engineered for several years. Detail design was needed, to be sure, but with a projected EIS of 2017, six years hence, it just isn’t true that Boeing rushed either the basic design or detailed design
What’s confirmed:
American Airlines didn’t want the 737 NG and 737-900ER offered by Boeing, they wanted aircraft that can at least match what AB offered them. AA would love if BA offered them a new aircraft but that’s not what was offered by BA. That’s why it’s about to make a massive order with AB, and that shocked BA enough to make up their mind for the MAX (the re-engined option). Boeing hadn’t received the authority to offer* by the board, therefore there’s no new aircraft offer on the table, no matter how many revisionists want to rewrite the history. (*See below.)
This is a short-sighted decision, as BA rushed to match AB, they did a poor job: let MCAS slipped thru by an internal safety analysis that downplayed its significance and consequences of failures (will be caught by a pilot in a few seconds — which has proved dead wrong in simulations by American pilots.) As the FAA delegated more and more during the certification process to 100% self-cert by the end, both BA and the FAA lost their competency in certification. That’s why it’s so painful for BA rn, to certify any aircraft. They have to redo their analyses without self-cert.
The big hole in BA’s lineup was supposed to be filled by the NMA or whatever they decide. Unfortunately, BA couldn’t close the business case which is not dissimilar to the 737 replacement around 2010. For those trying to misconstrue a concept as anything solid enough to give an offer, I have a bridge for you all. Could BA give up what they had been doing since the 1960s and switch to mass produce elliptical fuselage at a scale suitable for NB? Did Spirit have the financial resources to take the challenge? Don’t kid me. By sticking by the old process, BCA might have dodge another paralysis much bigger than the 787.
Now, as BA continues to suffer the consequences of picking the MAX but without the NMA/MOM, AB is able to eat their lunch and get away with massive orders & deliveries.
Certainly when we look back in history, we continue to see similarity of hubris exhibited by old hands here, nothing new!
> As Airbus moved toward re-engining the A320 in 2010, and with a program launch in December that year, Boeing, predictably, thumbed its collective nose at the neo and the entire re-engining concept.
At an employee meeting Jan. 14, 2011, Albaugh, dismissed the neo and its potential competitiveness vs the 737NG.
“I think Airbus will find re-engining the A320 more challenging than they think it will be,” he told employees during one of his periodic “Excellence” meetings. “When they get done, they will have an airplane that might be as good as the Next Generation 737. We think we can continue to make incremental improvements to the 737 to make sure that it is a more capable airplane than even the re-engined A320.
“At the same time, while we haven’t made a firm decision, I don’t think we will re-engine the 737. It’s really hard to come up with a compelling business case to do that. We think the right answer to probably do a new small airplane that might come out toward the end of this decade. We’ll *make that decision probably sometime in the middle of this year*,” he said.
“Every customer I talk to has a real hard time understanding why a re-engined airplane makes sense,” Albaugh said. [😂😉😉] “Airbus says it will cost them a billion Euros to re-engine. My guess is it’s going to cost them considerably more than that. The engines are bigger. They are going to have to redesign the wings, the gear. It’s going to be a design change that will ripple through that airframe. 👈
… “We were basically keeping the_RE_effort_alive_as_a_stalking horse for the new small airplane effort at that time,” recalled an engineer on the program years later. “It was good that we did, too, as we were able to put something together really quickly for that whole American Airlines debacle and get the MAX_started_as_quickly_as_we_did.
**“The airplane as it was defined then was struggling to beat a reengined 737 from a performance standpoint and–if it contained significant composites–they had no idea how to build it at any kind of 737-like production rate**(never mind all the handwringing about the where).” 🤭😂
… “We’ve done a lot of work [on the potential of putting a new engine on the 737],” [Mike] Bair [737 development head] said. “There’s been fairly extensive engineering work on it. […] By this time, Boeing had been through the **“concept feasible gate” that validated that re-engining was something that could be done**, he said.
[Back when history is not polluted by revionists.]
When Jim McNerney said no more moonshot, what exactly did it mean??
“He noted that the first manifestation of this thinking came in 2011 when Boeing decided to build the 737 MAX, a derivative of the current 737 featuring new engines and minimal other changes, instead of an all-new airplane.”
> the company will deploy its top engineers accordingly, asking them to reuse already developed technologies on new platforms rather than starting from a blank sheet and making everything new.
Thanks for the excellent quotes.
Nice to have a clear account of what *actually happened*…along with ample evidence of the arrogant / short-sighted attitude that pervaded BA at the time.
Doesn’t rhyme at all with the alternate narratives being put forth by others.
As regards BA’s arrogance, nothing’s changed…e.g. the A321XLR is just a “niche aircraft” 😅
@Abalone
Well I found it strange that BA would go out *offering* a new aircraft to their customers without lots of fanfare. That’s not how this industry works! Show me when the board gave the authority to offer for a new aircraft that supposed to replace the 737. If there were no offers to customers, how could they reject such an aircraft in preference to the 737RE (became known as the MAX later)?
Missed this quote:
> Bair said that with few exceptions, as Boeing showed the 737RE to customers, they asked if “there was something else we can do?”
As an example of how great and how much work BA had actually done with the 737RE:
The COC (cash operating cost) benefit of the 737RE was estimated to be “2-½ to 3%” [no joke!!] by BA/BCA, per Bair. Which is quite far off from reality! 🤦♂️
> By the time all factors are done, the airplane benefit is down to about 1%. “It’s kind of like, really?” Bair said.
> Boeing *was indecisive about which direction* to choose.
The ambiguity was driven in no small part during this era by the continued 787 debacle, which at the time of this interview, had not entered service.
By July 2011, when its hand was finally forced, the 787 was more than three years late, billions of dollars over budget and it hadn’t been delivered to any customer yet. Word on the street was that *there was no way the Board of Directors would approve a new, clean-sheet airplane program under these circumstances* and that it had lost confidence in Boeing Commercial Airplanes and the Longacres executives to meet their promises, keep a schedule and keep to budget.
PEDRO
What’s confirmed
Pg 129 and 130 of Scott’s new book.
Also. What are you quoting I’d like to go read it
Presumably, a significant commercial motivator for a new BA NB is the relatively poor sales performance of the MAX-9/10 compared to the A321neo? And the complete lack of an offering to compete with the A321XLR?
A321neo orders are currently at 7165.
Aren’t MAX-10 orders now somewhere near 1200?
Nominal range:
A321XLR: 8,700 km
MAX-10: 6,110 km
MAX-9: 6,570 km
Airbus A320 family dominates utilization: 56% vs. 44% Boeing 737 family
From recent data (this summer) by AW:
“The A320 family has, for the past few years, accounted for the lion’s share of the combined utilization. In 2019, it accounted for 54% of the combined commercial utilization.
Due to higher delivery rates, and lower retirement rates (as the fleet is younger), the *A320 family utilization share has increased to over 56%*.
With the A320 family becoming the dominant narrowbody and with a healthy backlog of over 7,000 aircraft (Boeing has almost 5,000 737s in its backlog), Airbus is set to keep its narrowbody crown for the foreseeable future.”
Stop the press, the Sun rose in the East somewhere, back in June.
Really?
I’m here to inform… 😉
No need to go back to 1981 or whatever.
PEDRO.
At last facts.
I knew you could di it if you parked the vitriol……
Other than a kick the tires sort of thing, Boeing talking to RR is nothing more than keeping the pot stirred up.
The only company that has an operational GTF is P&W.
All 3 companies in the arena have had engine issues.
Boeing has said it does not view RISE as viable. Ergo, a GTF solution and GE/CFM is not offering any GTF. RR is at least offering a prototype.
P&W has done some design work on a 767 sized engine but no test article.
@TW
I think the answer is more time dependant than anything. Boeing will have an option that they are comfortable launching in ~ 2 years that will not be anything exotic. At least another 737-refresh is off the table. Exotic options are not off the table…but require a 2030s launch. I do think…however…that we have seen the final launch of a conventional direct drive powerplant. The Max and neo engines have pushed the upper bounds (and crossed over) of what temps an engine can withstand.
Going back to the earlier post…don’t be stunned when an A220-500 replaces the A320neo and the neo is otherwise replaced with an up-gauge in size. The cockpit commonality is a moot point today as only a couple airlines fly both aircraft. It is hard to get excited about launching a derivative that is “close enough” to an A320neo that really only appeals to somebody like Air Baltic (maybe Breeze too).
Hard feelings aside, the most logical move is a Boeing – Embraer design and marketing alliance that leverages a common cockpit and sales strategy for an E3-whatever new design and a Max replacmeent and thereby avoids producing duplicate aircraft entries.
Thanks for this comment.
I very much doubt that Embraer will want to have anything to do with BA — even less so in light of the nasty US tariffs slapped on Brazil.
There are more compatible and more lucrative opportunities for Embraer among its BRICS friends.
@Casey:
Some good points but also????
While not a lot operate A220 and A320, they do operate A320/321 a lot. Drop the A320 and then you force them into an A220 or a too large A321.
Just a rehash, the MAX 8/9 are selling nicely. So there is a lot of desire for an aircraft in that size. The A220 would add costs to those not used to costs if its the only option.
A320NEO will continue to sell, I will admit I am puzzled at the move to the A321. Maybe its the economics of offering up graded seats and still carrying 200 pax? I for sure can’t pull those data sets together, I suspect Leeham could but that is clearly information they would sell to customers vs release to us.
I think Embraer and Boeing are natural pair, but its also been severely sourced by what Boeing did and what Trump is doing to Brazil. Brazil has every right to be bitter and so does Embraer.
Would I be surprised if Ortberg has starte4d to try to mend relations?
I don’t see Boeing trying to do anything in that direction with Trump still alive. He is not a healthy man and he is way over his mental skis, so that may change on a dime.
@TW
The A321 fills a lot of voids. The A320 is not selling poorly…the A321 is selling that well. You can fill a lot of replacements for B757/B767/A330ceo with an A321 if you are willing to fly more aircraft and bypass hubs.
The Max10 needs some context. It does “ok” for the routes it can fly on a DOC basis. If you do not need the full capability (range) of an A321…a Max10 can suffice, especially if you are otherwise flying the Max8 or Max9 (and not Airbus).
Sometimes you just need a bigger tube. Look no further than Japan where at one point (maybe still been a while) they were flying B777 on inter-island routes.
To comment on the article. I am expecting a mini 787 looking aircraft. May or may not be CF. I remember reading at the NB size, the weight savings is minimal but 787 has made a strong case for the mx advantages. As Keejse stated overly large high bypass engines or Open Rotor, though I still have my doubts about that. I am betting GE/Safran has a plan B too. Their own GTF.
So a tube with wings, again. Boring yes but reliable. The OEMs make aircraft for Avgeeks.
Yes, I agree: the NNA will look very, very much like the LNA- whoever its maker is (I’d bet on Airbus; or, less likely, an Embraer JV with some deep-pocketed body).
#NNUTS
Please be aware that while 787 sounds modern, it will in reality be 30 year old technology for a plane that debuts in the 2030s.
A lesson learnt form the 787 is that that production process is simply too expensive, even more so for a narrow body where light materials count less.
Therefore, I think we cannot just think in copy-paste categories. The new narrow bodies must be new planes, where motors and light materials won t be enough. Cheap production will be as important.
Our recent series on Production addresses the evolution (revolution?) needed for the next new airplane.
Yea, sigh, most of us can’t afford to read it. No knock on Leeham, you are a business and I understand those decisions. Still its out there and …..
Boeing has said GTF and I take them at their word. None of the exotic drives have proven to be anything but more complex and probably more weight.
Airbus more than proved you can do a skin and panel system, I believe Starship used the same approach.
With the newer process methods, it may be a viable tech, I can’t imagine a non composite wing of some kind.
Probably the fuselage stays more current tech with the latest new materials.
But the mix is really now known. You might be able to make low cost composite parts and the cost to assemble is too high or you can do low cost parts and assembly is no worse than current.
Stay tuned
Bit of irony here:
BA morphed the NG into the MAX, and thereby introduced the MCAS fiasco, so that operators like Southwest would keep a familiar cockpit and “feel”, without having to undergo a major retraining of flight crew.
Now, if/when this new BA NB materializes, potential buyers have to retrain anyway. And, if they have to retrain, they might just as well retrain to a model from another OEM.
@Abalone
The hazards of designing an aircraft around one airline. The Max7 is a boat anchor that distracts from other value added work.
Total agreement as regards the MAX-7 — not worth the effort to get it certified.
***
The potential arguments in favor of the MAX-10 are also iffy — many MAX-10 orders would probably switch to the MAX-9 if the -10 were to be dropped.
When the -10 was launched, many of its initial orders were migrations from the -9…
WN is losing its edge and becoming another me-too airline without corporate businesses, and little revenue from international travelers.
I wonder for how much longer WN can survive after it self-sabotaged its USP.
I wouldn’t underestimate Comac. Chinese aerospace keeps quiet and then shows up with advanced platforms. Often beyond catching up.
Agree 100%.
We’ll get a surprise one of days when a fully domestic C919 — including engines — in unveiled.
And you can be sure that upgrades are already being worked on.
Thirded.
Obviously I don’t agree.
Aircraft are not smart phones, cars etc.
You can’t iterate your way to success. Airbus had an opening and drove through it, that opening does not exist now.
They might have stood a chance if they had gone advanced at least wing (composite) but they did not.
The MC-21 was the only one of interest and that has been a self inflicted wounds.
The A220 is a sobering story. Great aircraft, success is not just in great aircraft but production and the total costs.
Airbus got the program for a dime and they are still struggling. All those costs are production ones and its out of Airbus system. Spirit is paying Airbus some money but they still are investing large amounts to clean up the operation.
If Airbus struggles with a gift why would COMAC do as good?
Its not that China can’t, its COMAC and the structure it is and is under that can’t. Risk adverse and for good reasons.
> Electric and hybrid aircraft developer Beta filed for an IPO on Tuesday disclosing plans for a 19-seat regional airplane
Another dead end
You’re likely wrong. 🤭
What will be interesting to see, when we get to this point, is will the Ortberg led Boeing be able to come up with build plan for a new plane that has even a reasonable chance of execution. Post merger Boeing has pioneered a new form of corporate governance which I call the beancounterocracy,, essentially a dictatorship of the beancounters.
The beancounterocracy has tended to favor a fancy story for investors with zero chance of execution, over a plan with a reasonable chance of success which costs more in time and money than the fantasy plan.
Not just a reasonable chance of build execution — but also a reasonable chance of making a viable profit on each build.
BA shipped 150 commercial aircraft in Q2 and lost $2.9B doing so.
@John:
We are seeing changes at Boeing.
We don’t know if its enough or reverts if they get above water.
It is widely acknowledged now that Walsh and the liquidation idea is a dead end.
Its going to be 5-10 years before we know (or have an idea on direction)
“Airbus to open new US plant on Oct 13, expand China facility soon amid trade tensions”
“Airbus is set to inaugurate a second US assembly line on Oct 13, followed by expansion of a similar facility in China several days later, in back-to-back ceremonies designed to avoid falling foul of a tricky trade climate, industry sources said.
“The planemaker has also been negotiating to sell up to 500 planes to China, a goal first reported by Reuters in April, but is likely to secure only part of the planned order immediately to coincide with the factory expansion, the sources added.”
“The world’s largest planemaker is increasing capacity as it seeks a sharp increase in production of its top-selling A320neo family to 75 jets a month in 2027. Plans include doubling capacity at Mobile, Alabama, and Tianjin, China.”
“Until now, Airbus has said the second Chinese line would open at the end of the year, with deliveries starting in 2026. The ceremony will instead come in the week following the Mobile inauguration, highlighting efforts to achieve a balanced approach towards the two largest jet markets, the sources said.”
“As part of the global aerospace jigsaw, Airbus is also courting India, where its board is visiting this week.
“India has called for an assembly line to match huge orders for Airbus jets from Indian airlines, matching the planemaker’s commercial factory investment in its strategic and economic rival China. Airbus has so far been unwilling to contemplate this because of stretched global supply chains.”
“It is focusing instead on military transporter assembly and said on Wednesday it would also locate a planned helicopter plant in Vemagal, Karnataka, jointly with Tata Advanced Systems.
“An Airbus spokesperson confirmed the board visit and said it reflected India’s importance as a market and operations hub.”
https://www.telegraphindia.com/business/airbus-to-open-new-us-plant-on-oct-13-expand-china-facility-soon-amid-trade-tensions/cid/2125765
***
One wonders if BA will ever open a FAL outside the US.
And I suspect that AB will have a commercial FAL in India sooner than this article suggests. The sheer volume of Indian orders certainly merits it.
The real funny thing about this news report is watching all the comments thatvwander all over the place when in fact this is nothing but business as usual.
Aerospace Executives are always gathering data and and staying up to date with what’s available from major component vendors. It isnt possible today to visit an engine maker and not get speculation ramped up.
Aircraft manufacturers should always be looking forward to their nest product, thats their job and everybody does it.
This article was in fact more of a nothing burger because there are no engines at a level of maturity to drive a new product launch in the NB market.
The discussion about advances in materials and constructions was turned off because MCAS was off limits and that’s too bad because a lot of very good discussion was going on. A discussion for another day that is pivotal is this…… Are the new engines going to be affordable then they are market ready and mature.
Everybody here for the most part is focusing on the wrong thing, it doesn’t matter what the next airplane looks like or what its powered by unless it can be brought to market at a price point and volume the customers will pay for. Boeing couldn’t sell a 737 replacement to the airlines who were naturally risk averse to change when the existing aircraft were profitable with good margins. That’s the nest battle, building the customers a more profitable airplane than what’s flying today……
The 320 family and MAX both make money for operators, they wouldn’t be selling if they didnt. We could be flying them for a long time as both are fully amortized and excellent performers.
Manufacturing the replacement vehicles is going to resolve around the wing. If you do composites, you need the headroom to build 60 or more a month. Autoclave won’t get you there cost effectuvely……. There’s so much more to look at besides one guy meeting 1 engine manugacturer. Losing our collective minds over business as usual is par for the course in this forum unfortunately….
Cheers
PNWGeek, I couldn’t agree with you more. Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, COMAC, and every other aircraft company are ALWAYS looking at the next big clean sheet aircraft and several Plan B’s C’s and D’s. New materials are going to be studied, I remember when I was a young engineer and seeing a composite barrel that Boeing had made in the early 90s. This as we know went on to be the study that ended up being the 787 program. I’m an electronics/avionics engineer so not 100% but from what I remember, longer wings are more aerodynamically efficient (less drag, more lift, etc.). So I see both Boeing and Airbus definitely looking to do this.
I’m glad to see Boeing following Airbus in making a common cockpit using the 787s the baseline. It is why I think the 757/767 was so popular for its day; only needed a single type rating with a difference training to be able to pilot either one. Boeing does need the MoM/NMA badly as the exiting 757s still in service are nearly 30 years old. Boeing can’t afford two new clean sheet designs and it might be debatable if they can even afford one. But hey can’t afford to not do at least one. The 737 MAX is definitely the one that needs done first, it’s their cash cow. Anymore crises need to not happen, the -7 / -10 / 777X need certified by at least the end 2026. I’m hearing rumors the 777X might not make that date.
I kind of wish Boeing hadn’t backed away from the Embraer deal. They could have used the E series as a 120-160 NB small aircraft. Make an E3 series that uses a cutdown 787 cockpit. Boeing then could work on the 737 replacement and do a follow on for the NMA once the 45,000 trust engine is more matured. It will be interesting to watch!
Ditto.
@PNW
Any propulsion advances are likely through a fundamental architecture change. Turbine temps are simply at the edge of what materials will tolerate (and hence the challenged durability on the Max and neo engines that cannot match previous intervals).
The only operator not “all in” on a geared architecture is GE/CFM but I would presume they have options not socialized. Certainly higher gear ratios are in play. Not sure whether a dual gear (transmission) is feasible to allow a cruise vs takeoff setting.
But you are most correct in that an airframer needs to feel the need to launch something new. Until supply chain constraints ease, there are no more incremental sales. Airbus and Boeing will continue to sell everything they can make; a new aircraft only establishes the same industrial equilibrium.
If cheaper aircraft are what is really desired…better to go with the existing lineup and burn off the sunk costs.
Casey
I think that most people forget that airlines are in it for profit. They dont need cheaper airplanes. A new airplane must be more profitable than the current fleet to make the change worthwhile. Doing the calculus of ticket price load factors capex and op costa mean the slew of variables is very operator dependent. The only universal statement is ne a airplanes must be more profitable. The manufacturers are also in it for profit (try not to laugh) and unless compelled to reset things for the better, have no financial incentive to get off their. current product lines. Nothing would make Boeing happier than getting back the old status quo. Delivering maxes in the 40s and 50s 787 above 8 or 9. The 777 back to delivering. Once there, its a hard sell to stop the cashflow.
Bloomberg
“Delta’s Bastian Sees Most US Airlines Losing Money in 2025”
If you can’t make money in 2025, just wait to see what happens in 2026!
+ 1
Delinquent/distressed consumer debt is rising rapidly in the US. Add the impoverishing effect of tariffs –> fewer consumers will be flying.
Margins at many US businesses are shrinking, mostly due to tariffs –> fewer corporate flyers to be expected.
US tourism down sharply –> fewer tourists flying.
Got nothing to do with the discussion.
Economies have tgheir downs and we are due one, Trump may be pushing it but sooner or latter.
When an economy is down airlines loose money, always have, always will.
Some defer purchases if they can or don’t take up options.
Boeing may well be in a good spot with lower MAX rates and the 777X not cranked up. They can use the new 787 building for storage.
Airbus would have an issue with around 70 Single Aisle a month (A220/A320).
Don’t forget there’s rumor of a massive order outstanding, may be they can swoop in and receive a better deal! Wink, wink!
Trans
How many orders are received for MAX 7 & 10 respectively? How much compensation credits has BA doled out? Orders received for MAX 8 is irrelevant when the concern is about the MAX 7 & 10! Don’t you get it?
That would be another option, Airbus sitting it out, implementing gradual enhancements. Maybe launch A225 & A322, assembled in the US, further disrupting Boeing’s road maps.
https://airguide.info/is-the-airbus-a322-feasible-as-the-future-of-mid-market-flying/
If Airbus does launch A225 & A322 (feasible, airlines want it & Airbus has the resources) I really wonder how Boeing / US Aerospace industry / Government will react. Probably Airbus will avoid this.
I think Boeing would be forced into a Max replacment at that point. A re-winged neo put enough separation between the neo and Max that the Max is no longer tenable short of fire sale prices…and it is not like the Max is getting another refresh.
In a duopoly you can only establish a certain level of market share before the other airframer is compelled to respond. Airbus is already bumping up against that limit.
I think using the bumped A321 XLR MTOW, already modified wings, engines, landing gear seems feasible. Made some calculations long ago; adding 5 meters/ 30 seats would roughly add 4 tonnes to OEW, but still offer very useful range, (5-6 hours). E.g. Intra Europe, China, leisure, US transcon.
https://07185918574543712684.googlegroups.com/attach/58e8ea931803c/Flies%20scrapbook%20NB%201.5.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrHDXl3rxfrAky5K3Equ32yVrvTPAEtmcy17NJ5mh-LRmFfXoiTVXcoP7wlSQDiZAZFkiMxVOPq6_-4FmyglXl_hBRdX906uiSc_7VaHhjpAMNcY8Is
Same for A220-500. Simple stretch, low risk, great CASM. Maybe Airbus would have launched all ready if they weren’t sold out for a decade & had their supply stable under control.
Boeing can’t assume a status quo from their competitor.
I would’ve thought if BA were serious about an aircraft that was going to replace the 737 back in 2010 (!) with an elliptical fuselage, there’s more than enough time has passed for BA to investigate its feasibility. Remember, January 2011 was only six months away from the big decision to go ahead! Since like fifteen years later, BA is still nowhere closer to know how to manufacture such fuselage at the same pace of the 737. I have to conclude rather reluctantly either BA weren’t serious about the proposal or BA was too incompetent. Pick one (or both).
I welcome BA to try their luck, sit on their hands in case AB comes out in a few years and launch a new aircraft. That would be the ultimate McNerney move.
Please, please, please, BA no need to bother yourself from such heavy lifting like developing a new aircraft. No customers would want since they are “for profits” corporations. BA, promise me, don’t overreact, the wing of the 737 is so advanced that AB could never catch up! Promise me!
Imagine how much money can be saves if R&D is waived! Send them home!! Now!!!
Sit back and relax on the deck chair, enjoy a sip of the cocktail during the first sailing of the luxury ship — “latest addition to the White Star fleet: the Queen of the Ocean”.
FAA Plans to Furlough 11,000 Employees in US Government Shutdown
And those aren’t in ATC…though the ATC staff won’t be paid during the shutdown.
Throws last week’s announcement of partial restoration of certification authorization for BA into an interesting light in terms of fortuitous timing..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/faa-plans-furlough-11-000-010010426.html
CBS
> The Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to furlough more than 12,000 employees during the government shutdown. Ninety-three percent of the workers are in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)…
NBC
> The programs that the FAA uses to review and address safety events are suspended.
AP
> … a partial U.S. government shutdown would cost the U.S. travel sector $1 billion per week.
So, looks like BA deliveries for (at least) October will take a hit, due to lack of FAA sign-off on alternate weeks.
ABALONE
I’m somewhat hopefull that the split week cert delegation handed to Boeing was earned above board. I’m worried that Boeing will use the shutdown as the excuse to get it all back in house…….
PEDRO.
The FAA document titled “Plans for Operations During a Lapse in Annual Appropriations” dated September 30, 2025, outlines which FAA certification activities are exempted or continued during government funding lapses.Under this plan, certain critical certification activities continue uninterrupted, including:Supporting the certification and system oversight for continued airworthiness.Processing and issuance of airmen medical certifications.Certification activities directly related to safety and operational oversight.Activities likely considered non-essential or subject to delay include routine administrative actions not directly impacting airworthiness or safety oversight.This plan emphasizes continuing certification tasks vital for safety and aircraft operation while deferring others during funding shortfalls, to maintain critical FAA operational responsibilities
ABALONE
The FAA will continue to work on certification and aircraft manufacturing surveillance through the government t shutdown. I posted the announcement to PEDRO
Preliminary 3Q25 aircraft deliveries: Airbus at 484 YTD, Boeing at 420, COMAC at 21, Embraer at 36
As far as I can see from Planespotters, NB line deliveries for September were:
– MAX 35.
– A320/A321neo: 53
– A220: 7
Looks like AB is starting to fit engines to the gliders — I found 2-3 amongst the deliveries.
Some have a hard time understanding that Boeing is losing
millions of dollars on every 787 they deliver- as carefully documented by Björn Fehrm here at Leeham, and others-
and that they can’t simply produce their way out of that financial Black Hole.
I won’t mention that outfit’s surfeit of “reach-forward” losses..
Sees nothing but successes, failures all go to the blind-spot. Has to bend reality to fit the belief: three successful programs. Each and every one of them, not one less!
@Vincent
Program losses are largely an academic exercise. The losses are a function of sunk costs and expected production during the life of the program. As long as they (Boeing) clear variable cost at point of sale…they are “recovering”
Not as one evaluates whether the program is a success or failure. How do we grade the students? How to look for room to further improve if everything must be considered a success, and nothing but a success?
How much of that “success” is paid by compensation credits doled out to compensate late deliveries and fuselage defects(/inspections etc)?
Casey said: “Program losses are largely an academic exercise. The losses are a function of sunk costs.. ”
Sounds like hand-waving to me. Are sunk costs without relevance, in your estimation; if so, why?
@All:
I will say this a different way. If Boeing cancels the B787 then all unamortized or deferred costs become a write off. If you think the program is bad now then try pulling that stunt. The loss as of today reflects the expectation that the life of program will not make up for the past problems.
My point was those costs are sunk. That is not an excuse but it is reality. I do not interrogate Boeings quarterly statements but if the deferred production costs are going down (being amortized) then Boeing is clearing variable cost
The deferred production balance is going UP…not down. Substantial additions were made in Q2 and Q1.
Not all costs are sunk — new costs are manifesting themselves every quarter.
BA’s average revenue (i.e. sale price) per frame has been lower than that of AB for many quarters now, and its costs have been higher. That situation *might* improve when the (heavily-discounted, high-costs) inventory is cleared…but who says it will improve enough to stop net losses? There’s still a whole fleet of 777X and MAX -7 in inventory…
BA as a whole *might* start to hit break-even next year, but that will only be thanks to BGS. BCA will continue to be in the red for a long time.
BA can’t afford to cancel the 787, BA makes “profits” thru program accounting, create FCF from customers’ deposits and delaying payments to suppliers. The show must go on, otherwise the whole shenanigans would collapse.
@ Pedro
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Customer deposits are BCA’s only source of (net) positive cashflow, so that show *must* go on…even if it generates net losses when actual delivery takes place.
It’s all part of BA’s genes, to win orders by impossibly low prices that their engineers thought wouldn’t be achievable to make profits.
Back in 2016, it’s reported:
“Yet the financial stresses come not just from the European archrival, and some of them are self-inflicted, analysts say.
Boeing has “a lot of challenges on a lot of fronts,” said Bank of America aerospace-industry analyst Ron Epstein. […]
Though the 787 Dreamliner program is ramping up, it won’t come close to making up the cash shortfall. Boeing lost about $6 million on every Dreamliner it delivered in the last three months of 2015.
Epstein said Boeing would need to make an average profit of about $30 million per airplane on the next 900 Dreamliner deliveries just to pay off the production costs it has deferred into the future. […]
[Is BA any closer, or further away from making $30m per plane?]
In the February employee address announcing the cost-cutting drive, Conner gave an unusually candid account of specific sales campaigns when Boeing was forced to lower its prices.
He recounted how the chairman of EVA Airways of Taiwan told him last year that Airbus was offering EVA its A350-900 at a price “significantly lower” than Boeing’s 787-10.
“The chairman told me, ‘Look, this is too big a price gap,’ ” Conner said, according to an official transcript of his address to employees, “and they started to go down that path of actually going to buy the A350-900.”
To head off the prospect of losing a loyal all-Boeing customer, Conner lowered the price to win the order.
And it’s not just Airbus putting on the pressure.
Conner also told employees that Boeing had lowered its price dramatically to win an order in January from United for 40 current-generation 737s against “aggressive” competition from the new Bombardier CSeries jet.
Conner said Boeing did so specifically to block Bombardier’s new plane.
In the March issue of Boeing’s in-house magazine Frontiers, Conner acknowledged that Airbus has improved the performance of its airplanes relative to Boeing’s.
“Airlines once paid a premium for the value of Boeing airplanes,” Conner wrote. “That dynamic has changed … Purchase decisions increasingly hinge on price. Sales campaigns are tougher. Airbus has narrowed the value gap.”
[Reality of sales successes that our posters here refused to admit, BA won hard-fought orders by “unbeatable” prices, not even BA can make a buck!]
Boeing’s new reality is that the A320neo is firmly established as the preferred single-aisle jet family, with sales outpacing those of the 737 MAX by more than 1,400 airplanes. And on the widebody side, Airbus now for the first time offers real competition for the 777 with its new A350.
“Boeing had all the tail winds at its back over the last 10 or so years. Now it would appear Airbus does,” said Strauss. “It’s going to be tougher for Boeing to sell airplanes with the same level of profitability they’ve had.”
Continue to dig out of the financial mess caused by the 787 may be the only viable path currently available *provided BA stop cheating itself by winning orders at all costs*. Let’s agree that the 787 program is far from a “success” any normal for-profit enterprises would consider and stop this childish behavior of calling great sales/orders received = “success”!
.
Note to myself:
Eva now has 68 AB aircraft in service/on order.
In the future, Eva will likely have 33 AB & 30 BA in its WB passenger fleet once their 77Ws are retired.
One can delay but not avoid the inevitable.
@ Casey
BA is currently nowhere near clearing (variable) cost at point of sale.
They shipped 150 frames in Q2…and made $2.9B loss doing so.
Interest alone eats $4M of margin per frame.
@Abalone
My point was very specific to the B787. Does Boeing spike out deferred production by program?
Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t.
It’s very interesting that — even with more widebodies in the quarterly mix — BA’s average unit revenue is lower than that of AB. That suggests over-discounting across the spectrum.
Remember that LNA has written about the price pressure on the 787 caused by the A330neo.
Also, remember what @FrankP (our resident accountancy guy) wrote here: a loss is never truly sunk, because it leads to borrowing, which incurs monthly interest payments. Repaying the debt and the interest on it generates new costs. So, the past losses on the 787 program still eat into current earnings every single month…they’re not sunk at all.
VIncènt.
I know the truth behind the 787 program. It’s highly unlikely the program will ever break even. The startup and abnormal costs hung on the program is such an anchor that the crossover to profitability is beyond reach. The best times the program experienced are from 2019 to 2023 and they broke even, maybe.
Thanks for this comment, PNW.
VIncènt.
I know the truth behind the 787 program. It’s highly unlikely the program will ever break even. The startup and abnormal costs hung on the program is such an anchor that the crossover to profitability is beyond reach. The best times the program experienced are from 2019 to 2023 and they broke even, maybe.
it can’t be true!
an oldie but goodie
Boeing said “In a revised look at commercial airplane production, final assembly of the 7E7 is targeted to take approximately three days instead of the 13-17 days that today’s airplanes take.”
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2003-07-01-Boeing-Redefines-The-Box-with-Its-New-7E7-Dreamliner-Airplane
“But the fact that Boeing is working on a 737 replacement isn’t new, even if Boeing has been super-quiet about it. The breadcrumbs have been dropped into public sight all along, and within aviation circles, more has been discussed as well.”
“Boeing still sees a need for the Middle of the Market for which the NMA was intended, but it has no engine for it. Neither GE nor PW is currently pursuing this engine—only Rolls is. This would also be of interest to Ortberg.”
These two aircraft will be closely linked, most likely sharing the same cross section. Boeing has developed two aircraft before with the 757/767, The 757 originally being the 727 replacement. Develop the NMA first and perfect the production technique for the higher production 737 replacement.
One wonders if, in formulating a business case for its next NB model, BA is still assuming that it will have substantial market share in China?
What will COMAC be doing 10 years from now? What line rates will they have? And what upgrades will have appeared?
The current trade climate between the US and China continues to deteriorate. China’s rare-earths and engineering metals embargo continues to exact a heavy toll, and the agricultural stand-off is festering:
“Trump Vows to Confront China Over Its Refusal to Buy US Soybeans”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-confront-china-over-183955599.html
Imagine that: Trump just assumes that the world will continue trading with the US, and he seems to be completely thrown off kilter when things pan out otherwise.
Don’t forget the other side also has a say, it’s a two-way street. When will they respond to the 50-percent rule?
They ordered 20 cargo soybean from Argentina, thanks to Trump’s buddy Milei and $20 billion rescue from Bassett!
I read an interesting thread about how the Egyptian cotton is a thing now, mentioned here.
https://leehamnews.com/2025/09/23/little-impact-seen-on-boeing-by-trumps-new-h1b-visa-policy/#comment-549751
> The US and China are in the midst of a trade détente that expires in November…
… Republican senators expressed discouragement after meeting with US Ambassador to China David Perdue, saying *Beijing won’t resume purchases of US agricultural products any time soon*, and that there was no apparent solution aside from a bailout that would only help in the short term.
Trump’s plan to use tariff money to aid farmers could prove risky. The president’s sweeping duties imposed using emergency powers have been ruled illegal by lower courts, and if the Supreme Court affirms those decisions, the US government could have to pay back tens of billions of dollars in refunds.
Who has the upper hand?
Bloomberg: China Pushes Trump to Drop Curbs as it Dangles Investment Pledge
> China is pushing the Trump administration to roll back national-security restrictions on Chinese deals in the US, dangling the prospect of a massive investment package as part of a proposal that would upend a decade of policy
The deal, if it goes ahead, can mark the end of the trade war, according to some.
==========
GDP says we’re booming. Jobs data says we’re on brink of recession.
===========
> So Americans get to pay higher prices because of the tariffs and then have their tax dollars used to bail out farmers who are being hurt by the tariffs.
> Scoop: Hill Republicans estimate Trump will need to send as much as $50 billon to farmers hit by his tariffs Trump admin plans to roll out billions from USDA
============
Not sure “thank you” is the right response when the President launches a trade war that crushes US agriculture exports and then has to patch it up with bailouts.
Trade war are good, and easy to win??
> “We are in a state of emergency right now. We have farmers that are losing farms that have been in their families for generations.”
India gets another Airbus FAL, in addition to the C-295 line:
“Tata to make Airbus H125 chopper in Karnataka”
http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/124261884.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Abalone.
Good for India. The impact of an offshore Airbus FAL for Helicopters is a bit difficult to assess. For the US FAL, it brought the customer closer to the assembler so customer unique configurations were easier to implement but it may have adversely affected rate as the split of talent to multiple locations and the overall rate due to geographic talent dilution. The other thing to remember is that any stand up in India is great for the local industry but the regulators will probably have to delegate a lot of work to the OEM as there is very little in the way of rotary wing reulator talent in existence there. That’s why the Rotary Wing Rotary wing directorate is HQd in Fort Worth supporting Bell and Airbus. Lastly Helicopters are really small assembly locations with minimal tooling. Brand New Skycranes are made at a smaller general aviation airport in Central Point Oregon. Erickson has 800 employees world wide and maybe 350 are building skycranes.
Trans
Read this. The WS not agreeing with your assertion that BA can go out in a heart beat and borrow like $15 billion.
‘Not So Fast.’ A New Boeing Jet Would Take a Long, Long Time.
> “Not so fast,” wrote Jefferies analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu in a Tuesday report. “Although Boeing is likely interested in next-gen technology, it is likely more immediately focused on driving productivity and rate increases, improving the [defense business] outlook, coupled with the ongoing 777X development to help restore the balance sheet.”
In other words, Boeing has a lot to do before tackling the design of a new jet. The Federal Aviation Administration has capped production of the MAX jet at 38 a month, a quality-control measure imposed after a manufacturing issue allowed an emergency-door plug to blow out during a flight of an Alaska Air 737 MAX 9 jet. Ramping up MAX production is key to reporting a profit, something Boeing hasn’t done on a full-year basis since 2018. […]
Kahyaoglu’s view echoes recent comments by Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, who has said the market opportunity, Boeing’s financial capacity, and new technology all have to align for the company to go ahead with a new jet. He said in May that none of the three factors was ready yet.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/not-so-fast-a-new-boeing-jet-would-take-a-long-long-time/ar-AA1NG2AP
============
Also 👇🤦♂️😂
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/boeing-calls-misleading-a-report-it-has-shifted-more-focus-to-737-replacement/164749.article
> But in a 30 September communication to employees, Boeing pushed back more firmly.
“Boeing has clarified misleading media reports that it launched new work on a single-aisle replacement airplane, reiterating that the company will only move forward when the market, technology and the company itself are ready,” says the internal Boeing communication. “Boeing continually conducts configuration studies as part of its product development baseline work.” […]
In a 1 October research report, investment firm Bernstein said of the Journal report, “We believe this is a misleading story”. […]
Some financial analysts see no evidence that strategy has now shifted.
“We see no chance Boeing seeks to expedite launch of a new narrowbody,” Bernstein’s 1 October report said, noting 737 Max production is sold out through 2031 and expressing doubt the company would “cannibalise its own market” by introducing a new jet soon.
“We continue to see a target in-service date for a new narrowbody as around 2038 for both companies,” it says, referencing new products from Airbus and Boeing. “No one should worry about Boeing spending large near-term sums on an early launch.”
It’s quite clear whom the top mgmt listens/caters to, the WS not the main street.
More aircraft delivered means bigger cash pile to invest in the next-generation program: a virtuous circle!
> Meanwhile, Airbus has had enormous success selling long-range variants of its A321neo, which fills the mid-market niche.
Not surprising — BA simply doesn’t have the money for a new launch.
I am not too sure about that statement! BA may not have the money at the moment but could do a new aircraft funded by a combination of
1. New share issuances (all those share buybacks reissued), off course that would result in lowering of current share prices but raise new equity cash
2. USA government launch aid, especially now that the current Trump administration is tearing up all the international agreements
3. A disguised military transport program whose component parts such as engines, wing construction technology, fuselage composite panels etc., could be used in the new commercial aircraft (we already saw this done once with the venerable 747).
doubtful
“We continue to see a target in-service date for a new narrowbody as around 2038 for both companies,”
so back up the launch date 7 years for development (new technologies), design, build and certification…that makes it 2031 (ps 777x upgrade is going into year 13)
what is not being discussed is how new structure technologies (e.g. thermoplastics) will be introduced into existing aircraft before going for wholesale changes in a new aircraft (e.g. Airbus did in the 1970’s with the introduction of composites)
“We continue to see a target in-service date for a new narrowbody as around 2038 for both companies”
going a back to my previous post, this doesn’t cross foot with Boeing “investing” over $100 million plus in 737 new wing riveters (that will not go fully online until 2027/28) to go on the existing production line in Renton (replacing the 1965 vintage Gemcor WRS) (for a 10 year production run?)
If the replacement aircraft doesn’t have a metallic wing.
They can simply keep updating the existing WRS (like they have for decades) with new Siemens electronic controls along with upper and lower head parts for about 20% of the cost of new machines to keep them going to 2038
So what is it, will the 737 replacement go out to the 2040’s for EIS or will it have metallic wings?
The AIRBUS wing of tomorrow is closing on his third and final prototype.
The first one was completed in 2022.
https://www.nccuk.com/media/w5plhuom/final-wing-of-tomorrow-case-study.pdf
Airbus has plenty of money to engage in such endeavors.
Boeing, on the other hand, is living from hand to mouth, and can’t afford such extravagances.
ABALONE
Thank God I’m out of Boeing with my money. The big problems at Boeing are not in the rear view mirror yet. Things are improving because frankly, I dont think you could have effed it up any worse than the GE disciple leadership did. You almost have to give Ortberg credit for improving things, but how could he not do so. Boeings survival so far is quite a story, and its quite mixed depending on what you look at.
I am going to be buying back in year early next year.
“Airbus has plenty of money to engage in such endeavors.”
EU funds plus UK involvement as its based in Filton, the former Bristol airframe and engine location, now known by its grand title – Aerospace Technology Institute
No need for far-fetched constructs — Airbus actually makes a healthy profit, quarter after quarter.
And all that profit makes a handsome nest egg to fund investments.
Lets have a closer look
Airbus 2024 FY statements
Research & Development expense €3.25 bill
Boeing 2024 Research and Development $3.8 bill, $1 bill more than previous year
Guess what, research and development spending is about same .
Maybe very large global business dont work like mum and dad business. Definitely dont
Depends on what BA is classifying as R&D, doesn’t it?
For example: how much of it is patch-up money for the hapless KC-46A?
Or mods to the 737 nacelle de-icing system and cockpit?
Those are “D” (sort of)…but they’re not “R”.
Oh my lord, @duke!
Advanced finance expert, time to learn how to read the financial statements:
R&D ($m)
BCA 2,386
BDS 917
BGS 132
Other 377
Total 3,812
How much is BCA spending on certifying the MAX 7 & 10 (I heard they’re still WIP, and together with the ongoing 777X saga, major headaches for Ortberg and Pope) and 777X (with a fleet of five flying doesn’t look cheap)?
There’s R&D for the future next-generation program(s) for one airframer and there’s R&D for current generation programs (some in reach forward loss nonetheless) for another! Mirror mirror tell me which is AB and which is BA!
Airbus has Space, Helicopter military divisions too.
Its not all Commercial aircraft, which is why I didnt separate out the divisional spend.
Not that Airbus will often break down its spending by its separate entities, no siree
Tell us what you have found there
The main concept misunderstood is that research and development doesnt require a profit first for very large companies.
Cash flow is king
Boeing has its freebies from government too. Truss wing plane comes to mind
Duke
1) What cash?? BA is bleeding cash in the first half. It won’t breakeven until the end if the year!
2) BA has to shore up its finances, otherwise its debts are at risk of being downgraded
3) see my post below 👇 What’s valid in 2012 (for WS) is still valid thirteen years later!!
a) “*A parsimonious, risk-averse (and by some estimations greedy) management culture made launching a new jet a near-impossibility*,” Aboulafia wrote.
b) “After a period when Boeing overspent by billions of dollars on the much-troubled 787 Dreamliner program, Wall Street analysts say those shareholders naturally want to see spending reined in for the years just ahead, *allowing some time to harvest profits from the previous investments*.
c) **Launching 777X would not only require hefty research and development funds but_would_also_depress_the_pricing_on_existing_777_models, which are cash cows in the current airplane market**.
Sorry your hand waving doesn’t work.
FY 24 Boeing raised $23.5 billion in late 2024 through a combination of common shares and mandatory convertible preferred stock, a significant capital raise to strengthen its balance sheet.
Thats where its cash flow came from.
Whats Airbus R&D breakdown by its division, have you found it or is it buried as Airbus does with real financial information , like its usage of Program aka ‘Contract’ Accounting
@Duke
You totally forgot why BA had to go cap in the hand to raise fund? BA had a cash crisis and nearly ran out of cash!! The money raised are there to repay debts and as a rainy day fund (just in case like the delay of the 777X will cost an est $2.5 to $4 billion). BA is a burning platform, it burns cash like a SV startup! Your selective memory-lost doesn’t work here. Failed miserably.
Trump might be interested in giving $10 billion in exchange for 10% of equity. The problem is Ortberg will be out of his job after that! 😁
Read the FG article, then tell me why BA has to *vehemently deny they’re working on a new aircraft*.
It speaks louder than what you dreamed up.
Money is important.
The know how they are building is much more important.
Better wings, cheaper to make and faster to process.
And cheaper to make is very interesting for the A220.
FG: Ascend Airways struggles with CFM LEAP engine reliability on 737 MAX fleet
> Ascend Airways is experiencing significant difficulty with the CFM International LEAP-1B engines that power its Boeing 737 Max 8s.
Chief executive Alastair Wilson tells FlightGlobal that while Ascend is generally pleased with the aircraft, the UK-based wet lease specialist has found Max 8s to be “very sensitive to the environment in which you operate them”. […]
But flying in the Middle East and North Africa can reduce the Leap’s time on-wing by as much as a third, Wilson says.
“On the Indian subcontinent… but you’re still seeing some parts within the engine with a life 50% of what you see in a benign environment in Europe,” he says.
(Cont’d)
> While Leaps deliver promised fuel efficiency and noise reduction, he says those factors do not outweigh needing to pull the turbofans off-wing every 3,000 cycles.
Repair costs are “extremely high” and support and communication from CFM leaves much to be desired, Wilson says. ”They are not delivering on what was promised.” […]
“From CFM, we need more support,” Wilson adds. ”We need to see these engines mature, and we’re not seeing that at the moment. It’s a real constraint for us, and unacceptably high costs associated with these engines is a great challenge.” […]
Ascend is also not particularly optimistic that post-overhaul Leaps, even with the new durability kits, will have longer time on-wing “in our second run”, Wilson says.
Against that background, and the continuing PW GTF debacle, the more conservative Chinese CJ-1000A becomes more appealing…
Abalone
Great point. It could well be that the high operating temps of the newest western engines will have to be dialed back to get more on wing time. That closes the Chinese engines performance gap by moving the goalposts closer, if the gas generator thermal profile has to cool.
+1
China and Russia also get the chance to learn from the West’s mistakes, e.g. “there’s what not to do”,
limits-wise.
@ Vincent
Thank you for bringing up Russia.
The Russian PD-14 and PD-8 engines have been undergoing flight testing for months, and will soon be going into production.
I have an open mind with regard to their performance — tending toward optimism.
Their modern but non-cutting-edge design may yet become the envy of carriers suffering from the ongoing problems with PW GTFs and LEAPs.
CFM has put out a new iteration of the LEAP that resolves the service issues (at least that is the idea).
P&W had issues that were not high temp related. While not into LCA deliveries, they do make even harder pushed fighter engines.
We may well have reached a temp limit, but that does not mean its not viable. P&W can add temperature to its design and up the ante.
Equating China and Russian engines and then assuming they can come up with a competitive product is going way out over the ends of your skis.
Reports are that the PD engines are heavy, very heavy.
What China is getting, no reports so hard to tell.
In WWII the Brits had an issue with the Merlin. While not a better engine per engines, they went the route of dual stage dual speed super chargers. Well known history.
Far less known was the Merlin was not tested to the same higher standards Allison was. UK had a dilemma, test and iterate reliability into it or accept they would wear out and replace them (back to overhaul).
They choose to make more engines and push what they had into higher hp ratings. They and the US made enough Merlins it worked.
Allison had far better reliability , much longer time on wing before wear out. It also served well in extreme conditions that the Merlin was much less so.
The Aussies found out you could really push an Allison into high Manifold Pressure (hp) and the engine might be damaged but it would get you back and it did get you out of the pickle you were in.
For Single Aisle arena, you need long time on wing, you need reliable, you need as little weight as possible and you need support.
CFM-56 was not that great to start, it took some years to get it to the solid engine it became. V2500 was the same, probably took longer, but they kept working on it.
Russia and China have to solve all the aspects before they become competitive.
China will get there, probably another 10 years Russia will not.
@ TW ..Reports are that the PD engines are heavy, very heavy..”
PD-14 …”Key features include a ~65% composite material construction, hollow titanium fan blades, a high bypass ratio for efficiency, and an electric thrust reverser.”
Any big increase in BPR from a bigger fan is always going to make the engine heavier. Thats what happened to Leap’s and GTF
Dont even go on about Merlin and the absurd claims werent tested to Allisons higher standards.
There a ‘whole industry’ of older men with too much time on their hands in US who cant get over the fact the better Merlin was chosen for the Mustang
🔥 😂
Trans
Doesn’t P&W suffer from cracking in high-pressure turbine disks?
@All
I will repeat my earlier point. Turbine and combustor distress is a function of temperature and pressure (and RPM and environment).
There is only so hot you can burn an engine. I don’t care who makes that engine. China does not have any magic pixie dust that allows their turbines to burn hotter. Materials science is at the very bleeding edge of technology and one of the most closely guarded ITAR secrets.
Beyond that the cost of replacement parts has gone up as progressively exotic upgrades are introduced. As far as environment goes…sand and pollution are always clogging cooling capillaries or compromising coatings.
There are exactly two things that really matter in development…specific fuel consumption and weight. There is a severe penalty for an overweight engine…so much so that you wind up with parts that have no durability margin. Without passing judgement, turbine parts with thicker walls would do a world of good towards time on wing.
“..China does not have any magic pixie dust that allows their turbines to burn hotter.”
I don’t see anyone here making that claim, though some *are saying* a slightly lower-performing but more reliable engine
could be attractive to customers, given all the durability issues currently plaguing the LEAP and the PW GTF.
@Vincent
If everyone had a mulligan…a few things would have been done different.
1) Max7 and A319neo would have never happened and the design thrust would have contemplated the Max10 or A321 as a base point. These engines would have been higher thrust but it would have been worth it
2) EIS delivery ramp would have been started more gently. A large part of the lingering problems has more to do with reality that production volumes are so high that any design modification has a large installed base to modify by the time it is validated.
3) EIS would have avoided severe operators. ME and Indian operators probably have no business taking delivery of an aircraft during the first five years from EIS. To that end…those same operators have the discretion to operate 737NG or A320ceo aircraft today that are relatively new
4) More thorough development testing…goes without saying
“EIS would have avoided severe operators. ME and Indian operators probably have no business taking delivery of an aircraft during the first five years from EIS.”
In that case, the 777x would have been dead because most of the orders initially come from the ME3.
👇 As many here have said before:
[Rememberthere’sa new CFO, time to clean the house and has a clean slate!]
> The entry-into-service of Boeing’s 777X is now not expected until 2027, another headache for airlines like Lufthansa, Emirates and Cathay that have invested heavily in the plane.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G2R-pYcXwAALnnI?format=png&name=small
> Boeing’s 777X is delayed again, now targeting 2027, with analysts bracing for a $2.5B-$4B charge. $11B+ in overruns already;
> Deutsche Lufthansa, the launch customer for the 777X, reportedly is already laying the groundwork for a fresh setback by not including the jet in its fleet plans until 2027, and officials at Emirates, the 777X’s biggest customer, are said to have grown more cautious.
> Investment analysts lowered their free cash flow projections for 2026 after Ortberg acknowledged new certification difficulties [a few week ago].
RBC Capital Markets aerospace analyst Ken Herbert told investors on Sunday that he expects 777X deliveries to start in the second half of 2027.
Hey- wasn’t all the reporting “mid-2026 EIS” for the 777-X, just a month ago? Good link and pertinent quotes, BTW. “targeting 2027” does not exactly sound reassuring..
I wonder, too, how the MAX nacelle heat solution is coming along.
If deliveries for the 777-X [finally] start in the second half of 2027, that would likely mean a 2028 EIS for that aircraft, no?
@Vincent
This is where I struggle. Is the delay due to negative learning? There is no real context that is being communicated publicly.
And Boeing is bumping against a hard limit on 777C production. The same noise regs that finally killed off the B767 are also what is capping the 777C to 2027.
+1
What’s also just baffling to me is all the “we’re on the home stretch!” blanket PR, followed very shortly later by “well, uh,
it’s gonna be a couple of / few more years..”
Boeing continues to overpromise and underdeliver,
and cynicism about them is well justified.
Amazing that Tim Clark doesn’t just cancel them
all, and order a boatload more A350s- which actually get delivered, albeit not quickly. Maybe sweet talk AB into re-engining the A380 while he’s at it, as part of a deal. Hmmm..
@Vincent
The charge being tossed around is very hefty. I have to believe some of that is going towards penalties. If Boeing is paying Emirates to retrofit their A380s…that is fair compensation.
Those A380s have effectively no residual value otherwise. You do not launch aircraft around one airline…an A350-2000 might make sense under the right commercial considerations. But if I am Airbus, I would just sit back and let Boeing continue to flail on the B777X.
@Casey
The A380 may not be important for many airlines but is a key foundation for EK’s (and possibly QF) business model to work (otherwise they aren’t investing like over a billion to retrofit).
@ Casey
With self-cert off the table, BA simply doesn’t know how to get a place certified — it’s as simple as that.
Remember: Ortberg said that *Boeing* had a mountain of work to do — not that the FAA had a mountain of work to do.
“start in the second half of 2027″….14 years for 777x upgrade
> Of the challenges that Boeing currently faces, “I’m sure it’s a big priority because it’s going to be a big cash drain for them,” Kahyaoglu said of the 777X certification delays.
Good calls all, Casey- esp the last one. 😉
It’ll be very interesting to see what the actual charge is, when announced.
😂😂
Someone dug this out!
“So how far out might Boeing executives push the 777X?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20150216215752/http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2018972134_boeing777x23.html
TC should frame it and gift one each to Ortberg, Pope and the directors.
Good one. I find it very useful to read old articles, to compare what was said in the past v. what actually is
happening.
“2030, for sure- and this time we mean it!” 😉
When history rhymes…
Those who do not learn the past are doomed to repeat it…
> Aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia, of the Teal Group, said in a letter to clients this week that Boeing’s reluctance to move ahead is reminiscent of the six years before the 2004 launch of the 787 when company management slashed research and development spending, hoarded its cash and repeatedly declined to commit to new airplanes.
“A parsimonious, risk-averse (and by some estimations greedy) management culture made launching a new jet a near-impossibility,” Aboulafia wrote.
He added that “backpedaling on promising efforts such as the 777-X … would presage a return to Boeing’s dismal pre-787 days of shortchanging the engineering department.”
> Yet by last month’s Farnborough Air Show in London, two weeks after Albaugh’s abrupt resignation, Boeing no longer touted that fast-track schedule.
New Commercial Airplanes Chief Executive Ray Conner repeatedly declined to provide specific timing for putting the 777X before Boeing’s board.
“We’re not backing away,” Conner insisted in London. “*When we get the airplane right, that’s when we’ll go forward*.” [Sounds familiar! Where have I heard that before??]
Nevertheless, Lars Andersen, the top 777 engineer who came out of retirement to act as consultant on the 777X, left the project earlier this summer, unhappy about a shift in the program.
> Potential customers aren’t happy.
Tim Clark, president of giant Middle Eastern carrier Emirates, the largest operator of 777s in the world, said in an interview this month that at a lunch with Boeing’s top leadership at Farnborough, he unleashed his fury at Boeing’s procrastination in a candid talk with CEO Jim McNerney, Conner and a Boeing board member.
(“I barely escaped with my life,” McNerney exaggeratedly told the trade magazine Aviation Week after the tongue-lashing from Clark.) [I wish there’s a book of BA/777X containing this scene!]
The other Middle Eastern airline executive said he has seen “a slowing down in 777X.” He believes it’s a matter of engineering and material resources as well as Boeing’s cash limits. (!)
> Yet Boeing cannot afford to procrastinate too long, this executive said, because Airbus is scheduled to bring out its all-carbon-fiber composite A350-1000 in 2017.
As Boeing weighs what to do and when to move, its board and corporate management _must_pay_attention_to_the_concerns_of_large_shareholders.
After a period when Boeing overspent by billions of dollars on the much-troubled 787 Dreamliner program, Wall Street analysts say those shareholders naturally want to see spending reined in for the years just ahead, allowing some time to harvest profits from the previous investments.
Launching 777X would not only require hefty research and development funds but_would_also_depress_the_pricing_on_existing_777_models, which are cash cows in the current airplane market. (!)
Confirmed:
“AirAsia CEO confirms advanced talks to purchase Chinese COMAC planes”
““We are very serious about COMAC. We’re excited. It’s a big step forward to make this decision.”
“He declined to disclose details on order size, delivery timeline or pricing, saying: “We’re evaluating. We’re in the process of understanding our order book.””
“Mr Fernandes stated that he has flown on COMAC aircraft operated by Chinese state-owned airlines.
“He has also visited the company’s manufacturing facilities.
““(COMAC planes) have been flying very successfully in China. I visited the factory – they’re very dedicated (and) passionate,” he said.
““It’s a good product. We’re very serious about it. I think anyone who doesn’t look at it will pay the price in the long run.” ”
““(But) we don’t buy Chinese planes just because we fly to China. We buy Chinese planes because they’re good, they’re the right price,” Mr Fernandes said.”
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/airasia-tony-fernandes-comac-narrow-body-short-haul-planes-5382456
ABALONE
This is great news. If Air Asia buys the airplane, we will finally actually see it perform in the hands of the operator. I suspect it will be pretty good probably on par with an NG or 320 and a step behind the 321 and MAX. It will be a bit heavy, a bit thirsty BUT there’s a pile of value there. It’s up to the operator to make sense of its routs structure, load factors and the CAPEX among all the other economics behind it. There’s a who lot of similarities between Airbus courting EAL in this story…..
AirAsia just wants ONE thing from Comac
Customer financing on generous terms, or even better a capital injection.
That is Comac off shore business model, just like it worked well for Huawei.
Examples of how Huawei finances its customers (at great terms??)?
OTOH that’s what the multi-trillion dollar superstar is doing here and there recently! 🙄
The C919 is disadvantaged by its huge fuselage cross-section.
I wonder if DoU is familiar with the US Export-Import bank.
😉
Doesn’t AirAsia usually buy planes in relatively large lots? Like 100-200 at a time? COMAC won’t be able to support those kind of delivery numbers for a long time, so AirAsia must be getting something else out of this, like maybe cash?
Just because COMAC can’t support production rates like that today doesn’t mean that it won’t be able to support them within a few years.
Once the C919 has been de-westernized, there’ll be no impediment to production increase.
I have no doubt that COMAC will scale its production eventually. But that is a long term project taking some decades to realize. A domestic durable supportable engine is the key and much of the technology to do that is not currently controlled by China. COMAC has the benefit of being able to afford extremely long dev times thanks to China’s farsighted industrial policies.
My point is that quantities of 919 aircraft equivalent to today’s 737/320 will not be available for export in significant numbers for at least 15 years, at which point they will much less competitive in areas other than purchase price. Operating costs will be lot higher than western planes. That may matter less to some airlines, but I suspect AirAsia is very sensitive to operating costs. My prediction is that Fernandes will never take delivery of a COMAC.
Its worth noting that Leeham has listed Air Asia as an iffy customer. Famous for kicking the planes down the runway.
If anyone believe Feranandese is basing a purchase based on China quality I got a Bridge in Brooklyn I will sell them.
Fernandez has nothing to base anything on, its barely in service and if anyone thinks China will release any performance data, more accurately factual pefromance data.
And as noted, you get one a year? Of does China short its enthsuaistic airlines? I mean 1000 orders backlogged. You know, the airlines all standing in line yelling, can I sell mine first?
What we would get is the obvious, how well is it supported? S100 like?
Like PNWgeek I look forward to its entry into Indonesian service, but not holding my breath. I believe he is right, it will be heavy, maybe close to NG/A320CEO in performance but expect a bit below, not a lot, 3-5%.
Also interesting is to see what countries allow it to fly into them?
China unlike Airbus is not going to tolerate Mr. Fernandese shenanigans, if he does not pay they will put him into poverty.
“He declined to disclose details on order size, delivery timeline or pricing, saying: “We’re evaluating. We’re in the process of understanding our order book.””
He can’t understand his order book because he has shifited and shuffled it so many times no one knows (maybe Airbus).
Looks like someone is still confusing AirAsia with AirAsiaX.
Shocking for some that one of the most successful LCCs in the world is embracing COMAC…and doesn’t give a hoot about the lack of FAA/EASA cert.
I read “there a ‘whole industry’ of older men with too much time on their hands in US who cant get over the fact” that AB has more orders than BA. A broken record is triggered.
Other engine delays at P&W — this time the F135 engine:
“The finalized Lot 18 and 19 contracts for the F-35’s F135 engines have been delayed six months to early 2026, the Joint Program Office told Air & Space Forces Magazine. It did not elaborate on what’s causing the delay or whether it would affect production of completed F-35 jets. RTX’s Pratt & Whitney unit makes the F135 engine”
“A Government Accountability Office report released last month noted that the timeliness of F135 deliveries has been worsening in recent years. The GAO said every one of the 123 F135 engines delivered in 2024 were late, which Pratt said was due to supply chain and production problems. The average delay was 238 days, the GAO reported.”
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-35-engine-production-contract-slips-spring-2026/
***
“supply chain and production problems”
I suspect materials shortages due to the trade war with China…
“Sokol plant initiates duplicate assembly line for MC-21 aft fuselage section”
“Assembly of aft fuselage sections of the Yakovlev MC-21-310 has commenced at the Sokol plant in Nizhny Novgorod, initiating a duplicate line for the structure.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/sokol-plant-initiates-duplicate-assembly-line-for-mc-21-aft-fuselage-section/164768.article
“… the FAA has asked Gulfstream to perform a line-by-line validation of the software…”
If Gulfstream is able to certify its aircraft, why can’t BA?
The new software validation requirement was introduced in FAA Order 8110.49A, titled “Software Approval Guidelines,” issued on March 28, 2018. This order describes how FAA aircraft certification staff can use and apply RTCA/DO-178B and DO-178C standards for software conformity inspection, including detailed review processes to ensure compliance with approved type design. The documentation in this order establishes the procedures for software conformity and installation inspections as part of the certification process and is the relevant FAA document introducing stricter software validation requirements�.
Now we know the rest of the story
The FAA established new certifications rules and an OEM complained. This has nothing to do with anybody being unable to cert their product or not. It shows how the certification landscape is changing for everybody.
Was that complained or complied?
Trans.
They complained then complied
It seems a tactical option for Airbus to launch new variants, e.g. an A320.5 200 seater, NMA A322NEO 101t based on the XLR and/or A220-500 first.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviation_innovation/attach/57f1d448a2948/Airbus%20Future%20A320%20portfolio.jpg?part=0.1&view=1
Forcing Boeing to move first and then respond based on the new situation and market response.
“Judge Keeps LOT’s 737 MAX Fraud Claims Alive”
“A U.S. federal judge has ruled that LOT Polish Airlines may continue to pursue fraud claims against Boeing over its 737 MAX aircraft, while dismissing other parts of the airline’s case. The ruling, issued Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, comes nearly four years after the Polish flag carrier filed its lawsuit in Seattle.
“LOT first brought the case in October 2021, alleging that Boeing made “material false representations and omissions” about the MAX, including assurances that it was “safe, airworthy, and essentially the same” as the earlier 737NG.
“The airline claimed that Boeing “prioritized its bottom line over safety and the rights of its customers” in order to quickly compete with the Airbus A320neo.
“In its 143-page complaint, LOT argued that Boeing “abandoned sound design and engineering practices, withheld safety-critical information from regulators, and deliberately misled its customers.” The filing cited the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), the software linked to two fatal crashes, as a system concealed from both regulators and operators.
“Had LOT known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft before it agreed to acquire them, it never would have entered into lease agreements to acquire the aircraft,” the complaint stated.
“The airline said it suffered millions of dollars in damages after aviation authorities grounded the MAX worldwide for nearly two years following the crashes of Lion Air flight 610 in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 in March 2019. According to the lawsuit, LOT was forced to cancel flights, compensate passengers, and lease replacement aircraft, all while continuing to pay staff who otherwise would have operated the MAX.”
https://airlinegeeks.com/2025/10/03/judge-keeps-lots-737-max-fraud-claims-alive/
***
What a PR disaster:
“Had LOT known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft before it agreed to acquire them, it never would have entered into lease agreements to acquire the aircraft”
Makes one wonder what other airlines share that sentiment…🤔
Like not really.
I can shorten it tremendously.
LOT wants more money/compensation than Boeing is giving them.
Haha BA can’t afford to give $$$ back to its customers!
Norwegian got “very attractive” terms on its recent order of 30 MAX.
In other words: it got them as (part) payment in natura for the $1B compensation sought by the airline.
This speaks for itself – let the knashing begin!
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3327787/chinas-c919-jet-facing-order-delays-boeing-waiting-wings
AirAsia is interested in the C919 while weeks after the rumored order of 500 from China, there’s no further update? Tell me where the truth lies?
Oh BTW, as I said many times before, the quickest path for more aircraft leads to COMAC, not BA. Remember this, Trans.
BA has a backlog of ~400 MAX it didn’t deliver as committed for just 2024 & 2025. How long will it take for BA to clear them?? 🤔
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/737-MAX-Del-Stream-at-12-31-23.png
@ Transworld
Old news — was discussed here last week.
Unreliable supply of western parts has just served to accelerate COMAC’s de-westernization drive. Let’s see what announcements 2026 will bring on that front 😉
On a related note: how long has Southwest been waiting for its MAX-7s? 🙈
Interesting that AirAsia said it expects faster deliveries from COMAC as AB is “struggling with delays”. Must be bad news for BA since it’s not even mentioned. 😉
Just for fun, when is a better time to launch the A350-2000? Is TC going to place a huge order?
TC can also just convert (a portion of) his 65-frame A350-900 order to the -1000 instead…
AW: Iberia COO: Airbus A321XLR Has Surpassed Expectations
AI:
> Operational Efficiency: It achieves wide-body range with the superior economics and efficiency of a narrow-body aircraft
Shock, horror: how could anyone be getting excited about a “niche aircraft”…? 😅
BA is busy, not improving the range of its MAX 10. Because it can’t!
United, AA, QF & AC are excited about their upcoming A321XLR.
The world is full of opportunities. In this world, there are people who succeed and those who fail. Who should I look up to? Those who failed? I think not! 😄
321XLR Buyers remorse;
Looks like it depends who you talk to Pedro.
Just ask Wizz air, Frontier,and Jet Blue how well the XLR is living up to expectations.😅😅😅
The Budapest -based carrier now only wants to take about a quarter of it’s initial order citing range and weight limitations..
Frontier dropped it’s order for 18 XLRs last summer for those exact same reasons..
Cebu Air signed an MOU for 10 examples, but subsequently dropped them because of delays, specification changes and weight limitations.
Of course Pedro only paints part of the picture, omitting the overall disappointment other carriers are experiencing..
Well done lad..😉
https://www.gulf-times.com/article/711892/business/airbus-budget-customers-feel-buyers-remorse-over-new-xlr-jet
You would think an Airline could read the data and calculate the numbers?
I did and it was, yea, my take was the fuel tank takes away from the Pax numbers. They say not but no one stuffs 244 people into one.
Have to wonder if that is 244 people without baggage?
Its a bit of an odd market and normally single aisle does not do freight, more than once I was on a hot and high flight in Western US that baggage got left behind.
One did a added fuel stop, pretty exciting taking off from Salt Lake Utah and flying at 1500 feet over the lake for 30 miles. Ok, now we can climb and we stop in Seattle.
Have to cross that with a wide body that has higher costs and can you make money?
Probably relevant is business is dropping off.
Reminds me of the A380 when buyers started yelling, we can’t carry any freight!
Really? You did not read the data?
With normal baggage there was no allowance for freight.
UA converted CRJ-700 to CRJ-550 and other airlines follow. What a mystery! 😂
Stop the press! Krakatoa blew its top in 1860 (no I did not look up the date)
Anyone with a cursory look of aircraft load vs range knows: the further you want the aircraft to fly, the lesser load it can carry. It’s the same for AB & BA. Only those who don’t understand this would sound the same false alarm again and again!
* Boeing 757-200
1-class seating: 219 – 239 max per Boeing
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/b757_a321lr_a321xlr.jpg?w=1000
According to Bjorn:
The A321LR/XLR have similar passenger capacity as the Boeing 757-200. Boeing can compete with the range of the A321LR but not the XLR.
Both Airbus beat the 757 on operational economics
The A321LR/XLR can fly up to 10-hour routes in a long-range configuration, flying from mid-USA to mid-Europe.
With its passenger capacity, range, and operational economics, it covers most of what Boeing set out to cover in its MOM and later NMA studies.
Boeing made the 747SP for longer flights but carries fewer passengers, remember that, Trans?
I’ll address that LCC issue for you 🙂
Passengers have been asked if they’d be willing to fly on Ryanair if the airline flew transatlantic. The answer was a resounding “NO”. Why? Because of seat pitch!
Ryanair flies with a standard seat pitch of 28 inches, which is tight. While passengers are willing to put up with this for relatively short flights, they won’t tolerate it for longhaul. Even four-hour flights to the Canaries are pushing it!
On the other hand, Ryanair isn’t willing to increase seat pitch, because its low-pricing business model relies on a high-density cabin.
Same story for Wizz, Frontier, AirAsia, etc. In the case of Wizz, passengers are simply not willing to tolerate a 7-hour flight to/from Dubai with cramped legroom. As a result, load factor suffers and/or prices have to be lowered too much in order to convince prospective passengers. Both phenomena are a no-no for LCCs.
The legacy carriers don’t have this problem, because they offer a more comfortable 32-inch pitch in economy, plus premium cabins.
JetBlue falls into the latter category. However, as a new player, its transatlantic plans are being stymied by lack of desirable slots, and slot pricing.
So, legacy carriers are doing good business with the XLR, whereas LCCs are having difficulty molding it to their model.
And a related phenomenon:
How much cabin space are LCCs willing to offer up for extra toilets and/or more galley volume?
Wizz standard A321s have 3 toilets on board, for 230 passengers — try doing a long flight on that.
LCC meal service is also minimal — snacks at best. Want more? Then you need more galley space, and that costs seats.
How much cabin space are legacy carriers willing to offer up the on even longer haul flights.
Qantas first XLR’S have only 3 toilets on board.
Worse than many budget carriers like Jetstar and Ryanair.
Lovely…
Regretfully, upon hearing customers complaints,these initial aircraft eventually will be fitted with an extra lav in a few years..
Gee thanks Qantas.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/qantas-bladder-defying-a321xlr-lavatory/
FYI
The first batch A321XLR ordered by QF are for domestic routes only! 😅
QF is working on the cabin layout of the A321XLR for long-haul routes.
UA will put a whopping 20 flat-bed seats at the front, reducing total passenger count to ~150.
Even DL will have a premium-heavy A321 (but not the MAX 10, I wonder why? 🙄) for transcon, less than 150-seat I heard.
The misinformation continues non-stop:
> Qantas A321XLRs are largely replacing Boeing 737-800s, which have *two economy lavatories*!
Qantas A321XLRs have 197 seats — compared to 230 on Wizz; so, those three Qantas toilets are relatively more available during the flight.
The seat pitch in Qantas economy is 30 inches — versus 28 on Wizz.
A few hours of domestic flights in AU is now called bladder-busting in America. Signs of the American society is dominated by the boomer generation?
@OV-1
I get the impression that you use a wide brush saturated in black paint to cover all other arguments.
How many XLR ordered vs how many retreats ( and for what “real” reason? )
my tentative guess at the moment: this is a “China has achieved $xyz but at what cost” kind of PR “aiding”.
Such bitterness.
Simply stating the facts.
😉😉.
Reality is:
> Wizz Air quit Gulf after Abu Dhabi went back on deal, boss says
> Wizz Air’s plans to turn east blocked by Saudi Arabia and India
But it’s the fault of the aircraft! Shrugged.
Airbus has received over 500 orders of the A321XLR, remind me how many cone from “budget airlines” and how many orders are canceled?
PEDRO
Cancellations of A321XLRs
Wizz Air: July 25, 2025—Reduced its order from 47 to 10-15 aircraft after closing Wizz Air Abu Dhabi and exiting the Middle East market.
Frontier Airlines: Late 2024 to early 2025—Canceled or reduced their A321XLR order due to operational fit concerns; exact date and figures not widely published.
JetBlue: 2024-2025—Reductions to A321XLR orders reported over this period, with limited official detail released.
Middle Eastern Carriers: 2024 to early 2025—Several have canceled or reduced orders, primarily due to new fire safety requirements and range limitations for local operations.
Happy to help
Cheers
So at the end of the day, a rough estimate of 10% to 15% is canceled and *a majority of orders from budget airlines remains*! BTW how many 737 MAX orders were canceled after it was grounded in 2019??
PEDRO
2019: 183 cancellations
2020: 641 cancellations
2021: 373 cancellations
2022: 115 cancellations
2023: 95 cancellations (estimate based on industry updates for the year; number may vary slightly by reporting source)
2024 62 cancellations
2025 (to date): Estimated at around 30–40 cancellations as of early October (monthly rates have dropped significantly from earlier years, so this is a reasoned estimate using recent monthly averages)
There you go. A while back I asked you where your quotes came from, can toy go back and let me know thanks
According to a Reuters report: BA had a *stockpile of up to 200 unwanted jets known in the industry as “white tails,”* left by the 737 Max crisis, which is roughly half of BA’s inventory of the 737 MAX by the time it halted production in 2019!
PEDRO
There are 2 sides to this and Im still not convinced building them was wrong.
1. Boeing couldn’t afford to lose the supply base then, so they throttled the line to keep people in business.
2) The MCAS issue was expected to be simple to fix.
3) Yhe duration of the delivery pause was supposed to be short.
So if those assumptions were correct Boeing would have been in a different place today. Given the data in hand then, todays criticisms may have to be viewed differently. This was one of those decisions that is quite fingerpointable. A pile of the whitetail were created when companies ceased to exist. We will never know what would have happened if Boeing had shot down the 37 line. That’s the story I’d love to know
PNW
The mgmt of BA didn’t realize the reputation of the co. was gone and regulators had stopped to taking their words at face value. They were living in their bubble. That’s why both Dennis and Greg were gone.
BA hesitated/couldn’t afford to slow down/pause production is because the co. had masqueraded the cash float (the delay of payments to suppliers) as FCF and used that to repurchase stocks to push up share prices. It dragged on long enough that the production halt happened close to the outbreak of the pandemic that few noticed the “ponzi scheme”. It saved BA.
PEDRO
I’m a Structures Guy, The politics and money machinations sometimes puzzle the heck out of me. We can agree that the money guys have effed up Boeing. The things we need to agree on are the facts that measure the products. We have a bunch of folks here that make cases that this airplane is better than that airplane. I try to stay out of that because better is highly dependent on who the operator is. The 737 and 321s are NOT directly interchangeable, and thats on purpose. Neither maker wants to get into a place where the airplanes are equals and its a straight fight in a phone booth. that makes for a winner and a loser. Close airplanes allow everybody to move deck chairs around based on each operators specific route structure. Airbus builds exceptionally good product for the most part with a wart or 2 here and there. Boeing the same, but not in as straightforward a way. This is why you dont see me standing up and being a cheerleader, thats emotional talking not speaking directly to the point. The point to this is that under a specific set of circumstances, the 737 is a better airplane for some operators, because the differences between the sizes range and runway performance and capex just make it that way. Same for Airbus. Generally Airbus has better coverage of the marketing posibilities with more options for vehicle configurations, but as in all markets somebody has to be second. Airbus is in an interesting place in wide bodies right now as the 787 is very capable, despite its internal economics at Boeing. Its a solid airplane. I really like the A350s assembly process for the fuselage, pringle parts make more sense to me than Barrels, but Im a metal guy and I deliberately avoided getting shipped off to tupperware land early in that program.
Now my question. What drives you to keep posting what you do in the way you do so. Im looking at a bunch of your great questions that if they were nuanced better could really stir up a great debate or discussion. Isd really enjoy that.
Have a great weekend
PEDRO
Also I said this
Generally Airbus has better coverage of the marketing posibilities with more options for vehicle configurations, but as in all markets somebody has to be second.
That was my explaination for Boeing being 2nd in sales, It didnt read as well as I hoped
Enjoy
PNWgeek:
Great thought provoking write up. Yea I was a hands on guy, got dirty a lot, never got high finances. Someone has to build and keep the bell tower maintained for the lofty mentalities to occupy.
I am not full in on product differences between Boeing and Airbus (yea the 787 is in one slot, the A330 another and the A350 in another still). I used to think 2500 would be built, now I think its 3500 (maybe an NEO in there).
I do like the spun barrels, way cool. I thought Airbus was odd in its lincoln log approach but its worked so well I have become a believer.
Baffled Boeing went that very expensive spun/auto clave route when the other was available (aka Beech Starship)
PEDRO.
Orders
Since you asked
The breakdown of Airbus A321XLR orders by low-cost carriers (LCCs) as of recent data is approximately:
IndiGo: 69 orders (India’s biggest low-cost carrier)
Wizz Air: 47 orders (including Wizz Air, Wizz Air Abu Dhabi, Malta, UK
AirAsia X: 20 orders
VietJet: 20 orders
JetSmart: 14 orders
JetBlue: 13 orders
Cebu Pacific: 10 orders
Flynas: 10 orders
SKY Airline: 10 orders
Frontier Airlines: had orders but partly canceled (total not specified here)
Jetstar (Qantas low-cost subsidiary): part of Qantas Group’s total 40 A321XLR orders, with 12 aircraft for JetstarIn
Total, low-cost and ultra-low-cost airlines account for a significant portion of the over 550 A321XLR orders Airbus has accumulated, with roughly 270 orders from these carriers.
Interesting, you left out the second part of my question: how many orders from budget airlines are canceled?
PEDRO.
I split the answer to make for lighter reading
Have a great weekend wherever that may be
Airbus doesnt ‘cancel’ orders that will never eventuate. Its a financial loophole from European loose accounting rules
News flash!
BA recorded a cancellation of 135 aircraft last year only *after the customer was liquidated*. 😅
Mirror mirror tell me the truth and nothing but the truth!
So did Airbus after the collapse of Kingfisher Airlines..
Only took them 6 years to do so😆.
BTW.
You do realize the difference in size between economy on Qantas’737 800 and the
321XLR..
Just checking Mr.facts and figures man.
And finally; thanks so much for your explanation of a “White Tail” aircraft Captain Obvious 😆
Mirror mirror tell this poster the difference in “size” btw “economy” on Qantas’ 737-800 and the 321XLR. I guess it’s too difficult to find out! 😁
Nonetheless the A321XLR has to be more economical… 😅
Did you read what @Uwe posted below?
Can one manage a short flight between Sydney & Melbourne without suffering the consequences from bladder-busting?
@Dukeofurl
You’re confusing “deletions” (iffy orders) and “cancellations”.
In the US, “deletions” are governed as ASC606 (frame-based); in Europe, they’re governed by IFRS15 (revenue-based).
Airbus cancellation figures are published every month.
Sites like this even compile them nicely for you:
https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/airbus-august-2025-orders-deliveries
YTD cancellstion tally:
AB 96, BA 46
He does not get that some orders have to stay in limbo.
prepayments made and customer/country dysfunctional ( thank you USA ). No rollback possible ( at the moment / ever )
> Moving the Space Shuttle from the Smithsonian to Texas will cost $150,000,000+ and permanently destroy the shuttle.
“destroyed”
nigh nobody will notice the difference. ( they’ll never fly again.)
Why not do a local plywood copy for the Donald to erect in Texas?
plywood replicas to the tune of $150million could probably provide one item for every state in the US?
Also to pumish the “wrong-minded” D.C.
punish*
Lol
> … engines + parts are worth more than the jets themselves, given severe PW spare shortages. teardown guarantees immediate cash from high-demand components.
> Airbus deliveries had a record September, sources say
Sorry you’re being let down again (and again).
> LH is not counting on receiving the first 777-9 before November 2026 and firmly plans to use the aircraft in commercial service at the end of March 2027
.
Message to Ortberg: when are we going to talk again?
Betcha Boeing and LH don’t come even close to meeting that timeline.
> Boeing has promised Lufthansa it will deliver the first of 27 777Xs next June…
LH also has a glut of 787 pilots waiting for BA’s new aircraft, LH has to dedicate aircraft flying short flights to keep the pilots current and certified.
On the A321XLR:
Iberia has just used it on an 9-hour flight from Madrid (Spain) to Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic).
The seating configuration used was 14 business + 168 economy (=182). Pitch in economy is 31 inches.
This compares to 292 seats in the A330s that Iberia uses on this route in the high season.
https://www.aviacionline.com/historico-debut-del-a321xlr-en-latinoamerica-con-un-vuelo-de-iberia-a-santo-domingo
TPG
Aer Lingus: The Airbus A321XLR is a “fantastic aircraft”
“Airlines and flyers like the long-range A321XLR — Airbus just can’t deliver them fast enough”
“Luis Gallego, CEO of International Airlines Group, which owns Aer Lingus along with British Airways and Iberia, said in August that the A321XLR opens up “highly profitable flying through frequency, seasonality and point-to-point network opportunities.”
“Iberia plans to use its A321XLRs to open new routes to Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) and, maybe, Toronto Pearson Airport (YYZ) in 2026.
“And, importantly to travelers, the A321XLRs flying at Aer Lingus and Iberia have modern, well-appointed interiors that are comfortable for flying.”
“Tom Fitzgerald, an aviation analyst at TD Cowen, wrote on Saturday that, based on data from airlines, flyers rate the experience on the A321XLRs as comparable to that on larger twin-aisle planes, citing net promoter scores that measure a customer’s willingness to recommend a product.”
“Keen cited that the problem is the limited availability of the A321XLR; executives at other airlines echoed this. Aer Lingus only has orders for six planes, the last of which it expects by the end of the year. And its sister carrier, Iberia, expects its last of eight A321XLRs by year-end.
“”We think there are a lot more things we could do with more aircraft,” Keen said”
“With the order book for new planes from Airbus stretching into the early 2030s, there is no speedy option to get more A321XLRs soon. Greece’s Aegean Airlines, for example, jumped on the opportunity to buy two A321XLRs due in 2026 from JetBlue in July in order to accelerate its long-haul expansion with new flights to India.”
https://thepointsguy.com/news/airlines-a321xlr-airbus-deliveries/
***
Sounds like a resounding endorsement to me 👍
BA has to wait a tad longer…
> It’s looking less and less likely that Trump and Xi Jinping will met at the APEC summit. “A face-to-face meeting between Trump and Xi is “unlikely to happen before next year,”
Seems my bet is right 😊
“final stages of negotiations..” We’ll see how it goes.
😉
no soybeans no Boeing aircraft!
Looks like Xi is managing quite well without Trump:
“In the first eight months of the year, two-way trade dropped 14.4 percent from the same period in 2024 in US dollar terms, with exports falling at an even faster 15.5 percent rate. The US has also fallen to third place among China’s top trade partners, behind ASEAN and the EU.”
“The US’s shrinking share of China’s overall foreign trade – which increased 2.5 percent year-on-year to reach US$4.1 trillion between January and August – was offset by strong exports to emerging markets, in particular ASEAN, India, and Africa, as well as the EU. Total trade with ASEAN grew 8.6 percent year-on-year in the first eight months, with Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia all recording double digit growth. Chinese exports to Africa soared 24.5 percent year-on-year in the first eight months, while overall two-way trade was up 15.9 percent.”
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-imports-from-china-tariff-impact/
***
Xi doesn’t need US soybeans, chips, oil or gas…and seems to be in no hurry to take Boeings.
Trump desperately needs Chinese rare earths and engineering metals.
One wonders who’ll blink first…
@David
In rmb only!
China will continue to import soybeans and aircraft, but not from those which want decoupling. China needs aircraft, but not Boeing.
I was impressed to recently read that United has 50 A321XLRs on order- with deliveries beginning in 2026.
United operates 61 B757…makes a direct replacment
Yep. I think something also worth watching is what UA do with their longstanding, deferred A350 orders.
If I had to hazard a guess…it slides until infinity
B767 gets replaced by B787-9
B777-200 domestic replaced by B787-10
Only opportunity is the 51 B777-200 used in international markets. And that is a maybe. A350 is only listed as “2030 or later” which is hardly a commitment
It’s about time to firm the order if UA wants to take delivery after 2030, according to other airlines’ planning.
UA has to retrain its pilots as the 757 & 767 are gradually retired, per Kirby, IIRC.
I am sad to say, won’t be back for many a day, I had to leave my girl in Kingston town.
“RAT gets deployed on Air Indias Birmingham-bound plane; aircraft lands safely”
“Mumbai, Oct 5 (PTI) The operating crew of Air India’s Amritsar-Birmingham flight reported that the Boeing 787’s Ram Air Turbine (RAT) unexpectedly deployed during the final approach on October 4, but the aircraft landed safely, the airline said on Saturday.”
“RAT deploys automatically in the eventuality of a dual engine failure or total electronic or hydraulic failure. It uses wind speed to generate emergency power.”
“”The operating crew of flight AI117 from Amritsar to Birmingham on 4 October 2025 detected deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) of the aircraft during its final approach. All electrical and hydraulic parameters were found normal, and the aircraft performed a safe landing at Birmingham,” the Tata Group-owned Air India said in a statement”
“It may be mentioned here that both engine or hydraulic/ electrical failure or software malfunction are also being cited as among the several probable causes of the Air India Boeing 787 plane crash in June this year.”
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/rat-gets-deployed-on-air-indias-birmingham-bound-plane-aircraft-lands-safely-11759646762270.html
***
Always interesting when a subsystem on a plane just spontaneously switches without any cockpit command.
Makes that unexpected fuel cut-off on the Air India crash flight all the more intriguing.
Sounds like problems with wiring crosstalk, electronics failure and/or software malfunction.
No doubt the BA PR team will quickly try to sweep this under the carpet.
Continuing on this serious event:
“DGCA institutes detailed investigation RAT deployment on Air India B787-8”
“Following RAT deployment on Air India flight to Birmingham, Federation of Indian Pilots seeks comprehensive safety checks across country’s 787 fleet”
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/maharashtra/dgca-institutes-detailed-investigation-rat-deployment-on-air-india-b787-8/article70128262.ece
***
“Pilots Body Urges Aviation Body To Probe Electrical Systems of All Boeing 787s”
“Mumbai:
The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) on Sunday urged aviation safety regulator DGCA to thoroughly check and investigate the electrical system of all Boeing 787 aircraft in the country.
“The pilots’ body wrote a letter to DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) a day after a Boeing 787 plane operated by Air India from Amritsar to Birmingham saw deployment of emergency turbine power when it was about to land in the UK city”
“In the Air India aircraft incident, the Aircraft Health Monitoring (AHM) picked up a fault of Bus Power Control Unit (BPCU), which may have caused the auto deployment of RAT, FIP President G S Randhawa said in the letter to DGCA.”
“There have been numerous incidents on B-787 aircraft. We have strongly taken up with the Civil Aviation Ministry and Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) to thoroughly check the electrical system of all B-787 aircraft in the country.
“”After the Air India -171 crash, the FIP has been constantly insisting on thorough check up of the electrical system of B-787 aircraft in the country. Subsequent to the crash, DGCA checked only the fuel control switches of B-787 in Air India (fleet),” FIP said in the letter.”
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pilots-body-urges-aviation-body-to-probe-electrical-systems-of-all-boeing-787s-9400408
ABALONE
Good stuff. Is it a chicken and the egg story? We dont know why the RAT deployed. We do know now there was an electrical event associated with it. Ok the reporting is sketchy in that the electrical event isnt defined well….. When a RAT deploys, it switches a lot of loads off bus to on RAT. Right now we dont know if the airplane reported that shift as the event or if the event is inadequately described and a fault tripped the RAT deployment and the RAT load shifting is reported as a single event. Lots of moving pieces, Im still thinking its a maintenance fault since that’s the highest probability, but I’m open to other stuff especially in light of the high engine wear reports. It will be interesting
“Air India plane grounded after Birmingham Airport landing over safety concerns”
“An Air India Boeing Dreamliner travelling from Amritsar to Birmingham has been taken out of service after its emergency turbine activated during descent into BHX on Saturday.”
“Air India confirmed that the Amritsar-Birmingham flight’s electrical and hydraulic systems were operating normally upon touchdown, but the aircraft has nevertheless been taken out of service for additional examination, reports the Express.”
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/air-india-plane-grounded-after-32613765
ABALONE
YES. All of the things you are pointing to for a RAT deployment are possibilities. They all ignore the most likely cause however. The RAT is periodically deployed during a maintenance evolution to inspect and lubricate the RAT, doors, struts and latches. Improper restowing of the RAT is a far more likely cause of this event. It isnt the first time its occurred, If we look at this objectively, we must note the highest probability event causes as well as theoretical low probability thoughts. I’m not saying it isnt an electrical faults, especially since the Indian Region produces such high erosion wear of the engines which was news to me. But if the engines are wearing at such high rates, the latch and deployment system allowing the rat to deploy may be experiencing the same degrading effects. If you want to really open a can of worms, is a predominantly carbon aircraft actually Ebonded sufficiently to prevent component degradation in the Indian Subcontinent. I could see this being a more likely reason for the rat to drop out, assuming it was reinstalled properly after servicing, which of course is the highest possibility cause…………. What do you think of that??
Abalone.
Sure would be I interesting if you actually answered questions
Abalone.
Sure would be I interesting if you actually answered questions
Good job this happened while the DGCA still has an open investigation into the crash of AI 171. I’m sure the investigators will be very interested in potential electrical/control/software problems on the same model of plane.
BRICS — potential Brazil/India (defense) aviation cooperation on the menu:
“Brazil Eyes Defence Barter Deals with India, Trading C-390 MTA with Tejas Mk1A Fighters and Prachand Helicopters”
https://defence.in/threads/brazil-eyes-defence-barter-deals-with-india-trading-c-390-mta-with-tejas-mk1a-fighters-and-prachand-helicopters.15735/
“Boeing to raise 737 MAX production to 42 jets a month in October 2025: Bloomberg”
“Boeing is reportedly preparing to raise the current production rate limit for its popular 737 MAX family from 38 to 42 jets per month, as soon as October 2025.
According to Bloomberg, which cited sources familiar with the company’s plans, Boeing intends to sustain the 42-jet-per-month rate for approximately six months to ensure that its mechanics and suppliers are not overly pressured by producing an extra Boeing 737 MAX each week, before discussing the next rate increase with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
“After that, the company is preparing to further increase the production rate in April 2025 and again in late 2026, anonymous sources told Bloomberg. Combined, these changes could potentially raise production to around 53 jets a month by the end of next year. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-may-raise-737-max-production-42-jets
***
BA says it hit rate 38 in May…though there hasn’t (yet) been any month since then with 38 line deliveries.
Commenter @Russell says he sees signs of rate 38 in first flights, but those can potentially include older frames.
Looks like we’ll have to wait a little longer — when I checked last week, September also fell short of 38 line deliveries.
#SeeingIsBelieving
Has the FAA bowed down to the Emperor?
Similar source like the “big, beautiful” but still missing order of 500 aircraft?
Time to brainstorm talking points for Q3 conference call.
JIT to drown out the bad news? (See below)
In view of the recently-revealed 777X cert delay (yet again), investors need to be fed some cotton candy.
Promised hikes in 737 rates should help 😉
China anyone?
“After that, the company is preparing to further increase the production rate in April 2025 and again in late 2026, anonymous sources told Bloomberg. Combined, these changes could potentially raise production to around 53 jets a month by the end of next year. ”
Doubtful….will not have all the new Renton 737 wing riveters online (e.g with Electronic Servo Controlled Roller Screw Technology for increased rivet rate per minute compared to hydraulic) which are replacing the vintage 1960’s WRS.
So the FAA got innovative and created a backdoor for BA to raise 737 MAX production thru this alternating week regime?
PEDRO
Line rate increases and who is signing off the airplanes are directly linked. There is nothing anywhere that says so. Until the cap of 38 is raised, alternating week sign-offs means very little. Fwiw, raising the line rate at a Renton above 38 before commencing production at Everett with a new workforce IMHO is a step too far.
That’s been what BA telling its suppliers for, not months, but years, we’re about to increase production to XX a month.
Be prepared! We’ll teach that sooner, or later.
> Boeing Co. is guiding suppliers that 737 Max output could reach a 42-jet monthly tempo as soon as this month
> Some suppliers have been skeptical that Boeing can truly churn out 50 737s or more each month at some point next year
ABALONE.
It sure w I understand be interesting to see HOW Boeing is planning to increase e above 38. I’m not convinced that’s a stellar idea if they do it in Renton. I DO think its perfectly fine to open the line in Everett at this time. You have a new set.of tools and a new set of mechanics and the ability to manage their output to verify conformity of the ABR. Ramping Renton IMHO adds too many destabilizing effects for now.
As I recall Boeing was making 54? in Renton for a short time.
They have 3 lines of build there.
42 looks easily done, pushing the 54 maybe not, but Everett if the -7/10 get approval would kick in.
Mentality of BA, human is like a cog, replaceable & interchangeable.
There’ll always be a readily available pool of experienced workers. Oops!
Back in 2018, it was a mess!
After massive culling, how many workers are still there??
Boeing’s 737 ramp-up shows signs of strain as unfinished planes pile up in Renton
> More than 40 unfinished 737 jets are stacked around Boeing’s Renton final assembly plant and along the edges of the Renton Municipal Airport, many missing their engines and others awaiting installation of a variety of parts.
The pile-up of planes comes just two months after Boeing raised the hectic pace of production one more notch from 47 jets per month to an unprecedented 52 per month.
> A shortage of highly skilled labor is also a factor as Boeing struggles to build more and more of these planes even as many experienced workers last year retired after taking the voluntary buy-outs the company offered.
> Jet logjam
Teams of mechanics are busy on many of the jets parked out on the airport ramps. Rather than pulling them back into the factory for completion, the Renton worker said they are “out on the field trying to clean up the behind-schedule jobs and get those planes in shape” for delivery.
PEDRO WROTE
Mentality of BA, human is like a cog, replaceable & interchangeable.
THIS IS ABSOLÙTELY CORRECT. Airbus and to a lesser extent Boeing use interchangeable and replaceable workers everywhere in assembly. The correct thinking is that your mfg process should be simplified and perfected to the point where the workers skill level is removed as a variable.
PEDRO’S recognition of this is clouded by his need to make a derogatory point about Boeing when in fact Airbus and Boeing BOTH focus on process refinements to remove the human element, and errors from the build process.
@PNWgeek
interesting take.
ever been (in)to an Airbus production site?
trend is to aid the workforce with automation.
not like Boeing tries “replace the workforce with automation”.
There is some history to this: Look for Volkswagen and Halle55″:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_54
https://zeithistorische-forschungen.de/1-2014/4996
use translation aid. knowledge that does not seem to have made over the Atlantic.
How many workers it takes to assemble the 737? Renton has like 12k working for BA.
How come simple facts are considered derogatory? It’s all in your head.
NYTimes
Pilots Demand Boeing Planes Be Grounded After Emergency System Unexpectedly Activated
> Pilots have demanded that all Air India Boeing 787s be grounded and inspected for electrical issues after one of the planes unexpectedly deployed its emergency power system.
=================
Not possible if everything is normal: Pilots’ body on Air India plane RAT deployment, mention Ahmedabad plane crash
> Raising his point on the deployment of RAT, Randhawa said that the Ram Air Turbine mainly deploys when there is a total failure of “all three hydraulic systems, total electrical system failure or both engine failures, and there are some other things which can deploy it”.
“This can be deployed only when the aircraft is in the air, not on the ground. To date, I have never heard of a RAT getting deployed on any aircraft where everything is normal. This is the first time I’m hearing in my 50 years of aviation experience,” he added.
Stressing that the incident should be taken very seriously, the FIP chief talked about the Air India plane’s Ahmedabad crash and said they are convinced that it could be an electrical problem that has led to the crash of AI 171 (the Ahmedabad plane crash).
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/airlines-aviation/ai-117-not-possible-if-all-normal-birmingham-rat-deployment-ahmedabad-plane-crash-fip-cs-randhawa/4000364/
““In the Air India aircraft incident, the Aircraft Health Monitoring (AHM) picked up a fault of Bus Power Control Unit (BPCU), which may have caused the auto deployment of RAT, FIP President G S Randhawa said in the letter to DGCA.”
I’m sure posters will argue the first world pilots can deal with everything because they have more experience.
“There’s nothing to see here!”
Damage control is already being attempted elsewhere on LNA 😉
+1
ABALONE
Where was damage control occurring. I added Ebonding being a possibility as well as accelerated component corrosion checks being prudent.
Funny how they know what happened when no one else is talking!
+2
Only willing to post a document from AB about RAT, won’t go anywhere near 787 RAT (which is the crux of the matter) with a ten-foot pole. 🙂
@ Pedro
This event is very inconvenient for them.
The DGCA has now formally asked BA for an explanation, the Indian transport minister has promised a thorough investigation, and the matter has now reached more mainstream media, such as Reuters, the Seattle Times and the Straits Times.
They’re also selectively ignoring the Bus Power Control Unit anomaly reported in the media.
The fire keeps spreading — another PR headache 🙈
Remember this, what a classic. And what followed in later posts, all with a straight face, with no remorse or shame.
“So just to clarify (again), MCAS was not a single sensor design, it had an accelerometer to confirm the AoA sensor output.”
where did this answer from Abalone go:
“Well, some parties are opining that the harsh climate in India could be a potential cause. However, Etihad operates 49 787s in a similarly harsh climate, without any reported RAT deployment issues that I’m aware of.”
my caveat would be:
Etihad operates hot and dry at home ( desert ).
Air India operates hot and wet at home ( monsun region, the day the rain came .. )
The UAE gets high humidity from June through September.
Abu Dhabi is right on the coast, so there’s also salt in the mix.
And there are also regular sand storms there, so Etihad’s aircraft also get sandblasted.
Moreover: don’t forget that all the Gulf carriers have multiple routes to southeast and south Asia, where their aircraft sit for hours in heavy tropical downpours.
Uwe
A good point. The only fly in the ointment I see is that Boeing has a published accidental RAT Deployment inspection and Reinstallation procedure published. This apparently happens occasionally and by itself shouldn’t be a great big hairy deal
compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Dubai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_India
120mm vs 2000 mm precipitation.
tropical desert vs troical monsoon climate.
PEDRO….
OMG, should know better than to start banging the old drum about non white pilots being inferior. I haven’t seen one word of from anyone here about non white pilots being inferior in any way with respect to this subject. In fact I even commented in the closed MCAS string that the junior Ethiopean pilot got it right and his low hours count was irrelevant to his performance. What proof do you have to support your racist claim that others besides you think non white pilots are inferior. I am offended. Your direction here is disgusting……..
Excuse me, the framework of the first, second and third world has nothing to do with racism. French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term Third World in 1952. Don’t impose your way of thinking into my post.
The narrative was repeated recently, don’t you remember?
PEDRO
Yes the narrative was repeated,
Deflect away, its irrelevant.
You brought the racist conversation about pilots back up. I thought that died long ago…… I was wrong, you needed to bring it up again.
@PNWgeek
IMU, IMHO:
you evaluate as factual an absolutely sarcastic quip.
3 in a cockpit:
afaics this first “appearance” of MCAS was saved by the supernumerary _because he was not overloaded with coping activity_ .
@ Pedro
There’s nothing inappropriate about your comment.
And it’s totally on-point: just last week we had a resurgent attempt to blame the pilots for the MAX crashes.
And we have a commenter here who labels any attempt to steer away from the pilot-blaming narrative in AI171 as a “conspiracy theory”.
Plenty of that tired old narrative around.
Is it racist for French demographer Alfred Sauvy to coin the term Third World? I don’t think so and I believe many would disagree.
Tell me is it racist for the NYTimes to use the term first world and third world?
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/magazine/mandela-the-pol.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/07/world/mandela-says-us-must-aid-world-s-poor.html
When Mao said China belongs to the third world, is he a racist? Who’s kidding here??
First world and third world are geopolitical terms, not about racism.
PEDRO SAID THIS
the first world pilots can deal with everything because they have more experience.
YOUR CONTEXT has nothing to with who defined the world. You again bring up the racist spectre of the non western pilots being inferior. Nobody here was talking this here until YOU said it again. It was dead and buried until you graced us with your ignorance yet again.
Uwe.
Respectfully.
The Ethiopean first officer was smeared in the press for having an insufficient amount of experience to be right seating a 737. I specifically noted that he got it right in the Ethiopean incident. He switched off the trim motors. Later they lost the airplane when they were working the trim imbalance and failed to slow the airplane. They turned the trim motors back on and lost the airplane. I commended the low time pilot on the Ethiopean flight, making no reference to the 3 man cockpit on the lion air flight the day before the incident flight. Perhaps I wasnt clear enough….. As an aside I’m not a big fan of the 1500 hour ATP minimum experience. If our Air Force can take an Ab Initio pilot from zero to squadron qualified in fighter planes in under 500 well structured hours I’m not sure Airlines need 3 times the seat time for a far less demanding mission….
Cheers
“pilots” in general or “Air India pilots”?
Air India pilots union
> The Federation of Indian Pilots, which represents about 6,000 pilots [in India]
Worth re-drawing attention to the following:
“Cynthia Kitchens, a former quality manager who worked at the Charleston plant between 2009 and 2016, has a binder full of notes, documents and photos from her frustrating years at Boeing, one page of which lists the numbers of the eleven planes delivered between early 2012 and late 2013 whose quality defects most kept her awake at night. Six of them went to Air India”
https://thewire.in/politics/rights/air-india-boeing-dreamliner-defects-quality-concerns
BA is in the business of selling planes…
ABALONE
Agreed good to bring up again. There needs to be closure to her story. Get to the bottom of it and take appropriate actions if that hasn’t already happened. Making the product better should never be a road block.
@duke
Boeing, Airbus dismiss talk of imminent new jet designs
> *Boeing is saddled with some $50 billion of debt* following a safety crisis involving its best-selling 737 MAX model.
> Bloomberg reported last week that the 777X faced a new delay in certification to 2027, bringing cumulative delays to seven years.
“Spirit Airlines to Cut Nearly Half of Its Fleet”
“U.S. ultra-low-cost carrier Spirit Airlines has taken a major step in its ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring. The airline filed a motion on October 3, 2025, to reject leases on 87 Airbus A320-family aircraft.”
“This move, submitted to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, targets 19 A320ceos, 65 A320neos, and 3 A321neos.
“Combined with a prior agreement to return 27 additional A320neo leases to lessor AerCap, Spirit aims to retire or return roughly 114 jets. This represents nearly half its pre-bankruptcy fleet of about 214 all-Airbus aircraft.”
“This drastic reduction will leave the airline with approximately 100 operational planes, focusing on A320ceos, A321ceos, and select A321neos.
” ** Many of the targeted aircraft, particularly the A320neos, have been grounded due to persistent issues with Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan engines. These engine problems have led to costly maintenance and storage expenses, making the leases unprofitable. ** ”
https://aviationsourcenews.com/spirit-airlines-to-cut-nearly-half-of-its-fleet/
***
The PW GTF fiasco just keeps on mushrooming…
ABALONE
THIS is the kind of news nobody gets any joy out of. Pratt has a big problem Airbua gets smeared because people cant seperate the engine from the airplane. The other lowers are the others who are getting killed on residual value losses and softening lease rates. I’ve never pointed at Airbus over their pain because it lacks professionalism at least to me.
Thanks for posting this.
Is there a shortage of pilots in India?
https://www.thecore.in/business/indias-pilot-shortage-looks-a-lot-like-a-bottleneck-843237
> Even as young pilots wait to fly, experienced ones are leaving. Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian carriers offer higher salaries, better rosters, and tax perks. For Indian commanders, the lure is hard to resist.
> When @theaircurrent.com was but a wee publication, we broke a huge story: It outlined how air traffic controllers had the legal authority call out sick. Those actions massively slowed some airports and ultimately ended the 2019 U.S. gov shutdown. Watch for a repeat.
https://bsky.app/profile/jonostrower.com/post/3m2jyxf4rak2y
👇
Reposted by Jon
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-production/boeing-charts-aggressive-737-max-production-ramp-up-in-2025/
Note the comments from BA’s suppliers, sound ominous.
Is BA/Ortberg under enormous pressure to “deliver”??
“All I want is a year where they do what they [Boeing] say they’ll do.” – A Boeing supplier, from the article.
We’ll see
“… a senior official at a major BA supplier told TAC the plane maker is at risk of repeating past mistakes — accelerating its factory tempo too quickly and pushing deliveries from its supply chain beyond what the suppliers and their production lines can accommodate. […]
“That is incredibly aggressive possibly unrealistic,” said the supplier official.
… noting that the co.’s production guidance for the supply chain has repeatedly failed to materialize since even before the 737 MAX was grounded…
> U.S. manufacturing shrank this past September for the 7th consecutive month
=============
NYTimes
> Nearly 20 Percent Fewer International Students Traveled to the U.S. in August
Not just manufacturing — the US services industry is also in trouble:
“The large U.S. services sector stalled in September, while price pressures intensified likely due to tariffs. The ISM Services Index slid two full points to 50.0, suggesting the sector came to a standstill last month.”
https://economics.bmo.com/en/publications/detail/277beb71-c909-4de9-aacc-bf2f648ca34e/#:~:text=The%20large%20U.S.%20services%20sector,time%20since%20the%202020%20shutdowns.
Reuters: “India seeks details from Boeing after emergency system glitch on Air India jet, source says”
“NEW DELHI, Oct 7 (Reuters) – India’s air safety regulator has sought more information from Boeing Co (BA.N), opens new tab after an emergency power system unexpectedly activated on an Air India 787 Dreamliner on Saturday, a government source with direct knowledge of the matter said.
“Boeing and Air India spokespersons did not immediately respond to requests for comment.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-seeks-details-boeing-after-emergency-system-glitch-air-india-jet-source-2025-10-07/
It’s now official:
“Airbus A320 surpasses Boeing 737 as most delivered commercial (jet) aircraft ever”
“The Airbus A320 has surpassed the Boeing 737 as the most delivered commercial aircraft in history upon Saudi airline Flynas receiving the European manufacturer’s 12,260th jet.
“According to a Reuters report on October 7, 2025, data from industry analysts Cirium shows that the A320 in question was delivered overnight, giving Airbus a slight lead over Boeing’s 737. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/airbus-a320-surpasses-boeing-737-most-delivered-aircraft-ever
***
Pretty remarkable, seeing as BA had a 20-year head start…🙈
Line deliveries in October are off to a slow start so far (Planespotters):
MAX: 3
A320/321neo: 7
“Turkish Airlines expects Pratt engine bottlenecks to last until mid-2027”
“Turkish Airlines (THY) expects the engine repair bottlenecks that have kept dozens of its Airbus aircraft grounded for months to persist for another two years, the national flag carrier’s chief financial officer said on Monday.
“The company will end 2025 with 45 Airbus jets grounded due to unusually long Pratt & Whitney repair waiting times. It started the year with 35 jets left idle.”
https://www.dailysabah.com/business/transportation/turkish-airlines-expects-pratt-engine-bottlenecks-to-last-until-mid-2027
***
Even worse:
“Wizz Air CFO sees end to engine disruption by end-2027”
“PRAGUE (Reuters) -Wizz Air aims to end engine-related groundings of its Airbus aircraft by the end of 2027, but has yet to see an improvement in Pratt & Whitney bottlenecks blamed for blocking dozens of jets, a senior executive said on Tuesday.
“The number of aircraft grounded by long waiting times for inspections has fallen to 38 from a peak near 60, CFO Ian Malin said. At the half-year stage, Wizz said it had 41 aircraft grounded due to GTF engine-related inspections.
“”Overall, the plan right now is to get the entire fleet unparked by the end of calendar year 2027. That is the target that we’re working towards,” he told the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) conference in Prague.”
https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/AIRCRAFT-ISTAT-WIZZ-AIR-014948cd-5eb3-4972-bc58-86b0724df2f5
“Chinese plane maker Comac to display jets at Dubai Airshow for first time”
“Shanghai-based Comac will bring its C919 narrow-body and its C909 regional jet to the expo’s static display, according to presentation by the organisers of the Dubai Airshow at a media conference on Tuesday.
““They will be coming to the airshow for the very first time. They will have four aircraft on display, as well as taking part in the actual flying display,” Timothy Hawes, the managing director of Informa Markets that organises the airshow, said.”
“In July, Saif Al Suwaidi, director general of the UAE’s General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA), led an official delegation to China, where they conducted high-level meetings and field visits with several Chinese aerospace manufacturers, including Comac, according to UAE state news agency Wam.
“Mr Al Suwaidi toured Comac’s production centres and met with Shen Bo, vice chairman of Comac, and had a “high-level discussion that reviewed the company’s forward-looking plans and explored joint industrial opportunities”, the UAE news agency reported at the time.
“Paul Griffiths, chief executive of Dubai Airports, on Tuesday said it would be interesting to gauge Comac’s technical strategy when they display their products at the airshow.”
https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/aviation/2025/10/07/chinese-plane-maker-comac-to-display-jets-at-dubai-airshow-for-first-time/
“explored joint industrial opportunities”
Could this lead to C919 FAL in the UAE? (e.g. like C295 to India)
COMAC said earlier this year that it expects an order from the Middle East before the end of 2025…
***
China is talking about potentially opening a J-35 FAL in Egypt, to supply regional demand.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airlines-lessors/iberia-coo-airbus-a321xlr-has-surpassed-expectations
> LATAM Says One Of Its Planned 787 Deliveries Will Slip To 2026
As it happens
Staffing shortages cause flight delays
> Flight delays at Burbank, Denver and Newark attributed to a increased sick calls from air traffic controllers who must work unpaid during the gov’t shutdown
Oct 6
> As of 4:15 pm, air traffic controllers at Burbank Airport in California headed home and there are no air traffic controllers inside the tower.
> Fire disrupts aluminum supply for Ford, other automakers
PNW: I think you’re looking for controversy where none exists.
” PEDRO SAID THIS
the first world pilots can deal with everything because they have more experience.”
Pedro’s words above were *sarcasm*, pointedly and obviously taking the [false] position as taken by Boeing and most Western Media, shortly after the two MAXCrashes.
Vincent.
Thanks for chiming in here.
I’m all for sarcasm if its not a mask for racism. I hope that part comes across because race has nothing to do with skill. Skill is based on training and experience and those 2 processes are colorblind.
Have a great evening
Bullish! The “next phase” of certification…
> Boeing 737-7 Reactivation Marks MAX Certification Push
how those 50% US tariffs working on Canadian aluminum imports?
oh you might need the Canadian aluminum now?
“New York Fire Wipes Out 40% of US Auto Aluminum—Ford F-150 Production Frozen for Months”
America’s car industry is facing one of its worst aluminum shortages in decades after a massive fire destroyed a significant part of the Novelis plant in Oswego, New York, on September 16, 2025.
This single factory was producing nearly half of all automotive aluminum used in the U.S.”
Raise tariffs to 1,000% and hope it works this time!
Guy Norris at AvWeek yesterday:
“While the pace of flight tests of the 737-7 and -10 has waxed and waned over the past two years, a new uptick in aircraft activity indicates Boeing may be entering the final stretch of certification tests for the long-delayed pair of MAX family derivatives.
The re-activation of the sole 737-7 development aircraft, 1E001, with a flight test on Oct. 6, marks a significant sign of acceleration for the certification effort which stalled more than two years ago over the need for a redesign of the engine anti-ice (EAI) system and associated nacelle inlet structure.
The return to test of the 737-7 follows a ferry flight on Aug. 11 to Boeing Field, Seattle, from Moses Lake, Washington, where the aircraft had been in storage since June 2023. At the same time, tests with the stretched 737-10 development fleet are also picking up with the second aircraft, IG002, flying from Seattle to Roswell, New Mexico, on Oct. 7, for the start of a new phase of certification work.
Sister 737-10 test aircraft, 1G001, has been flying consistently throughout 2025 and has accumulated almost 1,100 flight hours over 319 sorties since its first flight in June 2021. The third -10 aircraft, 1G003, also resumed flight tests on Oct. 6, having last flown in early August. Test aircraft 1G003 has built up 253 hrs. of flight time over 80 flights, while 1G002 has amassed 424 hrs. of flight time over 150 flights.
The surge in activity comes less than a month after Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg said the company was closing in on a finalized EAI design and reaffirmed the final pair of 737 derivatives remain on track for certification and deliveries starting in 2026.
Speaking at the Morgan Stanley Laguna conference Sept. 11, Ortberg said, “At the last earnings call [in July], we slipped the completion of the certification from the end of the year into next year. The good news is we’ve made really good progress on the design of the engine anti-ice since that time. I feel pretty good that we’re nailing that design.”
“We’re in the process right now of working with the FAA on the certification of that design, what tasks need to be done,” he added. “We’re still planning on getting that cert done next year, getting aircraft delivered next year.”
Problems with the original design of the EAI—which redirects engine bleed air to the inlet cowl—centered on the vulnerability of the inlet’s composite structure to thermal damage. Boeing has evaluated several redesigns while, at the same time, has developed in-service limitations to the use of the EAI on the 737-8 and -9 models until the new inlet is available for retrofit across all fleets.
The 737-7, which was first rolled out in February 2018, was originally expected to enter service with launch customer Southwest Airlines in 2019. The 737-10 was originally due to enter service in 2020 following its launch in 2017. This was later pushed back to 2023 after development delays in the wake of the COVID pandemic and increased certification scrutiny following the 737-8 accidents in 2018 and 2019. The further delay to 2026 has largely been driven by the EAI redesign.”
Certification and deliveries in 2026 for both the -7 and -10
according to Ortberg. We’ll see. 😉
Vincent.
Any idea how many -7s are in inventory?
Thanks
It’s this time of the year again: how many will AB deliver this year? BA?
I think AB are still aiming for ~ 820 aircraft deliveries in 2025.
What was the name of that other outfit, again?
“Comac”
Good one!
FG: Emirates to acquire another A380 once lease period ends
Looking forward to Boeing’s 3Q financials, to be released
on the 29th of this month- esp since they might shed some
light on the newest 777-X charges. Shouldn’t be more than
$4,000,000,000, I think, plus or minus a billion.
Everything but the kitchen sink to clean house?
I believe banks are going to tighten their credit
and you think China going to order new Boeing aircraft?
article title China tightens grip on minerals before Trump-Xi summit
“China has placed sweeping new restrictions on rare earth materials and equipment in a move that could deny U.S. companies and defense contractors access to critical building blocks in their supply chains.”
“China commands a 60 percent share in global rare earth production and an estimated 90 percent in mineral processing. Its dominance of rare earth supplies—used in everything from electric cars and smartphones to missiles and jet fighters—remains a major bargaining chip in its negotiations with the United States.”
> … could mean “lights out” for the US AI boom, and likely lead to a recession/economic crisis in the US in the short term
The US imposed export controls in name of ‘national security’.
FT: China unveils sweeping rare earth export controls to protect ‘national security’
The US “needs” rare earths. No alternatives, yet.
starting point might be the US dropping the “On March 4, 2025, a 20% tariff on imports from China was imposed by the U.S. government due to China’s role in the fentanyl crisis. This tariff was authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which President Trump had invoked in February 2025”
Then China might consider start exporting rare earths the US
> Well, if USA and its allies have been for 7 years already limiting China’s semiconductor manufacturing, two can play at that game
70% of the world’s seaborne iron ore trade will now settle in RMB.
Are manufacturing jobs going to come back?? Why it’s easier said than done:
> China will sell to US startups but the US wont
I ran an experiment to see what mills would sell to me
US vs China
caveat: i gave the US mills a 2.5 month head start
US mills
>0/5 prices provided
>many flat out “no’s”
>”reviewing internally”
China mills
>7/8 prices provided
>24-48 hour turnaround time
>an annoying amount of follow up emails
large US incumbents need to reject complacency and start working with new entrants like the Chinese do
there’s a reason they are so far ahead in raw production capacity and it’s because
1. they work together
2. they work fast
let the metals fly !
PEDRO
When I was soure stuff offshore, China was a go to place as were the Philippines. The quality of Chinese commodity components were fine, but when you start asking for actual certs for recognised standards, you were on your own if you were a small company. There are vendors that will do contract source inspections for you but vetting them is an experience. We were bringing in TSO’d parts feeding our PMA and every new shipment was approved by our contract source guys. It’s an interesting place to do business as it is so much more relationship based than strictly a numbers based. Its a refreshing way to do business. You do need to understand there is virtually no recognition of IP rights, so if you go there, the entire country will have access to your stuff unless you are a huge multinational with enough legal to do a war. Our parts are small market specialty items and the pond isnt really very big, so we exist on our reputation
The old dinosaurs suffocate the fast-growing startups. They have no choice but to source from those which are willing and eager to earn their businesses.
Time to tell RTX to stop sourcing from unreliable suppliers!
> This is painful to watch for  machine shops.
China on-demand CNC manufacturer:
– instant quoting
– unbeatable low price
– fast shipping
– quick response time
– quality
>> another set of insanely cheap parts from China!
got a set of 4 of these for ￥6.8 = $0.93 = £0.70 each
> What do we want? Restore US manufacturing!
How we gonna do it? Force a shrinking US manufacturing industry to pay import taxes to the feds, and then re-route the money to soy farmers!
same experience, eager, high quality, low prices..
CNBC: Senate to vote seventh time to end government shutdown, with little hope of passage
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3328648/chinese-military-force-tricked-foreign-spy-plane-south-china-sea-report
article title Why Western executives who visit China are coming back terrified
“It’s the most humbling thing I’ve ever seen,” said Ford’s chief executive about his recent trip to China.”
““Their cost and the quality of their vehicles is far superior to what I see in the West,” Farley warned in July.”
““And you’re walking alongside this conveyor, and after about 800, 900 metres, a truck drives out. There are no people – everything is robotic.”
“It’s also a far cry from the cheap “Made in China” goods that many Westerners have associated with the “workshop of the world” in the past, underscoring how much cash has been poured into upgrading China’s industrial processes.”
“Far from being focused on low-quality products, China is now viewed as a leader in rapidly-growing, high-value technologies such as electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, drones and advanced robotics.”
Did some analysts say we the US needs China?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/why-western-executives-who-visit-china-are-coming-back-terrified/ar-AA1OjJec?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=68ebad0df9354024a56178d1da2f8f52&ei=9
compare to the industrial rise of Germany.
“Made in Germany” was initially mandated as a low quality indicator.
Things changed.
same for
“Made in Japan”.
I hope China cannot be egged into an imperialistic showdown.
( IMU: they have studied history well.)
Hmm. “Made in the US” never gained that meaning of excellence?
For those who haven’t been to China in recent years:
(Disclaimer: not me)
> This is a room with >2000 CNC mills near Shenzhen that I’ve been inside. The mills are arranged in cells with multiple tended by a robot on tracks, so there are very few people working on the floor.
There are dozens like this in China.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G0APq6bWAAAgA8v?format=jpg&name=large
Look around, who are at the starting line?
Are you saying the US companies machine tools with a machinist attending it is not competitive?
This is a typical US small mfg supplier in the US
https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/08/38/97/98/1000_F_838979897_h0jzF14GQPakzfOkGtXbferkctFDMOsP.jpg
What’s the scale and how fast additional capacity can be sprung up?
China professionally run business for CNC operations with investment capital versus US small family owned machine shops that will not invest
“We visited a dark factory producing some astronomical number of mobile phones, recalls Greg Jackson, the boss of British energy supplier Octopus.
“The process was so heavily automated that there were no workers on the manufacturing side, just a small number who were there to ensure the plant was working.
“You get this sense of a change, where China’s competitiveness has gone from… to a tremendous number of highly skilled, educated engineers who are innovating like mad.”
Is this a surprise?
“Look out over the next 20 years at demand for commercial aircraft and I think almost for sure there’ll be room for a third player,” in addition to Airbus and Boeing.
https://t.co/WT43X2vuxa
> This reflects either a humiliating loss of face, or just another cocky, unskillful commentary designed to appear to be conciliatory. But it’s unlikely that Xi will take the bait. However you interpret Trump’s message, he is almost pleading to Xi for an off-ramp.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G3Fu1t1WwAARs8p?format=jpg&name=large
Interesting how my lies you can place in such a short statement.
Trump’s MoO appears as keeping others off balance. change visible direction every 5 minutes.
Seems to work on EU politicians ( aided by 5th column subversives here ) but less so on a global scale.
China sits pretty and smiles.
Trump’s a high risk 3 card Monte dealer.
Meme
Trump: I have all the cards!
SCMP:
> Sending a message: Beijing issues documents without Word format amid US tensions
For the first time, MOFCOM issued a slew of documents that could be directly accessed only through WPS Office – China’s answer to Microsoft Office.
> Chinese trade “countermeasures” could be a “very positive” step towards stabilising bilateral relations, compelling Trump administration to take a more grounded approach towards Beijing
https://t.co/3kLS6XCAjM
@duke
Get Ready For Car Prices To Climb
> Tariffs are about to raise car prices even further
https://www.jalopnik.com/1994885/get-ready-for-rising-car-prices/
> Bessent says US in talks with China to prevent new trade war
============
There’re plenty willing suppliers:
> China’s soybean imports hit a record high for the month of September