Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Excerpt: The Rise and Fall of Boeing and the Way Back
Oct. 7, 2025, (c) Leeham News: Boeing’s decline into the existential crisis that befell the company in March 2019 was decades in the making. The 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas Corp. is pegged as the tripping point. But the foundation pre-dated the merger.
In Scott Hamilton’s new book, The Rise and Fall of Boeing, and the Way Back, takes a deep dive into Boeing’s rise from its 1916 birth through the piston era and the dawn of the jet age, when Boeing’s “family” approach to airplanes thrust it past the Douglas Aircraft Co., despite nearly losing its advantage. After peaking at more than 60% of the jet market share, Boeing began a long descent.
Rise and Fall not only documents strategic and tactical wins and losses, it goes into the development of the 737 MAX and its now-infamous MCAS that led to two fatal crashes in October 2018 and March 2019, plunging the company into a path that nearly brought it to bankruptcy. The leadership eras of Phil Condit, Harry Stonecipher, Jim McNerney, Dennis Muilenburg, and David Calhoun are reviewed and critiqued by suppliers and former Boeing employees. The current CEO, Kelly Ortberg, arrived on Aug. 8, 2024, just five weeks before the contract with the 33,000-member IAM 751 touch labor union expired. The union struck for 53 days before a historic contract was reached.
Ortberg’s not insignificant challenges include returning Boeing’s production rates to levels that predated the March 2019 grounding of the MAX; returning Commercial Airplanes and the Defense units to profitability; paying down billions of dollars in debt; and deciding what new airplane programs to launch, and when.
An excerpt of Rise and Fall sets the stage. The book in softback and eBook formats is available here.
Introduction: Existential Crisis
“Alaska Flight 1282, Declaring an Emergency.”
David Calhoun and Brian West, the chief executive officer (CEO) and the chief financial officer (CFO) of The Boeing Company, were upbeat. It was November 2, 2022, and Boeing held its first investors day briefing since 2018.
The intervening years had presented existential threats to Boeing. First, the 737 MAX (“737” or “MAX”) suffered two crashes five months apart in October 2018 and March 2019. Regulators across the globe grounded the airplane. It would be twenty-one months before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recertified the MAX for a return to service. Boeing had billions of dollars tied up in 450 MAXs that had been built and stored before production was suspended during the grounding. Bringing these airplanes into compliance with the necessary fixes and software updates, and simply “waking” the planes up from being stored so long, took weeks per airplane. Boeing wrote off more than $5 billion dollars for costs and customer compensation. The 737 is the company’s biggest money-maker. In any given normal year, 737 sales account for between 80 and 85 percent of Boeing’s orders.
In March 2020, just two months after becoming CEO, Calhoun was hit with another existential crisis: the new, mysterious deadly disease called COVID-19 became a global pandemic. Airlines worldwide slashed service by up to 90 percent. West had to raise an additional $25 billion to carry Boeing through the grounding and the pandemic. The additional debt nearly doubled Boeing’s long-term debt to more than $50 billion. Boeing’s credit rating was reduced, which made borrowing more expensive. Boeing’s deliveries of widebody planes ground to a halt. It would be two years before the pandemic was under control, after millions died.
787 flaws discovered
The pandemic was not Boeing’s only problem in 2020. In October of that year, production flaws in the company’s 787 model were discovered during inspections. Paper-thin gaps were found between fuselage barrel sections. Deliveries were suspended for twenty months. Reworking the 787s to shim these gaps and to fix other problems discovered during the inspections would take three to four months per airplane. Boeing built 110 787s that were stored during the delivery suspension. For the first time in the 787’s program, the company took a billion-dollar-plus write-off as costs and customer compensation mounted.
The FAA revoked Boeing’s ability to certify each 737 and 787 as airworthy, a step required before any aircraft could be delivered to a customer. This “ticketing authority” was assumed by the FAA, which had to staff up to perform its duties, adding another step to the certification process and causing public embarrassment for the company. There was no telling when, or even if, the FAA would return ticketing authority to Boeing.
Certification of the 737-7 and 737-10 MAXs was stalled once the MAX was grounded because of the lengthy time needed to make design fixes, validate them, and implement them. The MAX 7 was already in flight testing, which ground to a halt. The MAX 10’s first test airplane rolled out of the factory during the grounding and straight to a parking place while all the work required by the FAA was underway. (Unknown at the time: neither derivative would be certified during the next six years.)
The grounding, inspections, discovery of new technical problems, and the scandal surrounding the FAA’s assumption of the certification process of the MAX caused one delay after another. Boeing and the FAA were embarrassed by the revelations that emerged from multiple investigations. Certification of the giant 777X had been in process when the MAX crashes happened. After the accidents, the FAA began a review that involved looking at every step Boeing had undertaken on the plane’s production and certification steps to date. The negative halo effect of this oversight indefinitely stalled certification of the 777X. Boeing estimated at the time that certification would happen in 2025, nearly six years after it had been expected. Even this would prove optimistic.
On top of these issues, the company’s defense and space programs were running years late and up to billions of dollars over budget.
Confidence in the recovery
But by investors day in late 2022, Calhoun and West were sufficiently confident that the end of the company’s trials and tribulations was in sight. The inventories of the stored MAXs and 787s should be cleared by the end of 2024, they said. Profits and positive cash flow would return as the inventory airplanes, with concurrent increases in production of the 737 and 787 lines, were delivered. The executives predicted that by the end of 2025, the production rate for the 737 would return to fifty per month (still below the pre-grounding rate of fifty-two per month). Boeing was already alerting its supply chain that higher production rates were imminent. The 787’s production rate, reduced to a mere 0.5 per month during the delivery pause, would be back to five per month by the end of 2023 and ten a month by the end of 2025. This was well below the pre-pandemic peak of fourteen per month, but nevertheless a healthy rate for a widebody airplane.
Calhoun and West told aerospace analysts that November 2 that by 2025/2026, free cash flow should reach $10 billion a year. The analysts, more concerned about near-term shareholder value than long-term company health, were pleased. More pleasing was Calhoun’s announcement that Boeing would not “introduce” a new airplane until the middle of the 2030s. Technology, he said, would not be ready before then to produce the 20 to 30 percent improvement in cash operating costs the airlines needed to justify a new airplane.
The analysts loved hearing this. A new airplane meant a jump in spending for research and development (R&D). A jump in R&D spending meant less money for stock buybacks and dividends, i.e., shareholder value. Boeing’s stock price jumped on November 3, 2022. Within a week, it was up 18 percent and climbed further as the year ended.
For Boeing, the year 2023 was not without hiccups. Production ramp-up for the 737 was falling behind plan, and meeting announced production rates was a struggle for the company. The supply chain still hadn’t recovered from the pandemic; shipping parts was also falling behind schedule. Quality was a problem. After Boeing laid off thousands of workers during the grounding and the pandemic, thousands of new people were hired. Training and a learning curve were necessary for an efficient assembly process. Mistakes happened. Boeing was plagued by poor quality products, which it calls “quality escapes.” Planes were rolled out of the factory with missing parts because the supply chain couldn’t deliver on time. While this “traveled work” is normal (and happens at Airbus and other manufacturers), it’s annoying and inefficient. If severe enough, it causes delivery delays.
Despite these setbacks, Boeing’s stock price continued to climb. By the end of 2023, the price was more than $250 a share. This was well below the $440 a share before the March 2019 grounding of the MAX fleet but well above the five-year low of $95 per share at the start of the pandemic in March 2020.
Thus, as 2023 shifted into 2024, there was nothing but optimism at Boeing that its main troubles were behind it.
Alaska 1282 and a new crisis
Then, on January 5, 2024, at 5:06 p.m., Alaska Airlines flight 1282 took off from Portland, Oregon, for Ontario, California. There were 177 passengers and crew aboard the ten-week-old 737-9 MAX. There were only seven empty seats on the flight. Two of these seats were 26A and 26B.
Six minutes later, the plane was passing 14,830 feet on climb-out when the cabin pressure dropped from 14 pounds per square inch (PSI) to 11.64 PSI. The plane was flying at 271 knots. In the cockpit, a warning light flashed that the cabin-pressure equivalent was now greater than 10,000 feet, the altitude considered safe for humans. Within seconds, the cabin pressurization went to zero. The cabin completely depressurized. The cockpit door blew off its hinges, oxygen masks deployed, the shirt of a teenager in seat 25A was ripped off, and his mother in 25B grabbed her son and held him to prevent him from being sucked out a hole in the fuselage next to seat 26A. Had this seat been occupied, this passenger probably would have been sucked out despite being buckled in with a seat belt.
“Alaska 1282, declaring an emergency,” the co-pilot radioed. The pilots landed at Portland at 5:26 p.m., fourteen minutes after the depressurization. There were no fatalities and only minor injuries. There was damage throughout the cabin. It was a terrifying experience, but the passengers and crew were lucky. It could have been far worse.
A part of the fuselage had separated from the airplane. It was a “door plug” that fit into an opening designed to be an emergency exit for the high-density version of the MAX 9. Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, and others that configured their cabins for a lower density didn’t need this emergency exit, so instead of a removable door to allow emergency egress, a plug is installed. The plug reduces weight (63 pounds vs. 150 pounds for an emergency door) and eliminates the need for some structural components, which saves fuel. Without the emergency exit, seat pitch didn’t have to be expanded to allow unimpeded egress in the event of an evacuation.
Luck for AS1282
It was sheer luck that nobody was seated in 26A or 26B and astounding luck that the mom was able to hold onto her son in seat 25A. Flight attendants in the forward cabin didn’t know what had happened, only that the cabin depressurized. Communications between the cockpit and the flight attendants were severed due to cabin and cockpit damage. At 16,000 feet, the peak altitude of the event, the differential between the cabin air and outside atmosphere was far less than what it would have been had the event occurred at cruising altitude. At 16,000 feet, passengers were still buckled in. Had the event occurred at cruising altitude, passengers might have been moving about the cabin, flight attendants could have been serving food and beverages, and seat belts might have been loosened. Anyone standing in the cabin or sitting with a loosened seat belt could have been sucked out of the airplane. The explosive decompression at that altitude may have been too much for the airplane to withstand; the plane could have come apart, killing all aboard.
When the door plug separated from the fuselage, it missed hitting any other part of the airplane. Had it hit the horizontal or vertical tail, the structural damage could have made the plane uncontrollable. The plane could have crashed, with deaths—perhaps to all aboard—likely.
The pilots reacted as they were trained. The air traffic control recordings available on YouTube reflect a calm response to the emergency. The co-pilot, handling the radio, was communicating through her oxygen mask, which distorted her voice somewhat. This led some misogynists to claim that the female pilot was rattled and unqualified to be in the cockpit and that she was there only because of diversity policies. The claims were nonsense, of course. The co-pilot had 8,300 hours of experience, including 1,500 in the MAX. (The captain had 12,700 hours of experience, including 6,500 in the MAX.)
After the flight landed, all anyone knew was that the door plug had separated from the airplane. Within hours, Alaska Airlines grounded its MAX 9 fleet of sixty-five aircraft.[1] United, which had seventy-nine MAX 9s, followed suit the next morning. The FAA officially grounded the 171 MAX 9s flying in the United States shortly after United’s action. Foreign operators of the MAX 9 with the door plug instituted groundings of their own.
A new crisis begins
Within days, the “why it happened” narrative began to emerge. Boeing was responsible for yet another quality escape when assembling the Alaska Airlines airplane—one that could have been fatal. The FAA descended on Boeing with new factory inspections. It capped production rates and blocked the establishment of an entirely new 737 North Line at the company’s Everett, Washington, factory. The FAA rejected Boeing’s first inspection-and-repair process and kept the MAX 9 grounding order in effect for three weeks while Boeing revised the process and completed inspection of at least forty aircraft.
The company’s stock price plunged from 2023’s close of $261 to $217 (17 percent) when Boeing’s culpability became clear. Certification of the MAX 7, expected to occur early in 2024, was put off again, this time by at least nine months if not longer. Southwest Airlines, the principal customer for the 737-7, took the airplane out of its scheduling plans for 2024. Certification of the MAX 10, which Boeing hoped would take place in early 2025, was to be delayed, probably by a year. United took the MAX 10 out of its scheduling plan indefinitely.
A new crisis was underway for Boeing. Another crisis in confidence began.
Once considered the gold standard in aerospace engineering and production efficiency, many wondered how Boeing had experienced such a precipitous fall from grace. The company once commanded about 60 percent of the global airliner market. Today it’s about 40 percent and falling. Again, how did this happen?
The Rise and Fall of Boeing examines how the company became a poster child for inefficiency and quality escapes. Many of the events leading to Boeing’s fall were self-inflicted wounds; the oft-repeated accusation that illegal subsidies to Airbus were to blame is untrue. Rise and Fall tells the story.
Can Boeing recover and become a leader in the sector once again? Rise and Fall explores this question.
[1] The smaller, standard 737-8 MAX doesn’t have the emergency exit or door plug, so it was not affected.
**********************************
The Rise and Fall of Boeing and the Way Back may be viewed as the continuing story of Boeing in Hamilton’s first book, Air Wars, The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing.
Air Wars tells 35 years of competition between Airbus and Boeing, and the former’s John Leahy, who joined Airbus from a marketing position with Piper Aircraft. Over the next 33 years, Leahy became known as Airbus’ “super-salesman,” whose movements were tracked by Boeing as it tried to compete with the aggressive Leahy.
Air Wars tells the story of Airbus’ rise from a start-up viewed by Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed as just another European jobs effort that would, like so many other European companies, develop an airplane doomed to commercial failure. It wasn’t until 1992, 22 years after Airbus was formed, that Boeing woke to the threat Airbus and Leahy posed.
Air Wars continues through the MAX crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. The story continues with Rise and Fall.
Air Wars may be found here.
Just bought the book. Great reading.
The author is to commend to shed light into the past, present and future of Boeing. I am convinced that Mr. Ortberg is the right leader to steer Boeing back to health.
Also great background around the time since the mid-nineties.
I remember the hype around return on net asset (RONA) whereby not just Boeing felt it would suffice to orchestrate a supplier concerto. Whilst these companies did it, they lost competence and know how.
Book is a „BUY“.
I read that Stonecipher went so far as to tattoo R-O-N-A on his knuckles? How’s that for a knucklehead?
Increasing RONA was the motivation for selling off Wichita to become Spirit Aerospace, a move they are now reversing.
So when the Wichita site was “successfully” sold back in 2005 how many millions in bonuses were paid to the C-suites? And how many millions more will be paid to the current C-suites for reversing this?
The three constants of modern life: death, taxes, and executive bonuses.
PS: “Rice-a-RONA, the San Francisco treat!”
One of the most pernicious aspects of the toxic GE culture that took over the C-suites is the idea that managers don’t need to be familiar with the organization they manage. This came directly from the brain of Jack Welch and spread through GE, Boeing, and other companies like an infectious plague.
In Welch’s GE they rotated managers through different groups every two years or less. The GE concept was that managers could manage best just focusing on the financials, ie, just looking at the balance sheet, and aggressively cutting costs wherever possible. Welch regarded this as a one size fits all approach to management, good for any organization in any industry. He thought GE’s core competence was management, and his cost cutting style could be summarized as grinding the middle class into dust: bust unions, squeeze suppliers, and outsource, outsource, outsource. The perfect company in this paradigm would consist purely of management, every other function would be outsourced.
@John:
One of if not the best descriptions of Welch ever!
I had fully realized the gut the company move, but putting it into terms of its just financial (mis-management) it makes even more sense.
Revenge of the bean counters. I am not putting it well but…….
McNerney belonged to an anti social security cabal. In a way you look at it (or I do) and its, what did we ever do to them? Well I guess we are breathing and want to make a living. How dare we………………
@TtansWorld
Yes, agreed.
The executive class sees itself as a meritocracy, but it looks more and more like a rent seeking, non value added Medieval aristocracy.
The Welchites see the middle class as just another inefficiency to be squeezed or eliminated.
How dare unions strike? How dare workers unionize? Did Russian serfs strike? Did Roman galley slaves unionize? How is it that our modern peons don’t realize they’re just peons? Well, I guess we’ll have to show them.
Witness the ongoing machinists strike in St. Louis. I confess I haven’t dug into the details separating the union and company positions, but look at management tactics. They say they’re going to to replace the 3200 striking machinists. Ok, so from what magicians hat do you propose to magically conjure up 3200 experienced mechanics??? Or could it be that the management master plan is to replace experienced mechanics with any Burger King or McDonald’s fry cook who manages to pass a drug test? Now we get 3200 inexperienced newbies bumbling around trying to build jet airplanes when they don’t know a rivet from a hi-lok. And how well did that go for the Commercial Division? Well, it was just June, 2024 when we witnessed the last failed CEO, Dave “Cash Flow” Calhoun publicly pilloried in the Senate for his manifest failures, when Calhoun laid the quality problems at the feet of an “inexperienced untrained workforce”.
Do we really need to repeat this fiasco in the Defense Division? It would seem that management is willing to risk this in pursuit of it’s prime objective: busting unions and making sure that no one in this industry (other than themselves) earns a good living.
And yet GE dominated or was near the top of most segments it competed in. GE leasing, which worked with GE Engines to package deals. GE locomotives dethroned GM’s EMD after decades of dominance. GE had the products needed to compete and the financial arm to make the deals.
Lets not rewrite history. The problem with Welch was that he sucked at grooming his successors, and he could not clone himself.
Actually, Welch’s legacy has already been rewritten, not by me but by many others who have carefully researched his management history. The huge gains in GE stock were mostly due to his acquisition and phenomenal growth of GE Capital, which he ran as a giant unregulated bank, able to conjure up like a rabbit out of a hat whatever earnings were required to top projections by one cent per share.
He turned GE into a giant hedge fund with a few factories. The one true talent he had was timely acquisitions.
He built GE into a giant house of cards that would have nearly imploded in the face of the 2008 crisis no matter who was in the CEO’s office. So much of his management style was simply unsustainable long term, like his rank and yank of the bottom 10% performers. So in ten years everyone is fired except him? (10 x 10% = 100%)
You should read the book called “The Man Who Broke Capitalism”. He was adept at keeping the house of cards aloft, but what he left Immelt was a hallowed out shell of a company primed for collapse.
I am not trying to change your opinion of Welch, but I have grown tired of “he is a Welch guy”. The results of GE under Welch spoke for themselves in the marketplace and on Wall Street. He is like Belichick, who won several Super Bowls, but his coaching tree leaves a lot to be desired—the same with Welch and his managers.
I lived through GE’s heyday, and I read all the Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazines of the time that covered GE and its financials. Just as important, GE’s competitors financial numbers too. Welch was not liked back then and so not surprising he is not admired by many today. I do not need to read someone’s opinion about him, but thank you for the suggestion.
Why would one measure how successful a CEO is by share price?
Is Dennis Muilenburg a successful CEO?
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/rise-and-fall-ge/
I thought GE/Welch’s problems are well-known, what do I know?
For example, how it manipulated its earnings…
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/valuation-treadmill/general-electric-and-the-problem-of-earnings-management/2CEAE370845E8DE6649C931DA8549526
Welsh set up the procedures for many former great American companies (Boeing sure comes to mind:)
1. Short term gains for the biggest shareholders (that’ll keep them out of my hair,)
2. Employees are a necessary evil (you know – put the factories on barges and tow them to the lowest cost countries in the World,)
3. And get the bonus for yourself (and fight to keep it out of that ex-wife’s hands.)
Yeah, Welsh, a real visionary… I wonder how many MBA programs are named: The Jack Welsh School of Personal Profit?
You mentioned that Welch’s error was that he chose the wrong successor. The three top candidates he groomed for the job were Immelt, Nardelli, and McNerny, with Dave Calhoun occasionally mentioned as a fourth dark horse candidate.
So who should Welch have chosen instead of Immelt, Nardelli, ie, the guy who failed at Home Depot after being passed over? Or McNerny, failed CEO number one at Boeing, the guy who firmly placed Boeing on its recent downward spiral. Or Calhoun, failed Boeing CEO number three who doubled down on the Boeing nosedive?
Welch’s failure regarding succession was not in his choice but in his grooming. He personally trained all these guys to fail, one failed at GE and the others failed elsewhere. The one constant was that all of them applied their Welch inspired management and all of them failed, because Welch’s techniques were simply not sustainable long term.
As has been written by others more intelligent than me, you cannot cost cut your way to prosperity, and this was the essence of Welchian, that and financial manipulation to “meet the numbers”.
https://share.google/aimode/VaqNaKp43MNMjABnI
It’s the corporate culture, which you don’t build or break in one day.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-178.htm
I must admit that I agree with this sentiment abit. As harmful as I believe the Welch approch to management was and continues to be, it did really make a lot of money for a lot of people. And if investor return is your goal, it’s hard to argue with his approach. Likewise Boeing thanks to Stonecipher. He lead Boeing astray and now they are in dire straits, but in the meantime many people, rich and not so rich, made a lot of money from Boeing stock. Short sighted? Absolutely! Devastating impacts for employees? Yup! But it’s a calculus, from a capitalist point of view. They will take their profits and invest elsewhere, repeating the process. I’m not saying it’s good, just saying that it’s very capitalistic. Joint stock companies take that risk when they sell stock.
I don’t buy its a capitalist view.
Capitalism has taken that rap due to what has been done to it.
At its heart Capitalism is not money, its building companies that turn out quality product that in turn make money.
People like Welch did not nor do they build anything. They exploited what giants had done and destroyed it.
What allows Welch etc to exploit is corruption of the system. No question he would have done well back in the day of the Golden Horde tearing things down.
https://theweek.com/articles/899343/jack-welchs-legacy-looks-different-than-did-20-years-ago
Regarding Jack Welch, his real talent was in choosing other companies to buy up. This is what supercharged the return on GE stock during his tenure. When you bought GE stock back in his day you were buying a conglomerate of diverse businesses with little in common, essentially, a sort of stock fund or hedge fund. You were basically betting on Welch’s ability to identify good companies to invest in, and he was good at this.
But this is not the same as skillfully managing an enterprise over the long term. This can be hard, slow work with incremental gains. Welch found he could make money faster buying other companies than by managing the ones he already had.
I agree with that. One I follow closely because its diesel and power generation is the Locomotive industry. Ironically its now owned by Westinghouse successor (Wabtec)
GE is by far the leading mfg int he world (freight not pax) – they beat out EMD and have held the lead.
The imaging business was also a spectacular success.
GE is more than the financial guys hired by McAir and Boeing. GE works by the integration of research, engineering, finance, production, sales and sales support. Sometimes it gets off track like with GE Capital and NBC. If you just pick the top financial guys you risk your company as you need the rest to get a balanced and profitable company.
I look forward to reading Mr. Hamilton’s new book.
“Looking back twenty years, Boeing used to be the leader, introducing airplanes like the 747, the Triple Seven, the 787. I feel like in the last five or six years, they’ve allowed Airbus to spend more money on R&D and basically take market share away from them, particularly in the narrow-body, the single-aisle family.”
-Steven Udvar-Hazy, Chairman.
This quote comes from the prologue and is dated June 9, 2021. Therefore five or six years earlier would bring us back to 2015 and I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Since Steven mentioned the single-aisle family, in other words the 737, I am not sure what he had in mind exactly, but in my opinion the R&D should have been spent much earlier than that.
In my view Boeing did not properly respond to Airbus when they announced the A320 neo in 2010. The 737 MAX, even if the programme had been properly managed, would always be a temporary and inadequate response to the A320 neo because when the decision was made the 737 airframe had already reached its physical limits while the A320 airframe still had considerably more potential for development.
That being said, I do recognize it was a tough decision to make because the 737 was a cash cow for Boeing and still at the time the best selling aircraft in history. So I can imagine the pressure on Boeing facing conflicting interests, on one side trying to satisfy its engineers expectations while on the other keeping its shareholders happy.
The MAX may have been a smart decision for the short term but certainly not a wise commitment for the future of the company. And I am not saying this in hindsight following the MAX debacle. In fact, I have been saying exactly the same thing here on LNA since 2011.
I agree on Boeing response but it was when the A320 came out.
Boeing should have then did a me too latest wing single aisle.
By the time of MAX they had themselves painted into a corner with only one viable response.
I read that Stonecipher went so far as to tattoo R-O-N-A on his knuckles? How’s that for a knucklehead?
Increasing RONA was the motivation for selling off Wichita to become Spirit Aerospace, a move they are now reversing.
So when the Wichita site was “successfully” sold back in 2005 how many millions in bonuses were paid to the C-suites? And how many millions more will be paid to the current C-suites for reversing this?
The three constants of modern life: death, taxes, and executive bonuses.
PS: “Rice-a-RONA, the San Francisco treat!”
I hope to get the book through my Intra Library.
“It was sheer luck that nobody was seated in 26A or 26B and astounding luck that the mom was able to hold onto her son in seat 25A. ”
Also incredibly lucky the Door Plug did not hit the stab. No one knows how close but you have to think some more degree of climb or level and it would have.
The end of this story is a decade out. We will then examine Boeing’s balance sheet and financials. A lot can happen between now and then, such as a merger.
Who’d want to merge with Boeing?
Take on the company’s mountain of debt, declining market share, well-publicized braindrain and abundantly-evident dysfunction?
Where’s the business case there?
The US desperately needs more competition, not less! The current conundrum is largely the result of mergers in the 90s. WS or main street, pick one.
Wall Street hates aerospace companies for the singular reason that they are massively long business cases. That is why we have such things as program accounting so that we can pretend otherwise.
For all the high minded talk about putting quality before revenue…am wondering how Boeing is actually investing in its workforce. This is a company that should be spooling up to deliver the F47 and at least one (and maybe two) commercial aircraft. During the last generation there have been more misses than hits (Tanker / Starliner / AF1) and others that are not as widely reported (B52 modernization is not exactly going smoothly and Boeing had a heavy hand in the MRJ which did not end well).
There is a scenario that occurs in 2028 where Boeing is still hip deep in some 777X certification on a skeleton staff and Airbus launches a new program all while Max production is just at ~50 / month. You can buy back stock, but you cannot buy back time.
I am still undecided on Ortberg. There are some real fundamental deficiencies unaddressed.
Thanks for this comment.
https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/boeing-expands-push-for-replacement-workers-strike-hits-two-month-mark/
+1
Still waiting for tangible evidence that anything is changing in a substantial way.
The reality is you would not believe it if you were told the Sun will rise in the East.
While I tend to think about things before I solidify my view, I also always keep in mind, if evidence says otherwise then adjust the thinking up to and includiong full change.
Early on I was more of a adherent to the pilots of the MAX crashes and being primary (call it 60% and 40% MCAS)
Bjorn wrote a piece that laid out why he felt it was not the pilots primary.
I do have a commercial license and I struggled with that. But I also was exceptionally good on procedure. In most ways I was an average pilot, but in that area I got compliments from my instructors.
I have a strong feeling that is the way it should be and its not, my average in landings in tough conditions would be a serous detriment.
In short I changed my mind as Bjorn laid it out very clearly. Not only did MCAS trigger into crisis, it was not there as far as pilots training went (or at all in the first crash) and I know from first hand how devastating things get when something that should not occurs and no training for does.
And no I don’t blame the nationality. The L1011 descending into a Florida swamp over a burned out bulb puts that into the context it should be.
The systems the pilots worked under should have been a contributing cause (I did not see any help from the low time first officer) and the pilots themselves should have been listed, not as the primary cause but a secondary element.
Being a technician engineer is also humbling. You come uip with a perfecly good theory on why the machine has failed, and then the tests do not pan out.
One approach is to do the Einstein thing, beating your head against the wall thinking the pain will go away.
Or you can re-think it, evaluate and come up with other possibles, ways to test it and them and focus in on the real issue.
I had one of those on a circuit just before I quit. The one cause could not be the crank cutout board, it was designed to work in low voltage area and was bomb proof. Compounded by it was intermittent. Once in 4 shots it would not work, the other 3 times it did.
Nothing else checked out as the cause over 3 weeks of checking, so it was review the whole circuit, undo all the assumptions and not can it, but could it and if it did would it?
It was yea, if it drops out when it should be full engaged, then yes, you will see exactly what is going on occur.
I came up with a way to test it and sure enough, it was bad. Designed specifically for that application and environment and it failed.
+1
https://stocktwits.com/news-articles/markets/equity/boeing-4-7-billion-spirit-aerosystems-eu-antitrust-approval/ch6PLawR3hX
The first 10 years of the 21st century were exciting for civilian aerospace with the launches of 787, A350 and A380. But we are about to settle into a decade of quietness. No new aircraft will be launched for a while. One OEM is enjoying its financial gains and the other paying down debt.
777X is pretty cool, although I agree not on the same scale of innovation as the 787 or A380.
I would say A350 not A380.
A380 to me was the maximum direction of conventional materials.
Just bigger not innovative.
I don’t know what to think of the 777X. It just seems to extreme and I find it hard to accept it can fly on one engine!
The A380 is full of innovations. It has a carbon tail and largely composites fuselage (Glare). Many of its innovations were implemented on the A350. AI creates a list.
I don’t see anything on the A380 as anything other than incremental.
Glare is not a composite exactly, its fancy aluminum, and it was only used on part of the fuselage.
GLARE is multiple layers of aluminum spaced by a composite.
The A380 was an amazing accomplishment but nothing tech impressive like the 787.
@TW
Sure it is nothing more than a vessel to carry oversized Airbus Balls. a BB gun one might say.
Hm, why do I have the impression of just another vector of Dunning-Kruger visibility ?
Lets see if Mave have enough money and talent to survive as well as PWC can afford to certify its UDF. WE will see if Embraer picks up Mave in the end
One observation about market share between Airbus and Boeing, is that the tremendous growth in the market was always going to drive the share toward 50/50.
The total sales in the first half of the 737 family life, is only a sixth of the sales in the second half (NG and MAX). The MAX will outsell the NG, and the market is still growing.
The fact that Airbus has pulled ahead of an even split in narrowbodies, is due to them executing well, when Boeing did not. And having a base product that is 20 years newer.
I think the hoped for 50/50 balance has been gone for yrs. I saw posters changing to deliveries, backlog, installed fleet, historically fleet, WBs, but the development is clear.
Also on WBs the balance is changing. The A350 program gets upgrades, maybe new engines, a stretch, The A330 isn’t dying at all, the 767 is.
The specification of the 777X aircraft doesn’t look extraordinary. There’s no reason to expect fuel consumption / CASM dominance.
On every A350 777X comparison you can find, aircraft empty weight is left off. And for a reason, OEW per seat or tonne-km don’t look good. Apparently we don’t want to mention, raise questions for an already problematic 777 program.
My statement was actually that significant growth drives the balance towards 50/50, because of competition for production slots.
Boeing still holds the lead in both widebodies and freighters, and I don’t see that changing, but again with limited production in the face of demand, inevitably driving the trend toward 50/50.
How much worth is the pure aircraft balance of 50/50?
The 767 freighter sold because Boeing wanted to keep the production line open for the tanker. Price was accordingly and less than 30 civil 767 freighters are left to build vs. 300 A330 passenger jets. Boeing sold more 787 than Airbus A330neo but which company sells aircraft for profit? How well can GE ramp up the GE9X production after 777-9 is certified.
767 sold because it was an established freighter. UPS ordered new builds.
As for profit, Boeing would not be paying down debt if they were not making money.
The strange idea that you can pay off debt by selling one 787 for 52 billion is absurd.
BA “pays” down debts thru its fictional FCF, not profits. Reminder: BA has not earned a penny since 2019. 😉 😉
It’s just so hard, so hard to face the reality that many prefer fantasy than reality:
> Richard Aboulafia sees a risk that Boeing’s market share in the single-aisle market will dip below 30% without the entry into service of a new aircraft before 2035.
The truth is AB is like 40% larger (and BA is at risk of being shut out of 20% of the world market for the foreseeable future), when every percentage point counts.
Even with a competitive product today (which BA doesn’t have), it may take as long as two decades to claw back. But the top management may put more focus on FCF than long-term survival.
May be even worse than I could imagine:
Airbus maintained a 62% share of the airliner backlog, compared to Boeing’s 38%
Talking to yourself, cool.
That said, Airbus clearly wins on the single aisle or HOM (Heart of the Market per Bjorn, regardless how aisles are setup).
While I share Keesje view on the 777X, airlines are buying it and in some numbers. So, there is more there than a simple cross assessment shows.
More seats and more Freight than an A350 may make up the difference. You can’t argue the sales to good airlines nor the fact they are not cancelling.
As far as 767, it went away some time ago so I don’t get that reference. A330NEO is still going and looks to keep going. Some help with the A330MRT on the NEO. Be interesting to see if the USAF ups the per month rate of KC-46A. KC-135R is a great bird but its also old though the re-build program is keeping up the flying numbers.
Obviously one Boeing possible is a 767NEO, that could fill in for the MOM.
Right now its not going to happen. Likely never but it is a possible.
I don’t agree with Rob on Boeing. They focused on the weird Welch approach and ran themselves into the ground. Airbus would have nudged them off the Single Aisle throne with just the A321 offering but the fast demise was all Boeing on MCAS 1.0 to start.
While I have some difference in why the 787 was such a mess, that also was Boeing management (upper) wanting to get something fro nothing and raking in the money at a higher rate.
But the 787 while its been stabbed by management again and again, is such a good area and aircraft, its working to unprecedented wide body bui9ld number and rate.
I have issues with ramping the rate up so high but they are headed for it (have to see how economy does)
Boeing is still at least 5 years away from fully recovered and possibly as long as 10, assuming things out of their control do not bite them.
You need to re-read what keesje said about the 777X! 😁
If you give the 777X away (or sell at a very low, attractive price), there’s an insatiable demand – guaranteed! OTOH, hard to recover the full investment (time & engineering efforts, etc)!
The USAF has signed up for 75 more KC46…I believe the intent is to maintain the line rate of around 3 / mo that occurs with the freighter (once it goes away).
This might not be the most elegant aircraft…but putting the B787 engines on the B767 could continue a workable freighter into the future. I would not try and sell this franken-plane for pax service…but the reality is that a B787F is hardly a given and the B7778F is both a bigger plane and years away from EIS.
Where is the market case for a 767neo? The 767 was inferior to A330 and a 767neo want do better any better against an A330neo. The problem is LD2 and just 1 seat more per row for one aisle more. Therefore the 767neo is called 787. The problem for a possible 787F is a possible A330neoF and the design for the later is already there. 777F8 can carry one ton more cargo than an A350F. I guess until the new 777 freighter arrives Airbus tweaked the A350 so much it can move the same cargo mass. Even at current specs can Boeing call a higher price for the 777-8F?
@MHalblaub
From everything I have read, Boeing has not been able to crack the riddle for how to make a B787F…something about cutting a hole into a composite fuselage to load freight.
My suggestion was not a ringing endorsement, but a plausible way to offer anything in that aicraft class versus nothing at all.
@Casey:
Why is a 767NEO any more a franken plane than A320 or the A330?
@TW
Strictly related to my suggestion…the B787 engines are overpowered for a B767 and not ideal for optimization towards their installation. Max takeoff for B767 is around 62K per engine…B787 at 76K pounds. The B787-8 is rated at 64K so that is not terribly off.
You would funcationally be making an A318 again (except bigger obviously).
My comment was also directed that Boeing could strip out any other non-essential upgrades if it was just to produce a freighter…not really “franken” as much as just the bare bones.
The 767 drove the A300/310 out of production. Sold 1000 some, not bad for a failure!
Airbus fled the market area – its a good one and 767s are desired to this day though they would like an NEO.
Boeing does not want to put the money into it and maybe they can’t get customer buy in, so there may not be a case for a 767NEO but its also possible Boeing just will not do it as it impacts the 787 to some degree (which is also being used in the 767 role)
Why would BA invest money in 767? Freighters are sold only because they’re cheap. Who think UPS/FedEx are going to pay top dollar?
@TW
Just look at the figures of current 767 operators (~780 aircraft):
– out of the top 10 users (~540 aircraft) only one is non US (JAL) (~27 aircraft)
– out of the top 15 users (~630 aircraft) only 170 aircraft are passenger jets
Why was there no 767neo in first place? Contrary to Boeing’ claims the A330 was better suited for the rest of the world outside US. Nothing would have changed in case of 767neo vs. A330neo. Therefore Boeing went on with the 787.
With over 170 A330neo already sold the development costs are already paid for. The only option for a 767neo is KC-46neo and US taxpayers will pay for it.
TW: BA had to save every penny from not* investing in the 767 in order to put their cash into share repurchases and pump the stock price higher: they repeatedly asked and were granted exemption from proper wire separation — a fire hazard that contributed to a 767 crash.
Market share falling below 30% would only occur if Boeing is unable to make product. The reality is that neither side is sitting on white tails. They each have multi year backlogs.
There was a time like 2023 when I heard that production slots would push buyers to BA. Reality says otherwise. It’s only pulling wool over your eyes if you continue to believe in mirage.
Just for fun, according to one web site:
Airbus’s backlog represents 10.6 years of production… while Boeing’s backlog would last approximately 11.5 years.
Customers might actually flock to AB for early delivery!!
@Pedro
All that proves is that there is no real motivation to develop a new product. Why develop a new product when you can not produce anything more than what you already can. Airbus and Boeing are not competing with each other. They are competing with themselves.
..which makes one wonder about recent articles in the press about one of the two major OEMs purportedly
launching a new NB program.
First: get your company’s PR outfit to launch said story, making sure it gets tons of press- especially re-reporting, which provides a profound echo effect.
Second: the same company issues- again through
its PR minions- a Strongly Worded Denial that any
such program is in the offing.. and voila!
It’s about the oldest PR trick in the book..
The drama in this comment section is always entertaining. 🙂
There is no trick in involved here. As Scott truthfully reported, Boeing is always looking into the next aircraft development, and along multiple paths. That never really stops, and is pretty obvious.
And as Boeing truthfully stated, that does not represent a commitment to any specific program or aircraft. That too is quite obvious.
So we have as usual, a mundane event that is twisted and amplified into two consecutive imaginary constructions (falsehoods) of nefarism and impending doom.
Really remarkable.
Remember the alphabetical soup? NMA, NSA, MOM, Yellowstone, Y…
What if BA had developed the NMA? Would it be better or worse?
But alas, it’s all talk, paper planes!
AW 2021:
> Boeing is taking the first tentative steps towards an all-new airliner designed to compete with the Airbus A321XLR …
https://leehamnews.com/2020/06/24/looking-ahead-for-2020-and-2030-decades-boeing/
https://leehamnews.com/2020/08/03/boeings-big-opportunity/
Thanks for the example of manufacturing drama.
There is no rational response to an irrational viewpoint. Either possible or needed.
Typical non-reply. Divert from the crux of the matter. No new airplane, loses market share. 🙈
Reality is that which, even when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
Another manufactured conclusion to create drama, but only one of countless such instances here.
No actual drama in reality though. We don’t know what will happen with the next generation of aircraft. There are no such aircraft as of yet, only discussions on both sides.
Interesting thing about reality, that. It doesn’t respond to drama or the manufacturing of it. And is not altered by falsehood.
Yup. There’s no need for drama. Like the Titanic, water is gushing in. But it’s almost unnoticeable if you sit on a deck chair, enjoying a cocktail. BA is slowly receding into irrelevant: double the production would cut costs by 25%.
👉 “What if BA had developed the NMA?”
@ Vincent
We live in an era of “stock-pimping by press release”.
Investors are very willing to buy the news, but FOMO makes them less willing to sell the news.
It’s not just BA: look at recent “fluff news” from Oracle, AMD, OpenAI, etc.
Works a treat 👍
Pedro and Abalone, I’m too happy tonight to spar with you guys over your usual nonsense.
Disaster averted in Chicago, my home town. Restraining orders for everyone. It’s like an episode of Oprah.
Clearly a poor attempt to venture for off-topics in order to divert attention. Another failure.
Such a “manufactured drama”!!
Vincent.
We agree here.
There are supposed to be laws and ethics….. like that matters
No drama at all in that comment. 🎭 🙂
the flock is getting to take flight..
“Turkish Airlines chair says may switch Boeing 737 order to Airbus if engine talks fail”
Just to clarify, from the article:
“Industry sources said they still expected a deal to be reached, given the recent political attention to it and scarce supplies of competing Airbus jets. But the comments highlight recent tensions in the jet engine market.
A spate of engine shortages and growing maintenance delays have driven up engine parts prices and led to growing discord between suppliers and airlines across the aviation industry.
Airlines globally have voiced frustration over the disruption, including THY which is facing delays linked to Pratt & Whitney engines on its existing Airbus fleet. Engine makers say they need to be rewarded for huge financial risks. ”
Thus there are delays on the Pratt & Whitney side as well. This is likely a negotiating tactic to enlist Boeing on the Turkish side against GE & Safran. Not like we haven’t seen airlines do this before.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/turkish-airlines-chair-says-may-switch-boeing-737-order-airbus-if-engine-talks-2025-10-09/
Just to clarify, it comes down to how much sacrifices BA can offer:
> For a possible Boeing order, Bolat says delivery slots will play an important role, alongside prices, CASM and maintenance costs of the aircrafts’ engines. “*If we don’t really get the deal from Boeing*, then we go to Airbus,”
Again to clarify, and remain truthful:
“If CFM comes to feasible economical terms then we are going to sign with Boeing,” Bolat told Reuters in Stockholm late on Wednesday. He added negotiations had made some progress, but disagreements on costs remained.
“If CFM continues its stance we’ll change to Airbus. With Airbus I have choices,” Bolat said, referring to the European planemaker’s two engine suppliers.”
But as also cited earlier, Turkish Airlines is already in contention with Pratt & Whitney over engine delays that have grounded deliveries from Airbus.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/turkish-airlines-chair-says-may-switch-boeing-737-order-airbus-if-engine-talks-2025-10-09/
Lol. How does BA join Turkish to negotiate with CFM? Tear up their sole source contract?
AB lost a contract because RR didn’t cooperate.
Sure , and the engine fiasco won’t follow them to Airbus.😆😆
So you’re still back to negotiating with CFM..
Leaving Boeing solves nothing..
They can always re-up with Pratt…😏😏😏
@Pedro
This feels like an empty threat from THY
I will go back to my earlier point. Boeing will see whatever they make. THY has to find slots at Airbus. Unless there is a strategic reason that is not obvious, THY is massively overplaying their hand.
@Casey
The 787 ordered are scheduled to deliver from 2029 to 2034. You believe AB doesn’t have any A320 family slots available in that period?
@Pedro
Reverse point…yes Airbus can arrange for slots, but those are going to be sold regardless as well.
If you really want to evaluate whether there is a good deal to be had…THY (or any airline really) should evaluate the purchase offer against a spot lease rate. I am convinced the ones making the best money are the lessors who put in mega orders and are able to command a premium for near term lift.
That Turkish LOI/MOU for MAXs was fishy right from the outset — a pseudo-order to pander to Trump in the hope of extracting concessions.
The concessions didn’t come.
The “negotiations” between BA and CFM have been going on now for months.
Seeing is believing 😉
Remember, doubling the production would cut costs by 25%. We’re close to the inflection point.
TC is at it again!
https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/10/09/emirates-pushes-airbus-boeing-for-larger-a350-777x-variants/
Sadly for him the world does not revolve around Emirates.
The figures for pax numbers are suspect, 777X should have more simply due to its length.
@TW
Not a snowballs chance. And oddly enough the A380 might be cheaper to maintain than obvious. Half the fleet is going to retire early in life they will not linger in the secondary market. Plenty of cannibalization opportunity for Emirates.
Agreed. TC of course spews away
I doubt that either Airbus or Boeing would be willing to bite. The A380 market was always too small and 777X also is size limited, if not as drastically.
Emirates flies A380s in 615 seat configurations, Generous economy class seats, aisles, 58 full sleeper seats seats and a big bar area. A surface / specification hard to replace by a single deck aircraft design.
Maybe look at a 2.5-3 engined design again..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ8J3mYWb5Y
Russia quietly announced today that the Russian military shot down the Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer ERJ-190, flight J2-8243, with two surface to air missiles fired in error as the aircraft approached Grozny for a scheduled landing, in December 2024.
The military were apparently confused by the repeated go-arounds due to bad weather, and did not identify the approaches as the same flight.
The ERJ-190 landing in bad weather was made more difficult by Russian jamming of GPS in the area.
Russia also pledged compensation to the victims.
I guess it is small news because the russian authorities respecting international law for once is unusual. Azerbaijan and its president are Putin friends. This crash put a strain on relations. So Putin had to give in. Now MH17..
Spirit AeroSystems (aka as Boeing) won’t have to pay taxes on a 144,000-square-foot manufacturing plant until 2030, thanks to a tax deal approved by the Wichita City Council this week.
City estimates at the time put the value of one year of tax abatement at $422,254 – a figure that would have included $117,601 in taxes to the city, $105,814 to Sedgwick County, $193,437 to the Derby school district and $5,400 to the state.”
City estimates at the time put the value of one year of tax abatement at $422,254 x 5 years? is over $2 million?
Just to clarify, the article states that the abatement is in return for adding 600 new jobs to the facility, which will add $32M of activity to the local economy. And that addition is much more probable with Boeing operating the facility, than it was with Spirit.
With this addition, the facility will return to the employment levels from 2019, before the MAX accidents and the pandemic.
https://www.kmuw.org/news/2025-10-08/wichita-extends-spirit-aerosystems-tax-break-as-it-plans-to-hire-hundreds-more-employees
@ David Pritchard
Nice story.
Adds to the ca. $90B that BA and its affiliates have received in state/federal loans, grants, subsidies and tax breaks since 1994.
Imagine receiving all that aid…and still making an absolute mess of your finances…?
https://goodjobsfirst.org/
This issue has been litigated at the WTO and was found in favor of Boeing. As you well know because it’s been discussed at length here, with you participating.
But thanks for the demonstration of the tactic of resurrecting settled issues, it helps us all to understand the intent of your posts.
Rob
Just a fyi, I might know a bit more about WTO Large Aircraft Disputes than you think! The issue is not about subsidies, its about Boeing feeding at the public trough
David, it’s a relative thing, that can be argued both ways. Many communities are willing to forgo tax revenue in return for employing their residents, and supporting the local economy. It’s just different approaches to achieve the same goal, which is prosperity.
But as in all things, there needs to be balance. In this case as in most cases, the benefits of employment far outweigh the abatement.
This is done all over the US, and most of the time it’s not controversial. It becomes an issue when the tax benefits are given and there is no corresponding job creation, or benefit to the community.
As a result, and as the article notes, communities are beginning to add conditions, where the tax benefits accrue as jobs are created. No jobs, no benefits. That’s a better way to address the issue that gives both parties an out.
The greater potential for abuse, in my mind, is when communities are forced to compete with benefit offers to attract a new business. That is also where most of the failures occur, because communities may be desparate for employment and commit to unfair deals.
I wouldn’t object to a ban on that practice, or at a minimum regulatory oversight. Let the company build and employ before there is a negotiation for benefits.
@Rob:
At one time industry built where they thought was the best location.
Then they discovered they could hold facilities as tax hostages.
No locale wants to loose taxes. They also want and at times desperately an economy.
The so called econo9my boost is business way of twisting the situation to make i9t sound like something it is not.
Why is location no loonier important (unless its non union)? Because of the infrastructure system in place.
So Boeing builds in a swamp and Hurricane prone location. Big bonus, no union (well maybe primary but a lot of SE US non union)
Tax breaks you can get anywhere.
While Airbus was a system abuser, Boeing outdid them in spades with the huge Washington State tax break.
If you don’t pay your way (I sure did) then someone else has to or your country degenerates .
Then tell us they don’t have qualified people in the US and we got to go elsewhere for them. Maybe put some money into the education system, sponsor bright young people no matter where they are, help them out of poverty if needed? Nah. They gotta pull themselves up by their bootstraps like we did.
So lets take Boeing as an example. Moved HQ to Chicago. Never filled the people numbers promises (no one wanted to go to Chicago oddly enough). Empty Wallace.
today’s news 10/10/25
“Donald Trump has threatened again to impose “massive” US tariffs on China, accusing Beijing of “very hostile” moves to restrict exports of rare earths needed for American industry.”
How many new orders is Boeing expecting (Boeing PR -Chinese airlines are close to placing a new, substantial order for up to 500 Boeing aircraft) try 0
follow on for 10/10/25
“President Donald Trump has threatened to pull out of an expected meeting with President Xi Jinping of China after Beijing tightened its rules for exports of rare earths.
In a post on social media, Trump said he now saw “no reason” to meet with President Xi later this month, accusing China of “becoming very hostile” and trying to hold the world “captive”.
Don’t worry, David: the US ambassador to China assured us earlier this week that a big Boeing order from China is in its final stages…
🙈
“any day now..”
;););)
Or “next stage”
Regarding the new rare earth export restrictions announced by China:
“Under the new rules, starting December 1, 2025, companies with any affiliation to foreign militaries—including those of the United States—will be largely denied export licenses. The Ministry of Commerce also made clear that any requests to use rare earths for military purposes will be automatically rejected.”
“Given China’s dominance in the sector—accounting for roughly 70 percent of rare earth mining, 90 percent of separation and processing, and 93 percent of magnet manufacturing—these developments will have major national security implications.”
https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-new-rare-earth-and-magnet-restrictions-threaten-us-defense-supply-chains
I just saw an analyst on CNBC saying that “China needs the US as much as the US needs China”.
I wonder what that analyst was smoking…? 😉
Donnie getting mad!
“President Donald Trump said the United States would impose a new tariff of 100% on imports from China “over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying,” starting on Nov. 1.
Trump also said that the U.S. on that same date also would impose export controls on “any and all critical software.”
TACO!
The US needs China more than China needs the US. It is what it is.
10/10/25
“Dow tumbles nearly 900 points after Trump reignites trade war between the world’s two largest economies”
“Market sell-off: Trump post lops off $2 trillion from stocks in a single day”
No soybean exports, no new Boeing aircraft sold, consumers and companies paying high prices with import taxes on Chinese goods, no rare earth material available in the US and now the US stock market sell off.
Tell me why the Chinese would take the pedal off the gas? Simple solution: take away US import tariffs on Chinese goods!
Market was off $2tr. How many short orders were already in place?
Wealth transfer…
Definitely someone got rich in a matter of hours:
> A whale on Hyperliquid, a crypto derivatives exchange, opened massive short positions just 30 minutes before Trump’s 100% China tariff announcement.
He closed the trades for $192 million in profit, all in one day.
The accounts were created this morning, funds withdrawn within hours.
>> In case you didn’t know – the BTC whale closed 90% of his BTC short and fully closed his ETH short, making around $190–$200M profit in just one day on Hyperliquid.
**The crazy part is that he shorted another 9 figs worth of BTC and ETH minutes before the cascade happened**. And this was just publicly on Hyperliquid imagine what he did on CEXs or elsewhere…
>>> I counted 1010 traders that are down $100k+ today and 206 traders that are down $1M+ today on Hyperliquid
358 of those accounts lost everything and have ~0 balance, including one person who lost all $19M+ in their account
===========
Always, someone knows something (in advance)?
New sales pitch in 96D chess:
> Trump threatens China with export controls on Boeing parts
I bet China is so worried that they “rush” to a massive order.
> Message to Faury: what’s the best time for a chat?
@ Pedro
The fact that Trump is making such threats serves to show how desperate he is.
And he seemingly fails to grasp the negative message that this sends to other potential BA customers outside the US.
If he tries to throttle Safran’s Chinese activities within CFM, all hell will break loose.
If the market doesn’t recover next week, is DL going to revise its guidance??
Trump’s latest message on Truth Social regarding China (12 October):
“Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine. Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it.”
***
Looks like someone doesn’t grasp that he’s been outplayed…
Yet another Air India 787 technical incident:
“AI154 operating from Vienna to Delhi on 09 October was diverted to Dubai due to a technical issue. The aircraft landed safely at Dubai and underwent necessary checks.”
“The aircraft experienced failures across critical systems which included Autopilots, ILS (Instrument Landing System), Flight Directors (FDs) and Flight Control System Degradation with no Autoland capability. The pilots could not engage the autopilots due electrical malfunctions; thus, pilots were constrained to fly manually at night and divert to Dubai. Moreover, the FD’s were not available with degraded flight control systems,” the FIP wrote in its letter to Naidu.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/business/aviation/pilots-body-fip-air-india-boeing-787s-checks-snag-incidents-10299800/
***
Just to clarify: that’s now two serious 787 incidents in less than a week 🙈
All these incidents are related to Air India, as was the earlier crash. Multiple documented sources in the Indian media about deficiencies in Air India maintenance practices, with corresponding investigations.
The previous “serious incident” was an uncommanded RAT deployment, which has no safety ramifications. The RAT is certified for deployment at any time. The aircraft was inspected, the RAT stowed with routine maintenance conducted, and returned to service.
The current incident would appear to be an air data issue, since the aircraft drifted away from its assigned altitude at cruise, then automatic systems would not engage. One of the autopilots was still functional. The crew chose to hand fly the aircraft so the issue was in automatic control, which occurs with loss of sensor reliability.
I look forward to future reports on this incident, but I doubt it would have any impact on the 787 fleet.
Agreed.
You don’t want things like that occurring but they do.
The Indian press is on a war path. I don’t blame them for the emotional disaster of someone turning engines off. But it also is not an aircraft issue, you don’t make successful policy on false reality. .
All countries are subject to the issue and its probably never going to be solved.
“it also is not an aircraft issue”
How do you know? More unsubstantiated claim without evidence? Oh no… 😱
Maybe some FOD left by Indian workers made it finally through the insulation of wires.
Or some shoddy wiring by BA has now started to suffer from fraying insulation and/or crosstalk.
BA has a less-than-stellar record in that regard…🙈
Just to clarify: if the DGCA starts poking around in Indian 787s and finds bad wiring, then all hell will break loose — hence the radio silence from BA, and the labored fire suppression efforts by certain parties.
One wonders if the DGCA has been in contact with Cynthia Kitchens for a chat?
She has some interesting documents pertaining to manufacturing shortcuts on 787s…6 of which went to Air India 🙈
You are deflecting.
Why did the RAT deploy?
( automatic deployment happens on major system faults.)
i.e. why did the system think it had to deploy the RAT to have needed emergency power?
Asked and answered. I provided the Airbus maintenance brief on uncommanded RAT deployments, there have been many.
It can happen for numerous reasons. It’s not representative of a design flaw unless that can be proven with evidence.
At present, DGCA has one instance with a PCM replacement and they are looking for a pattern with other instances across the fleet. They don’t have a causal link other than the RAT may have been stowed improperly after PCM replacement and testing.
@ Uwe
On the Air India flight with the RAT incident, the AHM detected a Bus Power Control Unit fault.
Certain groups don’t like to talk about that 😉
And to add extra context to this most recent incident, it’s 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
***
Not a good look for BA: 6 Frankenliners sent to India…and, now, a whole spate of incidents with the 787 fleet.
Just to clarify: Air India isn’t suffering from such incidents with other aircraft models.
No wonder the AIP is now asking for the entire Air India 787 fleet to be grounded 🙈
We’ll be sure to add to the factual record, that all whistleblower allegations on the 787 were investigated, and none were substantiated. As the FAA testified before Congress.
But nice try. An Indian web site dredging this up years later and reporting via implication and innuendo, but without the facts, is sure to be more reliable than the authoritative source. 🤦♂️🤡
Who did the investigations? BA?? Who’s kidding here? 🤡
Pedro, as you well know the investigation was conducted by the FAA. This is well documented in the record. But nice try, as always.
@ Pedro
Investigations get published.
Cover-ups don’t 😉
Recently, the FAA announced they found hundreds of quality system violations at Boeing’s 737 factory in Renton, Washington, and Boeing subcontractor Spirit AeroSystems’ 737 factory in Wichita, Kansas.
Nevertheless our poster insists: “Go away. Nothing to see here!” 🙈
Irregularities only took place when the FAA finally took action and had a close look, they didn’t happen other times! Trust me 😅
Frankenliners…
🙄…
Congrats ..
You must be very proud of your new convoluted description of the 787.
About what I’d expect from someone with a 10 year old mentality…
Well done Bryce…
Airbus delivered 73 commercial aircraft in September, bringing the YTD tally to 507.
The deliveries included 60 A319/320/321neo family frames, and 9 A220s.
Accordingly, NB deliveries from AB were basically double those from BA.
https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/airbus-september-2025-orders-deliveries
Congrats on cranking out those A350’s.
So how many exactly did they deliver last month again ?
Let’s see.
Since you failed to mention it, let me help.
How ’bout a single solitary airframe.😆😆😆
That should bode well for meeting those delivery targets promised by the manufacturer..
Well done eh Bryce..😉
India has released the petition to the court for a special investigation of the AAIB and DGCA handling of the Air India Flight 171 crash investigation, in advance of the hearing today.
Among other things, the petition alleges that AAIB leaked information to the media prior to the release of the preliminary report.
The petition outlines 7 factors within the AAIB preliminary report that are concerning:
1. The report was incomplete and did not reveal all the details known by AAIB at the time of its release.
2. Air India did not conduct the FAA recommended inspections of the fuel cutoff switches prior to the accident, and DGCA did not enforce the inspections until after the accident.
3. The accident aircraft had multiple deferred maintenance items. A communication gateway fault listed in the report, between the two Bus Power Control Units (BPCU), may have inhibited the “Run” command to the engine FADECS and caused the accident.
4. The report did not explain the RAT deployment in sufficient detail to determine why it deployed, and whether it was in advance of the engine shutdown signalling.
5. The report did not adequately explain the #2 engine relight sequence failures, which could have resulted from the same condition that shut down the engine.
6. The report did not adequately explain why the aft recorder and emergency transmitter did not survive the accident, yet were fire damaged, which could have been the result of an aft compartment battery fire.
7. The report did not explain testimony of the lone surviving witness, which indicated electrical faults that may have led to the accident.
https://avherald.com/files/BM%20FINAL%20REPLACED%20SAFETY%20MATTERS.pdf
These all would seem to be points that will be addressed in the final report. There is no requirement that they be included in the preliminary report.
The petition requests that AAIB disclose any and all data, and that the court appoint a special investigator for the remainder of the investigation.
The request for disclosure should fail on the merits, as it’s standard investigative procedure to conduct a secure investigation that is not tainted by disclosures. The only exception is if a finding develops that affects the safety of the fleet. AAIB has said they have no such finding, and that was supported by the FAA & NTSB.
Curious. Who funded the petition?? What are their backgrounds?
Your enumeration covers items for a final report
that will obviously not be available on short notice.
AAIB provided a preliminary report.
( and not declared insufficient by the official receipient.)
Concerning: multiple system failure!
> Incident: India B788 near Dubai on Oct 9th 2025, multiple system failures
This was already addressed above. It was likely to be an air data issue, since the automatic systems disengaged, as they are designed to do in the absence of sensor reliability. The crew flew the aircraft by hand without problems.
An automation disconnect is not a systems failure. Unless you are going to count the many similar instances on Airbus aircraft, as system failures.
Further evidence, the aircraft was returned to service within 5 hours.
The 787-8 was on its way to New Delhi. The pilots were forced to divert to Dubai! The airplane was grounded for more than a whole day in Dubai. 😳
@ Pedro
Indeed…multiple systems failed, forcing the pilots to make a stressful nighttime approach and landing with just minimal instrumentation.
I posted about this shocking incident above.
Oh thanks. Missed that. How’s BA EICAS working in its latest aircraft: 787?
Did you see who has turned from the usual advocate of “factual discussion” to a “likely to be” online speculator? Lol. “Rules for thee, but not for me”??
Urgent fire control requires vigorous measures 😉
+1, Ab.
I posted the facts, but we all know facts don’t matter to yourself or Abalone. Only your anti-Boeing agenda matters to you.
The aircraft could not be restored to service so quickly with “multiple system failures”. Nor would the airline remain silent if that was the case.
The fact that they are silent, as are the authorities, tells you all you need to know. But knowledge is truth, and therefore of no interest to either of you.
Here is a far worse incident from June on an A320. This one was actually rated a serious incident by authorities, not by Abalone’s false claims.
https://avherald.com/h?article=5294ef39&opt=0
A quick peruse of AVHerald shows multiple similar events within the Airbus fleet, of going to alternate law because of automation disconnects, over the last 5 years. So I await your similar claims about the horror of Airbus and the travesty that is their triplex automation.
I’ll let Scott deal with you guys, he’s the moderator here. But I’ll say again as I’ve said before, you shouldn’t be posting this crap.
+1,Rob
+2
@ Pedro
In case you missed it from the link above:
“The aircraft experienced failures across critical systems which included Autopilots, ILS (Instrument Landing System), Flight Directors (FDs) and Flight Control System Degradation with no Autoland capability. The pilots could not engage the autopilots due electrical malfunctions; thus, pilots were constrained to fly manually at night and divert to Dubai. Moreover, the FD’s were not available with degraded flight control systems,” the FIP wrote in its letter to Naidu”
The AIP is calling for the AI 787 fleet to be grounded…
Notably the FIP is not an aviation authority, and as we all have witnessed on multiple occasions, they have made claims without evidence, that were subsequently refuted by the authorities.
Their statements on the issue are meaningless without evidence. As are yours. They are intended to provoke doubt and suspicion without the burden of proof, as your posts here also are.
But that only works on the uninformed. Informed observers will require evidence for allegations. There is none provided here.
You have the wrong audience here, as I’ve tried to explain in the past. You’re barking up the wrong tree, if you expect anyone with knowledge and experience to believe this stuff.
Shouldn’t pilots have their voices heard? Shouldn’t the authority listen to them?
“Their statements on the issue are meaningless without evidence”
Oh yeah, but you allowed yourself to speculate based on what it looks like in your mind??
Just today, the same poster made a long post about a petition to court. Well, the petitioner is also not an aviation authority!
Who should look at the mirror and have reflection? Oh, another occasion of “rules for thee, but not for me” again! Who’s posting “craps” here?
Furthermore, what’s in the petition are nothing more than allegations that aren’t proven. So why the hell this poster made such a long post quoting unproven allegations?? For the “uninformed”?
Pedro, pilots are welcome to have their voices heard, and no one has suggested otherwise.
But being heard is not the same as being truthful, or adherence to standards of factuality and the burden of proof.
Which are entirely absent from their statements, and also from the responses from yourself and Abalone.
@ Pedro
Well said!
The call from the Indian pilots is completely legitimate and warranted, and is based on clear facts that are set forth in detail in the public record.
Hard not to laugh when poster posted lengthy unproven allegations lectures others about “adherence to standards of factuality”. 🤣
Mirror mirror can you tell me what this calls?
Just to clarify, there are no facts or evidence provided by either Indian pilot union in their requests regarding the 787.
They are entirely based on supposition and speculation.
Statements by Abalone and Pedro to the contrary, are completely false. As is evident from a perfunctory reading of the material.
Ironically, Pedro has himself stated this a few comments above.
“Furthermore, what’s in the petition are nothing more than allegations that aren’t proven.”
Yes, Pedro 👍
The Indian pilots have based their call on an abundance of publicly available facts…hence the desperate fire suppression efforts from certain parties 🙈
But those who are informed and adhere to reality will fully grasp the validity of the pilots’ stance 👍
Rob, can you be specific about what I said below is “completely false”?
This is a serious claim without any evidence backing. Comments like yours shouldn’t be allowed here!
“Hard not to laugh when poster posted lengthy unproven allegations lectures others about “adherence to standards of factuality”. 🤣
Mirror mirror can you tell me what this calls?”
You purposely cheery pick what I said about your lemgthy post of a petition to court, which as you said, is “unsubstantiated” to imply i was referring to the pilots? Do you know that there’s no petition from the pilot union??
Clearly it’s a crafty misstatement to fool the readers, but I believe most are clear-eyed to see thru such kiddo tricks.
Psst.
Jovi says: …
Bovi must be quiet
“Airlines Say Fixing Broken Boeing Planes Is Bad For Business”
“After regulators found cracks in Boeing 737s, Airlines are fighting increased inspections and safety measures.”
https://www.levernews.com/airlines-say-fixing-broken-boeing-planes-is-bad-for-business/
This article is misleading (imagine that). Reading the airline comments on the NPRM, they actually support the revised rule to increase inspection frequency on the chem milled panels which were used to skin the fuselage on older models of the 737.
Rather the objection was to the requirement to re-establish Alternate Methods of Compliance (AMOC) under the revised AD, when only the inspection interval has changed.
It’s a costly process with the FAA to certify compliance methods that vary from those recommended by Boeing. The airlines are seeking to not repeat that process, if there isn’t a compelling reason to do so.
I can’t speak to how the FAA will rule on this comment, but it’s not an attempt to reduce safety or avoid inspections, as the article implies.
Further I searched for other sources to confirm their analysis, and found none. This is the sole source of this claim on the Internet, all social media references point back to it.
But this is a good example of the “search and post” methods employed so often here, which lack context and understanding and factual verification.
https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2025-1718-0005/attachment_1.pdf
An interesting quote from this story:
“Fixing cracks on Boeing 737s is bad for business because it can lead to significant commercial impacts for airlines and Boeing, including grounding planes, incurring repair costs, and damaging the company’s safety reputation. These issues can cause flight cancellations, hurt airline profits, and force Boeing to work around the clock to develop and provide repair plans and technical support. “
None of which is substantiated in the actual comments made by the airline industry, who as noted were concerned about repeating certification steps for the FAA.
This article’s premise appears to be completely invented, which is probably why it has no other sourcing or coverage online.
More headaches for BA from India:
“Air India tragedy: ‘Boeing, US aviation regulator knew of 787 water leaks in 2016”
http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/124494093.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
***
The PR fire control team are being kept very busy lately…🙈
Again there is no evidence of this being related in any way to the Air India Flight 171 tragedy.
To falsely suggest this is pure innuendo with the malevolent intention to mislead. But as noted, it doesn’t work on people who understand the facts.
It’s also an another example of posting the same crap, again and again and again. There is only one possible motive for doing so, and it’s a clear agenda against truth and factuality. Which doesn’t fool anyone.
Rob,
Well Stated;
+1
Yep
Some interesting quotes from this story:
“…told TOI that documents show America’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing knew of Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s water leak problems as early as 2016.
“Our team obtained FAA and Boeing documents (which show they knew). The documents include field reports of wet computers in electronic equipment bays,” Andrews told TOI over the phone from the US. “I have purchased the referenced couplings, and our experts are evaluating how they loosen and leak.””
““Water intrusion could affect systems (including the aircraft’s tail battery areas). A water leak into Full Authority Digital Engine Control/Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation computer systems explains the symptoms: flickering lights, electrical resets, and the ram air turbine (RAT) deployment,” he said. “Definitive answers require the flight data recorder (FDR) to consider electrical states and cockpit warnings.””
https://infra.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/aviation/faa-and-boeing-knew-of-dreamliner-water-leak-issues-since-2016-lawyer-says/124495202
***
Good grief: BA and the FAA knew about the 787 water leakage issues for years before ordering inspections 🙈
Asked and answered. Once again, repetition does not truthfulness make. There is no evidence for this claim at all.
Each time you attempt this, it becomes clearer what your intent and motivations are.
Why would any airline buy from a airframer that if there’s anything wrong with their aircraft, they’ll start a propaganda to throw the operator under the bus? It’s so disgusting. (I can see there’s a coordinated campaign online.)
It does not fit your narrative/agenda so you come up with ephemeral stuff to do so.
Ah the rr engines in the Mustang. 🤣
AI should would look back at this episode and plan accordingly.
Good news or bad news?
Boeing has a greater widebody backlog than Airbus: 1,550 vs. 1,050 aircraft.
787 production is down from 150 aircraft per year to 50 per year (maybe better this year). Also there are still zero 777-9 delivered with a backlog of 565 aircraft.
How much has Boeing to pay for late deliveries?
The delay might cost BA a hefty sum of $4 billion, according to one estimate.
Thanks for noticing an apparent blindspot of the “selling well” crowd.
Following up on developments discussed above on Air India, DGCA and AAIB:
1. The Indian Supreme Court has rescheduled the petition hearing to November 10th, to allow more time for response by DGCA and AAIB.
2. In the uncommanded Air India 787 RAT deployment incident, DCGA has ordered an inspection of RAT stowage on Indian 787s that had their power control modules (PCM) replaced during a “D” check. The affected aircraft underwent a replacement.
3. DCGA has also requested a report from Boeing on all uncommanded 787 RAT deployments across the fleet, to investigate whether there is a pattern related to the PCM replacement. As well as recommendations for preventive measures to ensure against future uncommanded deployments.
4. AAIB reported that they examined the incident and found no link to the Flight 171 accident.
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/dgca-orders-boeing-to-detail-uncommanded-rat-deploy-after-birmingham-bound-ai-117-incident-11760245192367.html
On market shares / backlogs; Trump pressured countries to buy Boeing aircraft, using tariffs and political protection. All well documented, the current US government is very open on this.
Trump pressured Korean (103, August), Uzbekistan Airways (22, September), Qatar (210, May), Malaysia (30, Aug, 30 March), Indonesia (50, July) , UK (32, IAG), Japan (100, July), (28, Etihad) and Taiwan (14, March) to order Boeing aircraft with GE engines.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-secures-historic-1-2-trillion-economic-commitment-in-qatar/
Good for Boeing, but I think it would be more encouraging to see Boeing win these (mostly WB) orders based on their own capabilities and strengths.
What everyone now sees but doesn’t dare to write down: The US government is saving Boeing. As foreseen by many. Free-market capitalism seems to have been shelved for now.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2025/08/28/experts-government-stake-in-defense-firms-could-harm-industry/
New realities, industrial nationalism & business ethics. While communicating everyone else is playing unfair. Well, people let him get away with it apparently. Moral flexibility in my opinion.
On the other hand:
Threatening to withold Boeing spare parts from China sends a strong message that, when you buy a US product, you enslave yourself to future US whim.
In that regard, Trump gave Boeing an enormous blow going forward.
Also, the Gulf countries are seething over that recent attack on Doha. If that had happened before Trump’s visit, those big Boeing orders would probably not have gone ahead.
He’s booking short-term gains…but long-term losses.
Keesje, I agree about what Trump did, but let’s not forget that Macron rushed to China to secure a huge Airbus order, when Biden was sparring with the Chinese over Taiwan, and territorial rights in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
The reality is that both sides press their advantage and their opportunities. I think that’s an example of the free market working.
Although like you, I would prefer that governments stay out of it. But I think that’s just not realistic because the economic stakes are so large.
Rob, saying others do/did it also, suggesting a kind of balanced, level playing field, is far from reality and you know it. But what are reality / facts these days.. I guess if they comfort, they must be right.
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/trump-trade-deal-boeing-japan/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm2kv2erxlo
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/16/trump-says-indonesia-to-pay-19-tariffs-buy-50-boeing-jets-under-trade-deal
If the EU or a member would do any of this, people would cry out against this unacceptable political bullying, the violation of all international trade rules and damaging fair competition. But these days we are getting used to it, observe & move on.
Maybe it is a good thing US government is saving Boeing. What if they did not? We would have a factual monopoly..
The risk is overtime Asia, Europe, South America, Australia, Canada and even Russia will sideline US trade / products / exports, also on aerospace.
Signs are already there. If Trump somehow manages to “streamline” US checks & balances and puts Vance on his throne US aerospace might become a self supporting island. While the rest moves on.
In the past US government ordered 700 B52s, 700 KC135s, 2000 B47s , that’s what launched Boeing into airliner dominance. Maybe hey should do something similar.
Keesje, I am not defending Trump’s methods, far from it. I merely pointed out that other nations are not above exploiting political expediency in pursuit of market share.
If your close ally challenges China on illegal actions and defends the rights of other nations, should you stand beside them, or go to China to score a big win for your own nation, by taking advantage of Chinese unhappiness with the US for taking a principled stand against them? Which you endorse in private but in public pursue a major deal with the opposing side? That’s what Macron did.
Which is fine, I’m not really upset that he did that. All’s fair in love, war, and marketing. China was not going to give that business to the US, no matter what. But I don’t think anyone in Europe should be pointing fingers, just be honest that you take advantage of opportunities as well.
As far as the US military contracts, no need to rehash that as its been argued here endlessly. Nothing is preventing Europe and the rest of the world from giving defense contracts to Airbus. The US is the #1 defender of the world and of NATO, maintaining forces globally. So naturally they are going to have much larger contracts. If the EU and Airbus want to take that over, nothing is stopping them, and in fact Trump is actually urging them to do so.
Which is not an endorsement of Trump’s NATO policy, I actually think it’s foolhardy to go after your friends and allies when there is a clear threat on the border. But there is a legitimate reason that US defense contractors have so much more business than European contractors.
In 40 years, I have never heard anyone in the industry even hint that the reason is to support the commercial aircraft market. In fact I never heard that at all before Airbus raised it at the WTO, which notably rejected it. It’s a fairly unique perspective.
“In 40 years, I have never heard anyone in the industry even hint that the reason is to support the commercial aircraft market. In fact I never heard that at all before Airbus raised it at the WTO, which notably rejected it. It’s a fairly unique perspective.”
Interesting. As if military technology on materials, engines, systems R&D is split between defense & civil somehow, no dual use.
I created a prompt for you, put it in your favorite AI tool: “How did defense technology support civil aerospace research and development, dual use, over the last 40 years in the US. Explain, create a time line, name examples. Use and quote respectable sources.”
Yeah but each of the F-35 for the USAF delivered last year were delayed for more than a year; the TR3 F-35 aren’t ready for combat and are only allowed for training only! The advanced F-35 TR2 now are considered at a tech deadening since it doesn’t worth to upgrade them to Block 4. Block 4, OTIH, is now delayed past 2031. Spending doesn’t mean capability. Time to drain the swamp, stop the gravy train to the MIC.
Oh BTW do you want to hear about the K-46A from BDS?
“Well over a trillion a year in national security spending”
@keesje:
The argument about US military spending benefiting US economy and somehow evil, is purely nuts.
Europe does it all the time (as does the rest of the world). Contract offsets are a way of life.
Your contention (and the heart of that acuasaion) is the US only does it to been fit industry. That is pure nonsense. I would even call it BS at risk with Scott.
So, let me list the kit and what we got out of it. C-130 (still selling well). B-52 (most retired but the H model soldiers on, hundreds built. B-47 (ditto B-52 other than it was a kind of stop gap mid area that the B-52 was better for. M-109 (155 mm artillery). Set the standard for the world, sold lots and is the base copy of all 155mm artillery (superseded by better but the core idea is still there, turret, tracked). CH-47 (Chin kook). No idea how many built, lots. F-4 Phantom, once the military of the Western and many other area).
So yes there were military contracts. Yes there is some benefits that morph over to the civilian side. So what? Unlike Europe, we got numbers of good stuff.
So you call it unfair when your area would not do the heavy lifting and create competitive. But, your economy still benefits from the dribs and drabs programs and your companies can send across any tech that applies to civilian items.
You guys of that view are simply looking foolish with a fake argument.
We DO NOT GIVE away contracts to benefit a company. Those contracts and programs are to benefit the US Military equipment needs. Companies do benefit, its called staying in business.
Tell me European countries do not want to stay in business (defense).
Airbus has a defense side. That the A350 benefite4d from the A400 is not a arguments, Again its so what. Right or wrong they convinced the Airbus group of nations to support and buy the A400.
I think the C-17 is the way to have gone.
Then I see happy feet that Embraer C-390 is turning into some success vs the updated modern C-130J .
Ok, why did you do a prop job if its so good? Seems like the so called dumb, old Herc Tech (granted is 10 generations improved).
You are arguing against yourself.
If you don’t like something you jump into alternative reality and invent spurious things.
You want to disagree, argues on the facts and merits.
So let me throw out a fact. I don’t think Boeing should get tax breaks for facilities. Plain and simple.
Reality is no matter how much I dislike it, I can’t change it. I can and do address the issue with congress, but I am a lone voice against big bucks.
Boeing has a tanker contract and its delivered 100 of them and will deliver 250 some. It was not a give away. They in fact are loosing money on that contract. Their problem, they signed the contract.
Big picture its bad because we don’t want defense companies going out of business. The base is all too narrow as it is.
The E-7 was negotiated to make a profit, maybe won’t be but the first two are being converted in the UK. Yipee for the UK.
Boeing, LM, NG are not getting something for nothing. The econo9my also benefits and any transfer tech, cool, we put in the money, no reason not to get maximum benefit.
“We DO NOT GIVE away contracts to benefit a company”
Lmao. Com’on. GAO reports: the Pentagon doled out incentives to LM even though every F-35 delivered to the USAF was delayed by like a year. They are literally sharing the same bed: the Pentagon and LM and other prime contractors.
Spending like a drunken sailor, the TR4 F35 is delayed to 2031 or later, aircraft carriers will drop to ten in less than two years…
“Boeing, LM, NG are not getting something for nothing.”
Yeah the GDP is going up, executives are getting richer and richer. Oh employees now don’t enjoy pension anymore. And the result of the world’s superpower spending like $1 trillion dollar? Lost three F-18 and like 30-plus MQ-9, got beaten by goat herders without a navy.
The result of wasting $$$ on boondoggles:
> America is ‘going broke slowly’ says J.P. Morgan
Further to the recent spate of incidents with Air India 787s, it’s useful to re-draw attention to Ed Pierson’s recent testimony before congress:
“Mr Pierson, who is an aviation safety advocate with the Foundation of Aviation Safety, said, “I can tell you our foundation has been monitoring them closely… not just the 787s but other planes… and we’ve seen a bothersome pattern of issues we don’t believe are being addressed in a timely manner.””
“This follows scrutiny over the horrific crash of Air India’s AI-171, a London-bound flight that seemed to lose power and slam into a residential area in Gujarat’s Ahmedabad 36 seconds after take-off.”
“”The thing that really jumped out was the report of a passenger who said they had flown a couple hours before the crash. He said none of the systems were working… referring to the air-conditioning and other systems. (But) there are backups, so those systems should always be working. So that’s a little bit of a concern. Not saying anything definitively… but it is something that should be investigated.””
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/air-india-ahmedabad-plane-crash-news-boeing-787-dreamliner-whistleblower-ed-pierson-ndtv-interview-chaotic-dangeorous-manufacturing-8667759
***
Looks like multiple parties won’t be blindly accepting the standard pilot-blaming narrative until much more data — from many different sources — is examined.
This open wound for BA won’t be going away any time soon 🙈
Au contraire: it just seems to keep on festering…
Just to clarify, Ed Pierson has made dozens of claims, none of which have ever been substantiated.
He is well known at the FAA for filing complaints that turn out to have no factual basis. This would seem to be another example.
Again, there is a burden of proof and standards of evidence required for allegations like this. They have not been met.
Petition to court is also claims not substantiated. More rules for thee but not for me performances.
Petitions to the court do not need to be substantiated on submission, so your point is moot. But they will not pass muster during the court’s consideration, if they lack evidence. As this petition does.
Why you created such a lengthy post to detail such claims that you know fully well they are unsubstantiated? What’s your purpose here?
@ Pedro
Just to clarify: We can be sure that the DGCA and other associated bodies are very interested in Ed Pierson, and have short lines to chat with him. Substantiation is not something that has to occur in public…it can happen very efficiently behind the scenes 😉
Apart from that: the electrical failures referenced by Pierson are based on reports from passengers on the flight before the crash flight — all on the public record.
So, plenty of substantions — they’re just not convenient to a particular narrative 🙈
Notably Abalone and Pedro consistently refer to substantiation, yet they offer none. Not for Ed Pierson, not for the Indian petition, and not for the Indian pilots unions.
And as also noted, Pedro has already admitted this openly in the course of discussion. Which doesn’t prevent him form circling back to the beginning and starting over again.
Thus their objective, and their agenda, is immediately obvious and transparent, when they continue to argue factually refuted points, without evidence.
That’s all that need be said here. Their methods are also obvious to anyone who understands the formal rules of logic and debate. It just wastes time and space in the comment section to continually repeat claims that are established as unsubstantiated and without proof of any kind.
Neither did our poster Rob who only points finger at others without providing any substantiation himself.
Lol!!!
When engine makers like CFM made a promise it can’t keep, who bears the costs? CFM or the customers?
https://theaircurrent.com/engine-development/ge-aerospace-engine-wing-durability-industry-economics/
> The rejected headline for this article was ‘GE wants its customers to pound sand’.
https://bsky.app/profile/jonostrower.com/post/3m33cqvctv223
It helps to acquire an engineering understanding of the problems involved.
There are two primary issues with the LEAP engines. The first is erosion of the high pressure turbine blades, due to particulate matter in the ingested airstream. As GE/Safran have noted, the engine was certified against the required level of particulates. But in practice, they have found that the chemical composition and grain size of particulates varies widely by location and altitude. Some degrade the coatings on the blades more rapidly than others. Especially given the extreme operating temperatures of the LEAP engine, at which there is sufficient activation energy to drive chemical reactions between the particulates and the blades/coatings.
In response they have taken samples from around the world, to replicate the erosion conditions in the lab. Then developed modifications to the blade coatings that are more resistant to the spectrum of conditions that can occur.
So in that sense, you could say that GE/Safran is quite literally addressing the issue of their engines “pounding sand”, but perhaps not in the intended context.
The second issue is the excessive coking of the fuel injection nozzles. This is related to the quality of fuel and frequent start/stop cycles of the engines, which also vary by airline and location. At shutdown, any residual fuel in the nozzle will be volatized by the very high residual temperatures, since the flow of fuel is the primary nozzle cooling method. This leaves behind “coke”, which is the heavy carbon deposits that undergo hardening chemical reactions at very high temperatures.
Coking is normally associated with rocket engines that burn kerosene, at extremely high temperatures. The solution there is often to use special grades of kerosene with the heavy carbon elements removed. Obviously that is not a practical solution for commercial aircraft. But it says something about how close to the edge the LEAP engine operates, that it has the same issue as a rocket engine.
The GE/Safran solution to the coking problem is a reverse bleed system. that flushes cooler compressor air through the nozzle after shutdown, to preserve cooling and prevent coking of residual fuel.
Both of these changes are incorporated into the LEAP durability package. You could argue that these issues could have been foreseen. But as an engineer, I can tell you these are the kinds of problems that pop up when you operate in a new temperature and pressure regime. You typically don’t find them until you have a service history.
In any event, its clear that GE/Safran takes them seriously and is not telling the customer to “pound sand”. It takes time to develop and test solutions, and then to get them certified by regulators around the world. It’s not a trivial task.
Tell that to Jon. Better yet, say it in his face.
Or may be he has talked more with the airline customers than a person like you who didn’t.
I have factually refuted Jon’s reporting more than once. I wouldn’t hesitate to do so again.
If either he or you can refute the facts I gave above, you are welcome to do so.
https://x.com/LeehamNews/status/1977855560847405341
According to the president of an airline: “The current generation of narrow body engines has been a total bust in reliability and cost.”
What an endorsement!
Yes, that one statement totally explains and resolves the issue. And contains no drama whatsoever.
Which is why every airline is removing LEAP engines and disposing of them. And no airline is ordering more engines or waiting for them.
How could the rest of the world be so foolish? 🤦♂️🤡
“Brand new Ryanair Boeing 737 Max jet carrying 160 to Britain is evacuated with emergency slides deployed moments from take-off after smoke reported in cabin and cockpit”
“A brand new Ryanair Boeing plane that was set to carry 160 people to the UK has been evacuated after smoke was reported in the cabin and cockpit.
“The Boeing 737 MAX 8-200, which had the registration EI-ILN, was due to fly from Krakow, Poland, to Bristol on October 12.
“But as the plane taxied to the runway, crew members said they began to smell smoke.
“The captain of the plane abandoned the flight, telling flight attendants to open up the emergency slides.
“Thankfully, there were no reported injuries. A spokesperson for Krakow airport told Bild: ‘The causes of the incident are currently unknown. The passengers have been returned to the terminal, and the aircraft is currently being inspected by the authorities’.
“The plane, which was only delivered to the budget airline on September 30 this year, is still at Krakow Airport and is being examined by technicians.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15187349/Brand-new-Ryanair-Boeing-737-Max-jet-carrying-160-Britain-evacuated-emergency-slides-deployed-moments-smoke-reported-cabin-cockpit.html
Just curious, is Boeing/are our posters going to blame the operator? 🙄
Ryanair issued a statement that the smoke appeared to originate in the rear galley. They are investigating the cause. Galley issues are fairly common across the industry.
Mr. Hamilton, here you are:
“Forbes: Veteran Boeing Reporter Lays It All Out In New Book”
“Scott Hamilton was already a recognized expert on Boeing in 1989, when I started to cover airlines for The Miami Herald. I began reaching out to him when I needed information about Boeing. This has not changed.”
“Hamilton first followed Boeing in 1985. His intricate knowledge of the company is reflected in his new book “The Rise and Fall of Boeing And the Way Back.” It’s not just that he knows all the twists and turns of Boeing’s history, but also that he was there for much of it and can call upon interviews he did decades ago for his publication, Leeham News & Analysis, as well as interviews for this book and a previous one about Airbus.”
…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2025/10/13/veteran-boeing-reporter-lays-it-all-out-in-new-book/
“New export figures suggest China could weather escalation of trade war with US”
“China’s exports rose by 8.3 per cent in September compared with a year earlier, and versus a 4.4 per cent year-on-year increase in August.
“Crucially, September’s increase came despite a 27 per cent fall in Chinese exports to the US as a result of Trump’s tariffs.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2025/10/13/new-export-figures-suggest-china-could-weather-escalation-of-trade-war-with-us/
BI: Boeing’s 777X was supposed to lead its comeback, but it has been delayed — again. This is why that’s such a big deal.
> Boeing will continue to hand Airbus market share
Another year’s delay for the 777X means another year that Airbus can sell and deliver its rival A350.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-another-delay-boeing-new-777x-such-a-big-deal-2025-10
From the article:
“Aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia told BI on Monday that the “good news” is that this delay does not appear to be due to another technical issue, which contributed to Boeing’s 2024 decision to delay the plane to 2026.
“A lot of it seems to be due to factors that aren’t in their control; FAA bandwidth worsened by a government shutdown,” he said.”
I’m sure Ortberg will have more to say about this in the earnings call. Until then I will reserve judgement.
$4 billion reach forward charge coming. Does Ortberg have any idea when the 777-9 is certified? May be BA’s problems are too deep to fix for Ortberg.
Seems to be recurring theme here .
“Smoke in the Cockpit”
Strange,a Delta had that exact same thing happen on their A330 neo. On a flight to Boston from London just last week,smoke entered the cockpit promoting an emergency landing and immediate return to Heathrow.
This is the latest incident of a Delta A330-900 experiencing fumes or smoke in the cabin,with 3 other incidents reported last year .
Ohh yes, if Bryce won’t report it, obviously it’s meaningless in the Grand scheme of things..
Carry on all.
https://simpleflying.com/emergency-diversion-delta-a330-returns-london-fumes-cockpit/
Selective.
Lies repeated often enough become the truth.
+1
> Flight returns to Las Vegas after smoke smell, radio failure
Passengers on a Southwest Airlines flight from Las Vegas were rerouted Sunday evening because of smoke and equipment trouble, officials said.
I think for Boeing on the way back, Airbus is a moving target. I suspect Airbus engineering is not sitting on their hands and preliminary design, calculations, simulations are done on low risk stretches;
+ A350-2000 (benefiting from A350F MTOW development & RR Ultrafan)
+ A322NEO (trading capacity for range, benefiting from A321XLR 101t MTOW)
+ A220-500 (trading capacity for range)
No new wings needed weakening the business cases. All three seem feasible, low risk programs, that Airbus can put on the table with major operators. What could be Boeings responds when Airbus starts sharing their product development roadmap?
Boeing can put on the table the 777-9, 737-10 as “new” programs, 777-8. 787-9F? But the bulk of the market is <250 seats<2500NM. I think somehow Boeing / US Aerospace should come up with something superior soon there, instead of telling each other why this should / could be delayed.
Maybe Trump will tell Heckseth the Air Force badly needs 250 ultra efficient transport machines about the size of his own 757 & a fat tender will be out before year-end.
New efficient aircraft, strengthening national security and replacing older polluting aircraft to protect the environment.
Much resources are dumped to the two fighter projects. Who can still muster the extra resources required? For years, the contractors have been coasting and cutting back to inflate profits. You reap what you sow.
The next replacement cycle won’t begin until the mid 2030’s, around the time both Airbus and Boeing are targeting for a new aircraft EIS. There may be some lesser introductions during that time. But I think the major investment will be in the new aircraft.
Boeing has no choice in the narrowbody market, the 737 is on its last generation. Airbus could in theory still revise the A320 and A220 families, but I suspect they would rather do a new aircraft as well.
I think the market will rule. Intra Europe, Intra China/ Asia and intra US, Leisure, there is a huge market for a quiet efficient 220-250 seat aircraft and no competition.
Using A321XLR wing and center fuselage would reduce risk & lead time. Existing supply chain & production can be used, revenue per slot can be increased while dominating strategic market segments in China, US and Europe for decades.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviation_innovation/attach/16bb07e6671fcb/Airbus%20A322%20NEO%20Fake%20keesje%20NMA%201.jpg?part=0.1&view=1
The new Airbus NB design will most likely be optimized for ~175-200 seats /< 2000NM, where the bulk of global air traffic goes and the A320/737 replacement market sits.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351583250/figure/fig2/AS:1023361807298560@1620999876565/Distance-distribution-of-daily-flights-worldwide-Data-from-ref-5.ppm
Agreed on this. Airbus is in a position to do either or both options. Boeing really isn’t, they will have to do the second option as a first priority.
@keesje
Boeing is quickly approaching the point where everything in its portfolio will need replaced or updated
The B787 is not exactly new; the B777X will linger for years until all variants are released. The Max is already in an inferior position and Boeing does not play in the 100-150 pax category.
This isn’t really true based on orders and production slots. Boeing is pretty comfortable with their 3 offerings, plus freighters.
That situation will change as they clear out the order book, but they have some years yet before that will happen. And it doesn’t change the replacement cycle in the mid 2030’s, they will have to be ready for that in any case.
The only thing that would change it is if P&W came out with a new GTF that was optimized for all they have leaned (including military programs!)
GE took the high heat route and its reached its limit. They need a GTF and RR is putting its investment into a prototype.
There literally nothing Boeing can do about the A321. Airbus can’t do anything about the 787 though as Leeham noted, it does not compensate fully for the lower single aisle market.
Interesting add on is if Embraer gets any success from the Avelo and in US ops as direct flights on lower serviced (or no serviced) routes.
It would be a good time for Boeing to go hat in hand with money to pay for the previous Embraer damage and link up with them. The they could target the lower market while Boeing looks at the upper market.
Certainly a good opportunity to link up with and into the C-390 program as a counter to LM and the C-130J (making it the 10th iteration, aka updated)
@TW
Flew under the radar (pun intended)…but there is already a military version of the GTF (kinda) for the B21.
https://www.airplane-trade.com/pratt-whitney-unveils-pw9000-military-engine/
The PW9000 is not a geared turbofan, it’s Pratt’s adaptive engine technology.
It adds a third airstream to the conventional two airstreams for combustion and bypass air.
The third airstream can be added to the bypass airstream to increase the bypass ratio and engine efficiency at cruise, which extends the range of the aircraft.
Or it can be added to the combustion airstream to increase compression ratio and power/thrust output, which boosts combat performance.
The challenge was to make this change smoothly and convertibly in flight, so the pilot or the avionics can select the operational mode best suited for the circumstance.
GE/Safran has their own version of this technology, and the two engines will compete for various military aircraft.
@Rob
That’s why I said “kinda”
It has the core of the GTF and a new low spool that is direct drive. GTF platforms are not readily applicable to a military installation unless it is on something that will not readily see combat…like a cargo plane.
At the moment Boeing has no freighter on offer from 2028 onwards. Will there be a 787 freighter? When will there be the first 777-8F available for costumers? Many passenger airlines are awaiting their 777-9. I doubt Boeing will soon have capacity left for 777-8f F.
I think there was an idea for a B787F but never a real articulated plan.
This is speculation…but Boeing is probably reluctant to sign up for a derivative that has a high amount of technical risk right now. The B767F was old tech…but it served a purpose…and it lived a very long life. Another example of one too many potential development projects stacking up for Boeing.
A Dreamfreighter may be dependent on Dreamliner interest waning.
On the third hand:
there are some option, long time massaged in the grapewine that never seem to materialize.
787 HGW, 787 freighter, MAX7/10, …
so much PR and no real action.
The narrative has changed. It’s ALL about production rate now — negative FCF focused the mind.
When BDS was sitting idle, they peddled this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G3KwbBaXwAA6-Ox?format=png&name=small
to what effect?
All those objects to transport get fatter and heavier.
The C-17FE I believe.
When BDS desperately needs to drum up new businesses, anything is possible.
C17’s cargo compartment has a width of 5.5 m. Maybe 4.5 m will be enough for most vehicles.
Is it true that AB is enjoying a 10% to 15% lower cost due to economy of scale in the NB market?
This looks like a vicious spiral for BA as AB can lower prices to squeeze out BA, or use the extra profits to fund development.
Then they have to quit paying the governments for them, they need that profit margin for the Payola . The governments finally got a deal going out of it and they are not going to give it up. Once in with the Mafia always in with the Mafia.
BA deliveries for September are now available.
There were 40 MAXs delivered, but 5 of those were old frames from the parking lot:
LN7715 6.1 years China Southern
LN7798 5.9 years Shenzhen
LN7948 4.3 years Xiamen
LN8194 3.5 years Xiamen
LN8235 3.4 years Shenzhen
That means that only 35 came from the line — which, once again, falls short of the much-touted figure of 38.
To use the parlance of a particular commenter:
“BA is making unsubstantiated claims with regard to its 737 MAX line rate”. 😉
***
Further: 7 787s
And then the legacy and military frames
3 777Fs
2 767Fs
2 KC-46As
1 737 NG
That gives us 52 commercial aircraft deliveries, of which 47 were non-legacy.
Total deliveries YTD are 440.
https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/boeing-september-2025-orders-deliveries
This again. Give it up, Bryce.
Ortberg explained clearly that Boeing now reduces rate in response to a loss of KPI. Then they build up to it again to ensure the KPI is maintained.
This is how they maintain quality, and it’s a good thing. Further it’s a requirement for requesting a rate increase from the FAA. It doesn’t mean they can’t produce at a higher rate, it means they choose not to.
I know you have a compulsion to misreport things in order to support your narrative, and that you have no control over that behavior. But it doesn’t alter the truth or the reality.
Last I checked, 35 was an integer number on the way to 38. Which is perfectly consistent with Boeing statements. And nothing you have said here undoes the earlier production numbers from the second quarter.
Further, you don’t know how many aircraft went into inventory, you only know how many came out. So you don’t really know the production number.
“Ortberg explained clearly that Boeing now reduces rate in response to a loss of KPI. Then they build up to it again to ensure the KPI is maintained.”
fit together with:
“Sept. 17, 2025, © Leeham News: “We were almost at parity on deliveries with Airbuses last month…. We’re getting there.”
That was the opening salvo from The Boeing Company (BA) and CEO Kelly Ortberg, as it begins to claw its way back from the depths after a difficult six-year stretch.”
😕
Or, put another way:
– “Lies repeated don’t become the truth.”
– “BA is spreading falsehoods and misinformation”
– “BA’s claim has no basis in fact”
…and so on…
One should ensure that the evidentiary standard being advocated for Air India, Cynthia Kitchens, Ed Pierson, etc., is applied equally to BA 😉
***
Even at 35 p/m, quality is looking shoddy.
That Ryanair MAX referenced above was just a few days old when it filled with smoke mid-flight and had to make an emergency landing, with evacuation via slides.
In view of the timing of the delivery, one wonders if its airworthiness certificate was BA-based or FAA-based…🤔
Doesn’t inspire much confidence in the recently-relaxed FAA babysitting policy…🙈
All of these points already have been addressed here. You’re just executing the well-recognized tactic of circling around back to the beginning and starting over again with the same false claims.
It’s the last thing you can do when you’ve lost those arguments on the facts. But it doesn’t work, as has been explained to you countless times. Repetition is not an argument, and it doesn’t alter the facts.
Of further interest here:
Even though BCA has higher numbers of widebody deliveries per quarter than AB, the revenue per frame at BCA is consistently lower than that at AB — by about $12M per frame in recent quarters.
This means that BCA is drastically under-pricing…which, of course, is a major contributor to its ongoing losses (in addition to higher production costs).
#Remarkable
@All
Boeing’s true line rate is going to be revealed soon enough…believe I saw a link where the last of the shutdown inventory had been pulled out of mothballs. The Q3 results will indicate what little (if anything) is left of the aged inventory.
BA’s quarterly reports don’t contain any data pertaining to line rates — though they may contain (unverifiable) claims by executives.
We already know the monthly deliveries for Q3, aswell as the deliveries from inventory — subtracting the latter from the former gives the line deliveries.
Seeing as it’s now 5 months since BA claimed to have hit line rate 38 on the MAX, there should be some manifestation of this in the line deliveries number…but there isn’t.
Until such time as there is, Ortberg’s assertions on the matter are just hot air.
@Abalone
They do not report line rates…but usually indicate how much “special inventory” is held. The Max shutdown inventory has been regularly reported in the earnings report (B787 as well).
The Q2 results indicated 20 Max8 were left in inventory. The same report indicated 15 B787.
This is all exclusive of any Max7, Max10 or B777X aircraft produced and in limbo.
@Casey
IIRC what BA referred to are the MAX not delivered due to grounding in 2019, BA never go public about how many finished aircraft are not delivered.
Further to the trade war discussion above, this has to be the laugh of the day:
“President Trump later Tuesday said on Truth Social that he believes China is “purposefully not buying our Soybeans” and considers it an “Economically Hostile Act.””
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/trump-tariffs-live-updates-trump-threatens-trade-retribution-against-beijing-over-soybeans-stellantis-to-invest-13b-in-us-162418826.html
As if sanctions, levies on Chinese ships, export bans, etc., aren’t “economically hostile acts” 😆
#YouReapWhatYouSow
“Truth Social”
the name is a hoot.
But it is so 1984 I could puke.
In one go, the other side practically neutralizes that.
More litigation and bad PR for Boeing:
“Families of Jeju Air crash victims file lawsuit against Boeing in US court”
“Families of victims of a Jeju Air plane crash that occurred late last year have filed a lawsuit against U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing in an American court, holding the company responsible for alleged manufacturing defects, according to the families Wednesday.
“According to the families and their legal representatives, two of the three domestic and international law firms representing the families have recently filed complaints with the Superior Court of King County in Seattle, Washington.
“The remaining law firm is reportedly preparing to file an additional complaint.
“The families claim that multiple failures in critical landing equipment occurred as the Jeju Air 7C2216 aircraft approached the runway, arguing that Boeing bears responsibility for defects that led to the fatal accident on Dec. 29 at Muan International Airport that claimed the lives of 179 passengers and crew members.”
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/law-crime/20251015/families-of-jeju-air-crash-victims-file-lawsuit-against-boeing-in-us-court
***
Very good move by the victims’ families.
There are still many unanswered technical questions about what lead this plane to approach and land in such a highly sub-optimal configuration.
Another case, similar to Air India Flight 171, where it is difficult for the public to accept crew actions.
From the AVHerald:
“On Jul 19th 2025 relatives of the victims reported, they have received update information about the progress of the investigation and were shown an interim report in a private meeting, a press conference to present that interim report to media was scheduled afterwards.
The families objected the report in fury. The spokeswoman for the relatives said, that according to the latest findings, though the investigation was still on ongoing, the right hand engine had been severely damaged by the bird strike, said to have been Baikal Teal Ducks (average weight about 1 pound/0.454kg), while the left hand engine was still operational, however, was shut down by the crew. If the investigation takes such a position it should present documents to support that position to convince the families that these conclusions are inevitable, however, they were only given the conclusions and no documents.
Another family said, that they can not accept the board’s report simply blaming the pilot while ignoring issues like the runway slope, the concrete structure at the runway end and possible mechanical defects.
A lawyer for the families stated: “The families did not get an adequate explanation. In fact, depending on how you look at it, it kind of puts all the blame on the dead birds and the dead pilots.”
An official told South Korean Media in the wake of this scheduled press conference on Saturday Jul 19th 2025, that *the crew should have shut down the right hand engine, but turned off the left hand engine.*
The Ministry, following the uproar by the families in the private meeting, collected all copies of that interim report back and stated, the report has not been released. The press conference was cancelled.”
https://avherald.com/h?article=52225189&opt=0
Shouldn’t everyone wait for the final reports? Oh blame the pilots, blame the dead!
After a whole series of all-lives-lost crashes, and a well-document list of horrendous quality slips, that “go-to” playbook isn’t convincing anyone…
What makes this case particularly troubling is the complete lack of useful FDR and/or CVR data — which means inter alia that assertions about shutting down the wrong engine have no basis in fact.
We’re left with many nagging questions about the apparent total loss of electrical/hydraulic functionality, and the lack of APU deployment.
BA, of course, is trying its usual ploy of “foreign pilot blaming” — but is thereby assuming a degree of public gullibility that falls into the category of “wishful thinking” 🙈
Very notably, it’s not Boeing saying these things, it’s the Korean civil aviation authority.
Also there is plenty of evidence available for the engine states, the controllers have non volatile memories that would retain the last moments of operation.
Additionally the Korean Bereaved Family Council, who are coordinating assistance efforts for the families, disclaimed the Boeing lawsuits as individual family actions, not representative of the council position or action.
The council is focused on holding Korean authorities and the airline responsible. The anger at the briefing was that nothing was said about the airport design or the presence of a concrete structure in the path of an aircraft overrunning the runway.
The point of these lawsuits is to get some kind of settlement from Boeing. It’s a common strategy as it’s cheaper for large companies to settle than to litigate. But there is no evidence of flaws or defects in the aircraft.
What would we know if there’s no congress investigation after the dual crashes? Everything would have be hush hush buried away! The skeleton in the closet would remain there. It’d be fun to watch if BA is willing to drag it out to discovery. Hahaha.
It’s pretty clear that poster here doesn’t pretend to be objective anymore. One-sided corporate reputation management in action.
Anyone here can find where’s the source of the July info? Any original reports in Korean?
Pedro, this is just junk speculation without foundation of any kind.
As usual, you are free to post any evidence. But there is none, so you can’t.
This pattern is so transparent that your posts here no longer have any credibility.
Your lengthy of a petition to court, detailing allegations not substantiated is an evidence.
Your statement is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be evidence if it’s not substantiated.
@ Pedro
Just to clarify:
Evidence only needs to be “substantiated” when it’s inconvenient to a certain narrative.
It requires no “substantiation” when it’s in line with that narrative.
For example:
Rate 38 on the MAX: zero substantiation, but “Kelly said so”, and so it must be fact 😉
Abalone, evidence must always be substantiated. Just because you refuse to accept evidence, does not mean it’s unsubstantiated.
In your world, evidence is to be denied, deflected, and misrepresented at all costs, in order to push false narratives.
But as I’ve mentioned before, no one here is fooled by that.
The evidence is your post I referred to, there’s no speculation.
OTOH I’m still waiting for the evidence of your baseless claim. 🙄
Lol!! You guys really are something else. No floor at all. You can’t reverse a request for evidence by pushing the burden off onto your opponent. I’ve already explained this to you.
It doesn’t matter how many times you try it, it never works. It’s conspiracy theorist territory. The burden is always on you to support your own statements.
Nice try for deflection but it doesn’t work.
I was referring to: ‘Rob, can you be specific about what I said below is “completely false”?’ 👆
Allegation without evidence is your MO!
no APU on the 737.
Especially Korean Military and some noteworthy politicians seems to have a Stockholm syndrome like relation to the US.
( that “lets start a war with NK” gambit wall quite breathtaking )
It’s not known why the crew did not start the APU.
All we know at present is that birds were ingested in both engines, with the right engine being more heavily damaged than the left. The right engine underwent a compressor stall.
The crew then shut down the left engine, which was still working. And post crash analysis showed the right engine, while damaged, was capable of providing enough power for flight, but was throttled back after the stall.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/jeju-air-jet-still-had-working-engine-when-it-crashed-investigation-update-says-2025-07-27/
@ Uwe
We can be sure that the antiquated cockpit alert system caused maximal crew confusion, while giving minimal assistance.
There was probably also smoke in the cockpit.
We must also remember that there are many well-documented problems with the 737 APU.
We only have a preliminary report…and, yet, the pilot-blaming narrative is in overdrive.
Fascinating how one can assert that the state of a mechanical switch after a high-speed crash reliably indicates its state before the crash 🙈
#NarrativeShaping
Asked and answered. These are just the same misleading tricks being repeated.
#NoEvidence #Misinformation
And as noted earlier, these facts are released by the South Korean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB). Not by me and not by Boeing. Therefore there is no “shaping of the narrative”, except by you. There are only facts.
If we take a step back and look beyond Boeing as the near-synonym for U.S. civil aerospace, a broader recovery and renewal initiative could emerge for the entire American aerospace sector.
At the core of Boeing’s current crisis IMO lies a deeply ingrained set of capitalistic incentives that have dominated the company’s governance for the past two decades. Executive behavior has been shaped by short-term financial metrics, prioritizing immediate shareholder returns, minimizing long-term investment, and focusing on free cash flow distribution, stock buy backs rather than sustainable innovation.
Boeing leadership rewards have reflected this narrow horizon, often tied to stock performance and financial optics rather than to lasting industrial and technological value. Boeing’s CEO received over $33 million (20x his base salary) in compensation in 2023, despite the company facing continued operational, reputational, and strategic challenges. This illustrates a misalignment between executive incentives and the long-term health of both Boeing and the broader U.S. aerospace ecosystem.
Boeing’s leadership should instead be evaluated and rewarded based on parameters that reflect enduring portfolio health, contribution to the U.S. aerospace industry and society, and tangible financial results achieved through sound engineering and operational excellence, not through financial engineering or stake holder perception management.
Maybe now is the moment for change. Boeing’s increasing dependence on the U.S. government; for aircraft sales support, tax incentives, export financing, defense contracts, certification oversight, and R&D funding, provides Washington with real leverage. This dependency gives Uncle Sam an opportunity, and arguably a responsibility, to reset the rules and expectations that will guide the next generation of American aerospace leadership.
An JV of Boeing with RTX, NASA, GE, building a superior light & efficient passenger aircraft series covering 150-200 passengers could revive the US industry.
Denying & justifying the trajectory Boeing and its supply chain are on today, seems risky & irresponsible for long term continuity.
Keesje, notably you’re arguing here for government involvement in Boeing’s business. Yet earlier in this same thread, you argued that government involvement in Boeing’s business was an unfair advantage.
You appear to be arguing both sides of the issue, which is a characteristic of Abalone and Pedro. If Boeing accepts government involvement, that’s wrong unless the involvement takes the form that you prefer?
It’s also an odd position to argue, given the documented government involvement in Airbus.
I think the best path forward for Boeing is to accept regulation as a benefit instead of a curse, and work with the FAA to iron out the current certification workflow difficulties. That’s really what’s needed going forward. And it appears to be the path they’re on, although it’s early days and time will tell.
“Maybe now is the moment for change. Boeing’s increasing dependence on the U.S. government; for aircraft sales support, tax incentives, export financing, defense contracts, certification oversight, and R&D funding, provides Washington with real leverage”
ok, let’s go back to the future and have some “rules” in place for both sides (Airbus and Boeing)
“The 1992 US-EU Agreement
Permitted amount: The 1992 Bilateral Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft permitted Airbus to receive government loans covering up to 33% of a new aircraft’s total development costs.
Loan conditions: These loans, known as “reimbursable launch investment” (RLI) or “launch aid,” had to be repaid with interest if the aircraft program was successful.
Counterpart provisions: In return, the U.S. agreed that its aircraft manufacturer, Boeing, could receive indirect government support (such as military and R&D contracts) of up to 3% of the U.S. civil aviation industry’s turnover”
With Airbus being successful and RLI turning out rather profitable for the lenders Boeing worked the US government to to void the Airbus side of this agreement.
Boeing was set on hanging on the governments tit without any returns. RLI was a destructive example in this context.
The WTO didn’t see it that way, or arrive at that as a finding, but you be you.
Rob, David, US government involvement & influence on Boeing are massive at this moment, whether we like it or not, or its (un)fair or not.
Blocking aircraft imports, using tariffs, political pressure to buy aircraft, protect local manufacturing, taking stakes in it, the Trump government is breaking all the rules. So referencing to practices, rule making, agreements that ignore this reality seems nonsense. There is outright US protectionism & government support for the aerospace industry as we speak. No “if”‘s..
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/turkish-airlines-agrees-225-boeing-aircraft-orders-subject-engine-talks-2025-09-26/
A US government initiated JV could be seen as a “Manhattan Project” or “Apollo Program” an extraordinary intervention for the US civil aviation industry.
Boeing reported an $11.8 billion net loss for the full year 2024, an increase from the $2.2 billion net loss in 2023, due to a 14% drop in revenue to $66.52 billion. They have -$50B in the bank.
Just keep listening to what Boeing promises and noting the backlog looks healthy, isn’t going to improve the situation.
I think you have to separate what Trump has done in the last 9 months, from anything really related to Boeing or it’s history.
Trump’s actions are unprecedented and a large fraction of them are likely illegal. They have done as much damage to the US as elsewhere. It’s equal opportunity destruction.
But I don’t believe they will become representative of the US in the future. The competent people are not gone, they’ve just been sidelined within Trump’s administration, in favor of loyalists.
“I think you have to separate what Trump has done in the last 9 months, from anything really related to Boeing or it’s history.”
While this is accurate, there has been permanent shift on global trade in the commercial aircraft industry (e.g. China (Boeing parts)/Comac (western export bans engines) Right now Donnie is strong-arm countries with threats of tariffs to get new Boeing orders (most likely deliveries after Jan 28) Do you really think that most of them will ever be delivered after Donnie is gone? PS how’s that new China order coming for Boeing commercial aircraft! No soybeans, no rare earth and now Donnie wants the US to make it own cooking oil MCOGA
just fyi
“Grassley said there are quite a few companies in other states that import used cooking oil to make biofuels and China is already being investigated for what’s in the cooking oil it has been shipping to the U.S. “We had reports that there was virgin palm oil coming from Indonesia being mixed with used cooking oil,” Grassley said, “and under the inability to separate the two out when it’s imported into this country…whichever department is was said we just can’t tell the difference, so we’re going to call it all used cooking oil.”
US imports of used cooking oil from China had a value of just $1.2B last year…and they were already in a downtrend.
And Donnie thinks he can leverage that…?
***
Regarding protectionism:
It started almost 9 years ago under Trump 1.0, continued to a lesser extent under Biden, and has become rampant under Trump 2.0. There’s no reason to believe that the next president will suddenly put a halt to it.
A new, continuing reality.
More self-harm 🙈
Hurts more the domestic biofuel makers. A decade later, wakes up and screams, how come the other side becomes dominant! (No different than solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles.) Bloody hell…
Rob, I’m afraid there might be a trend that has been going on for years, specially the last 15 years. Protectionism coming in, to protect local industry, jobs, strategic infrastructure.
2011: https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/02/28/how-boeing-won-the-tanker-war/
2012: https://larsen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1916
2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-administration-sides-with-boeing-in-bombardier-dispute-idUSKBN1EE2L9/
2020: https://leehamnews.com/2020/12/31/us-to-tax-fuselage-wings-tail-imported-for-airbus-mobile-a320-assembly-line/
Which might be justified from a national standpoint, but if the US tax payer is picking up the bill in the end anyway, they IMO might demand better performance & relevance. Instead of respecting free market justifications and an isolated interest group getting rich no matter what, embedding decision makers around them & blinding / flag waving the rest..
We are by-passed by a well financed centralized economy as we speak (China) and they are not just copying our stuff/ creating inferior products, unfortunately.
When measured by PPP GDP, the Chinese economy is 60% larger than that of the US.
By the same measure, the US economy is also bested by that of the EU, though by a fine margin.
Under those circumstances, rampant protectionism is no surprise…though it won’t help fend off the inevitable.
The world is not de-globalizing; it’s the US and the West. The world is forging ahead with greater integration anchored on China.
Bassett is now busy talking about to have a separate supply chain, which won’t come overnight. These guys should have better thought thru instead of panicking. Everyone wants to eat but who’s going to pay??
Oh BTW how many four years can one loses? The time one lost is permanent!
The US promoted the WTO to outsource its labor and let their corporates to have access to the whole world! Sorry, don’t cry over spilled milk, you’re not a kid anymore.
Americans enjoyed a level of prosperity unprecedented, and decades of low inflation/low interest rate that inflated the stock market. Don’t say I didn’t warn you…
@ Pedro
A new economic model for the US — price fixing and state ownership:
“”The Trump administration will set price floors across a range of industries to combat market manipulation by China, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC in an exclusive interview Wednesday.
“China has driven foreign competitors in the rare earth industry out of business over the past two decades by using its global dominance in refining and processing to slash prices, Bessent said.”
““When you are facing a nonmarket economy like China, then you have to exercise industrial policy,” Bessent told Sara Eisen at CNBC’s Invest in America Forum in Washington, D.C.
““So we’re going to set price floors and the forward buying to make sure that this doesn’t happen again and we’re going to do it across a range of industries,” the Treasury secretary said, without naming specific industries the administration was looking at beyond rare earths.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/15/trump-xi-china-bessent-price-floor-rare-earth-critical-mineral.html
In a TV interview, Bessent decided to insult Li Chenggang, ‘China’s most senior trade policy official’, calling him a “lower level trade person who is slightly unhinged” and revealed that he does not even know how to pronounce his name. Li is the number two alongside Vice Premier He in charge of trade negotiations with the US. Tantamount to proclaiming a lack of respect for the Chinese side. With leadership like that, the US is in trouble.
============
> It could have been ‘China vs the world’ as Bessent says, if it were not for the US tariffing ‘the world’ in recent months. Hard to ask for support from others after you’ve gone after them first.
============
> … these conversations would go a lot easier if the US had not spent the preceding 10 months insulting and sanctioning (in various ways) said partners and allies.
============
> In six months, the U.S. has gone from confidently declaring “China needs us more than we need them” to defiantly insisting “They will neither command nor control us.”
============
FT: Top US financiers sound alarm on lending standards and “cutting corners” in private markets. What does Apollo’s Mark Rowan know that we don’t?
Is he right this time?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G3VsIx5WgAEj3V7?format=jpg&name=large
“Does this mean that the U.S. is losing the race with China for global leadership? No, I think that race is essentially over. Even if Trump and his team of saboteurs lose power in 2028, everything I see says that by then America will have fallen so far behind that it’s unlikely that we will ever catch up.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulkrugman/p/china-has-overtaken-america
@Abalone
Trump has already established price floor by imposing tariffs on some basic materials like steel, aluminum and lumber. Higher input prices squeeze US manufacturers out of international market.
“Rampant protectionism” has for a long time been the US MoO.
Start with the less known conditions in scope of the Marshall Plan funding.
What is interesting to observe:
A lot of the things forced on global interaction was designed to tilt the tables to be advantageous for the US.
Only preferably no investments, greed, the inability to grasp the concept behind fairness _and_ much nimbler competitors with investment frustrated that regularly over time.
( invariably leading to lament that those others were unfairly advantaged to the disadvantage of poor, poor US.. 🙂
I agree on the shift in the world economy, but that was going to happen no matter what Boeing did.
Also agree that Trump is making it much worse than it needs to be. But he won’t be here forever and I think history will resolve his actions as ultimately harmful.
Even with that, though, I don’t think that doomering is the appropriate response. Trump is more of a speedbump in the grand breath and depth of the US economy. I think everyone is looking past him to see what the true outcome will be.
Boeing isn’t going anywhere, despite the constant assertions here that it’s all over for them. There’s a significant break from reality in those views.
I (of course) have a different take
The base to me is the core of a country is its people. Prosperity is a good and non prosperity is bad (and yes its an ugly world)
There has always been a tension with markets, open, closed, tarrifed or not. Keeping business inside a country, its resources, supply chain etc is a valid national need.
The part where the US gave away its industry is an era of Calhoun like pure greed. Aided and abeded by the politicos who are bought lock stock and tomahawk.
I will only talk about the US here, others can make any take on their own countries.
The Mantra of free trade started post WWII when the robber barons benefited. It was an unusual situat9ion, trade was a lot one way.
The countries started to recover and counter trade was wanted by them.
The the US Business realized they could sell out and get bigger bucks by sending US Industry over seas. None of it had to do with the good of the US citizens and all to do with the benefit to corporations.
What you have now is bad for citizens and huge supply chain exposure and its not just China.
Thailand had huge floods some time back and wiped out the computer drive industry. So called hard drives that are really platters.
Japan gets hit with a Tsunami wiping out huge parts of what they produced.
COVID hits and our medical supplies come from over seas (a lot of it China). Why would you put your rare earths expo0sure to a non friendly country?
Not all trade is good and trade is not bad but it can be an exposure and can you insulate from it?
The OA has shown how to take Allies into a group who rightfully fears the next nuttiness that comes out.
What you should never do is just give someone your industry. Fight for it tooth and nail, as the UK found in its heyday, they had to depend on outside sources for Ship building, but they sure protected it as best they could.
TW, I agree with much of this, but there is another side to it.
The US emerged from WW2 with the only economy that wasn’t heavily damaged by the war. In fact the US had the opposite problem, the war ending would be a significant hit to economic output, at the same time the troops were coming home and would need jobs.
So American business sought to become the supplier for a ravaged world, and were very successful. But that hegemony was never going last forever.
By the 60’s and 70’s, a resurgent Europe, Germany and Japan entered the US market and began to outperform the US. That was followed in later decades by Korea and Indonesia.
At first the US fought against this change with protectionism. But that doesn’t work in the long run, you can’t deny the rest of the world’s economy, and you cannot expect those other nations not to develop themselves to the same standard of living as the US.
So in the 90’s there was broad realization that you can’t stop that progression, and it’s better in the long run to foster that growth so that those other economies become equilibrated to the US on a cost basis. The faster that happens, the less the damage will be.
So that was the theory, and it’s not wrong. But as often happens, the practice has turned out to be far different than the theory. This is where I agree with you, that mistakes were made, and now continue to be made under Trump.
An analysis of that is too complex to post here, but it’s good to beware of simple explanations. It was probably the most complex economic undertaking in the history of the world. It sometimes worked as intended, but in many cases did not. And it has led to new problems. There is a huge amount of data to study and learn. And we need to learn because these problems aren’t going away.
That’s why the kind of regression we’ve seen from Trump, into old patterns of thinking that we already know have major issues, is not good or healthy, for the US or for the world.
just different sets of lobbyists.
Killary, Biden .. vs “Sane Genious Trump”
visible “fruit bodies” of different less visible Mycelia structures.
Both strains are globally strongly destructive.
so afaics the GOP-T strain is on the surface much more rabid.
Zacks: “Is Boeing in the Crossfire Amid Intensified US-China Trade War?”
“While imposing export controls on Boeing aircraft parts may put China in jeopardy and hurt the smooth operations of the 1,855 Boeing airplanes currently in service in the nation (as per CNBC), the situation is precarious for Boeing as well.”
“Notably, Chinese airlines currently have firm orders for 222 Boeing aircraft that are still awaiting delivery. So, if China refuses to take deliveries from Boeing, as it did in April 2025, in light of the fresh trade tension, it will hurt Boeing’s revenue generation prospects for its commercial airplane business, apart from pushing up its inventory costs.
“The jet giant is also reportedly in negotiations for a major deal involving up to 500 jets in China, which may go south, considering the current market situation.”
“Notably, Airbus already has an established footprint in China’s commercial aerospace market, which has become the largest single-country market for the European jet giant worldwide. To date, Airbus’ in-service fleet in the Chinese mainland has reached over 2,200 aircraft with some 55% market share in mainland China.
“Another jet maker that may benefit from the current market situation is Embraer ((ERJ – Free Report) ). Although the scale of operations in commercial aerospace for this Brazilian aerospace company is not in line with Boeing or Airbus, it has been making significant efforts to increase its footprint in China, realizing the growth prospects of this nation’s commercial aerospace industry. With this aim in view, ERJ participated in last year’s Airshow China with a special focus on collaboration opportunities with the supply chain in China.
“Notably, Embraer’s E190-E2 and E195-E2 jets are currently certified by the Chinese civil aviation for flight, with the company having established a comprehensive after-sales service system to support the E-Jets fleet in China, including authorized maintenance centers, spare parts warehouses and a complete pilot training network.”
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/2769399/is-boeing-in-the-crossfire-amid-intensified-us-china-trade-war
this didn’t end well
“Harbin Embraer ERJ 145″ refers to the ERJ 145 regional jet that was produced in China through a partnership between Embraer and Harbin Aviation Industry Group. This joint venture assembled the aircraft from 2003 to 2016, producing 41 jets for the Chinese market before the production line closed”
Back to the future will not bode well for Embraer
Called the 909 (and aspirations in all areas of aviation)
China does not want competition.
Airbus got in before the current policy. No one else will unless they give up all the IP to go with it. Western countries have learned how huge a mistake that is.
Certified is not sales.
Boeing does not want competition.
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-administration-sides-with-boeing-in-bombardier-dispute-idUSKBN1EE2L9/
Actually
China learned from McDonnell Douglas MD 80 trunkliner program along with “offset packages” from Boeing and Airbus China first offset package (1985) from Boeing was for 747 slaps…used a Gemcor stand alone riveter to build it (per Boeing requirements)
“McDonnell Douglas “Trunkliner” program, which was a 1990s agreement for China to co-produce MD-80 and later MD-90 aircraft under license. The program was intended to build 40 MD-80 family aircraft for China’s domestic trunk routes, and the Shanghai Aviation Industrial Corporation (SAIC) was the primary assembler, building 35 MD-82/83 aircraft initially”
Another US “ally” goes to China for military kit:
“Bangladesh Likely To Procure J-10s”
“With an estimated valued of US$2.2 billion, the BAF is looking to procure the 20 J-10C fighters from China exported by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) by 2027. Furthermore, the allocation would include the training, maintenance and related expenses.”
“Bangladeshi officials said the acquisition will likely be done via a government-to-government (G2G) agreement between the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 fiscal years while payments continue in instalments over a 10-year fiscal period until 2035-2036.
“Reports also indicated that the base price of each airframe stands at approximately US$60 million per unit while US$820 million will be used for training, equipment, infrastructure, ancillary expenses and more.
“The Bangladesh government discussed the procurement in March in China, to which China had responded positively. Then in April, the government formed an 11-member inter-ministerial committee, headed by the BAF Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Hasan Mahmood Khan, to finalise an agreement through negotiations for purchasing the jets.”
https://adj.com.my/2025/10/09/bangladesh-likely-to-procure-j-10s/
Report:
> Indonesia is planning to buy Chinese J-10 fighter aircraft. Defense ministry spox: “We want the best military weapons for our military.”
PEDRO
Remember that the Pakistanis Bagged 3 Rafales and a couple Migs BVR against the Indians a couple months ago. The J10 is for real
It seems J-10C has become a capable fighter. The Chinese say exercises against their own J15/Su30 variants are positive for the J-10s. It has strong AESA radar, IR sensors, WS10 engine and the newest chinese BVR missiles.
Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan are taking them.. Maybe Venezuela, Colombia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and even UAE later on. Reality is traditional suppliers need all production aircraft themselves or behave unreliable.
oops…Donnie forgot to mention
“Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters at the Treasury building Wednesday that the United States is “working on a $20 billion facility that would be adjacent” to the $20 billion credit swap line Trump already approved, totaling $40 billion in assistance for the economically fragile South American country.”
I am sure the US soybean farmers will be glad to hear that Trump double the financial aid for Argentina
A penny here, a penny there. Twenty billion here, twenty billion there. The US has the largest deficit outside of major wars or severe economic downturn.
It’s all about buddy buddy Milei.
I do wonder when the population will take away his chainsaw
and reverse the working end.
All the “regime changes” the US ever effected in recent times turned out to be “gates of hell”.
The aid to Argentina is to bail out Western investors who gambled on purchasing Argentine debt on the cheap, then lobbying for world investment to rebuild the economy.
Had that been successful, they would have made out like bandits. But for largely political reasons, it wasn’t, and they are about to lose their shirts.
Many of those investors are Bessent’s college buddies, or worked with him early in their careers. So they came to him to ask that the US do what the World Bank and other national investment organizations were unable to do.
It’s not at all clear that the US can do it either. But it avoids bankruptcy and liquidation for the investors, which would have an impact on the US financial system.
It’s very similar to the credit default swap scandal and collapse. The gamblers always find public funds to bail them out.
Some more details on the Jeju crash lawsuit:
“Families say outdated Boeing tech led to deadly South Korea crash”
““Rather than admitting its fault in this tragic accident, Boeing resorts to its old, worn-out ‘Blame the pilots’ tactic,” Charles Herrmann, attorney representing the families, said in a statement. “These pilots make easy targets; they perished in the flames with the passengers. They cannot defend themselves.””
“The families accuse Boeing of failing to modernize its core electrical equipment and prioritizing profit over the safety of passengers. The families say the technology in the aircraft involved in the fatal crash was 57 years old at the time of the accident, and the company hadn’t made any fundamental upgrades to 737s in that time.”
“The families say the strike led to a cascade of system failures that made it impossible for the pilots to touch down safely despite their best efforts.
““By the time the aircraft had completed the go-around and was approaching the runway a second time, nearly all of the systems designed to assist the pilots in safely landing the aircraft failed,” the families write.
“The landing gear, which provides aerodynamic drag while airborne and on-ground resistance through wheel brakes, failed to deploy.
““Although these seasoned pilots managed to fly the aircraft back to the runway, the failure of all these systems combined to deny them the means to land safely,” Herrmann said.
“The families accuse Boeing of negligently manufacturing a defective aircraft”
https://courthousenews.com/
***
Hard to deny that the 737’s systems are horrendously outdated — and, in this case, totally unfit for purpose. These are aspects that are copiously documented in the public record.
This is going to develop into an interesting story.
All of this is nonsense. The narrative is completely invented. There is no evidence for a flaw in the aircraft that contributed to the accident. It’s just a shameless attempt to milk Boeing for settlements, by attorneys who promise these things to bereaved families. It’s literally mining grief for profit.
The “horrendously outdated” systems are in the process of being certified again, as they always have been. That statement is intended to mislead and misinform, as the vast majority of Abalone’s posts are.
At least the attorney motivation can be understood as personal gain, despicable as it is. One wonders how much lower the motivations must be for commenters here to push the same false narrative.
The case will be decided by the court if it goes to trial and BA doesn’t settle ahead, not by our resident wordsmith/reputation management specialist.
It won’t go to trial because that is not the objective. The case would be lost at trial because there is no evidence.
The objective is to create a nuisance expense for Boeing such that it’s cheaper to pay a settlement to make it go away.
That’s the classic “deep pocket” approach. Boeing has very deep pockets, and they also are very well insured.
But it’s not clear even that will work in this case, based on what is known at this time. All the evidence points to the crew mismanaging the engines after multiple bird strikes.
@ Pedro
Indeed!
Every US lawyer initiating litigation has to do a so-called Rule 11 pre-trial investigation, to establish a prima facie case.
This investigation is done to establish that “factual contentions have evidenciary support and that legal arguments are warranted by existing law”.
So, we can be confident that this will be going to trial — unless, as you point out, BA resorts to settle out of court.
It usually does try to settle, to prevent a total PR catastrophe in front of the jury.
BA shouldn’t be afraid if it has nothing to hide from the public. But we know there are quite likely many incriminating emails.
Again there is no evidence. You’ve been asked numerous times to provide evidence for your claims. Yet you never do. Why is that, I wonder?
The absence of evidence is proof both of their falseness and of your intent here, which is to spread misinformation. It couldn’t be more obvious or transparent.
@ Pedro
Of course there are all sorts of incriminating documents under the carpet.
Just look at the lengths that BA went to to prevent document discovery in the Norwegian litigation 🙈
#DirtyHands
Rob
The lawsuit will wind its way through court as long as BA doesn’t settle.
The court will decide if there’s sufficient evidence, not you. It’s upto the judge to decide what evidence is accepted. Don’t worry!!
The 737 has no RAT. The 737 has no powered doors that would open in any situation (see Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243). Required minimum acceleration values for airframe or seats are far lower than for any other passenger jet out there. The 737 even the latest iteration the MAX is just that: outdated.
The dated, confusing 737 crew alert system pops up during almost every 737 crash investigation of the last 50 years. And the next will also. All aircraft since the eighties have EICAS.
Grandfathered requirements, exemptions, suppressed conclusions, legal tricks, I’ve given up on arguing..
No evidence saying the 737 CAS systems lead to accidents. And repetitive evidence offered by FAA that they don’t. Including the upcoming certification of the 737 MAX 7 & 10. Those are the facts.
The contributions of the Jeju crew are also fact. As were the contributions of the 737 MAX accident crews. It doesn’t matter how many times this is denied and insinuations are made about the 737. None of that alters the facts.
@ Keesje
Absolutely.
The public record is full of detailed reports of serious incidents in which the 737’s primitive CAS negatively contributed to the outcome.
The most infamous cases are the MAX crashes, but there are many others also.
A hideous hindrance rather than a help.
There’s absolutely no reason for BA or our poster here to be in such a panic. In case BA doesn’t settle, the lawsuit will be decided by the court in the US.
The 737 has no RAT because it has an alternative means of compliance for reserve power. Nor has the lack of a RAT ever led to an accident. This is all just innuendo.
Flight 8243 was brought down by shrapnel from two surface to air missiles, which severed all the hydraulic systems and disabled the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Had nothing to do with landing gear doors.
The 737 has no main gear doors, and the nose gear doors are linked mechanically to the gear. The mechanism is that they are held up by hydraulic pressure, and will fall by gravity when manually unlocked.
My point was about powered passenger exit doors. Flight 8243 was an Embraer E-190. You can see the open door here:
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/crl3ey6j836o
All doors on a 737 are operated manually.
The E-190 also has no doors covering the wheels of the main landing gear.
“Nor has the lack of a RAT ever led to an accident.” So you already have the final report on Jeju Air Flight 2216 and all the 233 hull loses?
Improved procedures have reduced the “seeds” for incidents/accidents over time. the major interhuman and UI issues have been visibly improved.
Now some (missing) things do not necessarily cause incidents/accidents.
But they appear to aggravate the outcome of a mishap.
( There was good reasoning applied to change certification requirements over time.)
OT: on occasion solutions for one rare problem show fallout in day to day use or just in less rare situations. no gain.
Reflexive fixing from the politics side is a real problem.
@ MHalblaub
Of course it has no RAT — it’s not something you’d expect from a dinosaur.
No EICAS and no FBW, either.
Minimal investment, minimal innovation, maximal antiquity.
“Cascade of System Failures:”
The complaint alleges that outdated electrical and hydraulic systems aboard the Boeing 737-800 prevented pilots from safely landing the aircraft following a bird strike.
> According to the complaint, the aircraft suffered a bird strike as it approached the runway, causing a “massive failure” of nearly all key flight systems, including AC power and battery backups. The document states that the left engine was shut down and the right engine’s thrust dropped to about 55 percent, forcing the pilots to attempt a go-around before executing a belly-landing that overshot the runway.
> Charles Herrmann of Herrmann Law Group, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the bird strike “triggered a cascade of system failures.”
In a recent statement, Herrmann criticized Boeing for “blaming the pilots.”
[Hmmm sounds familiar 🤔]
Even the NYTimes ran an article.
NYTimes:
> **Investigators are still trying to find out what caused the crash.**
> Several lawsuits filed in American courts this year have accused Boeing of failing to update the systems on the plane, a 737-800, that had been designed to help the pilots land safely in emergencies.
> Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm specializing in air disaster litigation, is also weighing how to proceed with filing a claim against Boeing on behalf of about 40 victims’ families…
> In May, 72 relatives of victims asked the South Korean police to investigate 15 officials and aviation industry executives, including the country’s transport minister and Jeju Air’s chief executive, over what they said were violations of aviation safety laws.
> Crash reports are generally not admissible in U.S. courts as direct evidence, said Charles Herrmann, the lawyer representing the 14 families in the Washington State lawsuit.
> What remains unclear, experts say, is whether the crew ran out of time to do so, or whether they feared that deploying the gear might increase drag and cause the plane to fall short of the runway as they made a second attempt to land at the airport.
A few million here, a few million legal fees there…
Scott has a new article up that discusses GE/Safran engine testing of particulate ingestion. Great to have a review of that topic and the issues involved. There is an interview with GE as well. Kudos!!
> Airbus Receives New Order for 7 A330neos, 50 A320neos
> Macron’s diplomatic advisor is in China. Macron planned to go to China this year.
Will Faury also be there?
FYI
The 5 ordered -2 (optioned) A330’s were booked by Airbus in November 2024, guised under the mysterious “undisclosed” customer listing.
Hardly anything new about it.😉
Hahaha
You got confused.
Abra ordered 5 x A350-900 last year.
Today, I’m talking about A330s.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/abra-group-announces-robust-fleet-plan-with-addition-of-up-to-seven-a330neo-widebodies-and-50-additional-a320neo-narrowbodies-302586505.html
Wrong..
Sometimes it takes awhile to sink in..
Nothing more than an ex Gol sublease to Abra from an existing Avalon order subject to groups operational and financial
Conditions at the time of their incorporation..
😅😅.
In laymen’s terms ..
Unlikely to ever materialize..
You thought Boeing’s orders were sketchy..😉.
https://www.aviacionline.com/abra-group-confirms-order-for-50-additional-a320neo-jets-adds-a330neo-agreements
Ohh Y-E-S-S;
one more thing..
“Haha”.
Really Pedro !!!
🙄
Oh, our poster apparently tried to ignore what they posted earlier!
👇👇🤣 We are now populated by a bunch who try hard to misinform/disinform.
“This agreement is *in addition to the order placed in 2024 for five A350-900s* that will be integrated into the fleet in the coming years.”
Although it’s been blacked out by the Trump administration, NASA is attempting the first flight of the X-59 today.
NASA is no longer permitted to publicize the programs Trump tried to eliminate in the Presidential Budget Request, but work continues on them apace because they are under contract.
Here’s more on that shocking story that I posted here last week — now with a paywall-free link:
“Airlines Are Trying to Weaken a New Safety Inspection Rule”
“The airline industry is lobbying to weaken a new safety rule that would force airlines to address serious flaws in potentially thousands of Boeing planes. They have industry-connected allies in the Trump administration who could help them get their way.”
“According to a new FAA directive, airlines that fly many of the older generations of Boeing 737 planes must undertake additional inspections, among other safety protocols, after regulators found cracks in several of the planes’ fuselages.”
“This Boeing airworthiness directive goes further than usual; it doesn’t just call for routine inspections but sets a more rigorous schedule for safety checks to evaluate Boeing planes moving forward.
“The directive is a response to recent reports from FAA inspectors who discovered cracks in several Boeing 737 jetliners well before the planes were technically due for maintenance checks. Based on these findings, the FAA has proposed more frequent inspections and tune-ups earlier in the plane’s life cycle to ensure they’re safe to fly.”
“The lobby’s letter also asks regulators to include an “alternative method of compliance,” a carve-out common in other airline safety regulations that effectively allows companies to self-regulate by creating their own alternative standards to comply with the law.”
“”In response to a Department of Transportation request for information on deregulation, the lobby sent a ninety-three-page comment letter in May outlining their wish list at the agency. The letter not only demanded a rollback of Biden-era consumer protections for airline travelers but also effectively requested that the Trump administration wipe decades-old regulations off the books. For example, the letter requested that the Department of Transportation eliminate a rule mandating transparent pricing that gets rid of some hidden fees and shutter an agency division that helps consumers compare airlines based on average delays and fees.
““There’s very little legal justification or rationale for these rollbacks. . . . The airlines don’t want to protect passengers and instead blame regulators for their screwups, which is a lesson this admin will learn the hard way,” said a former senior official at the Department of Transportation during the Biden administration who requested anonymity to speak freely.
“But the Trump administration has taken steps to implement the industry’s wishes.”
https://jacobin.com/2025/10/boeing-airline-safety-regulations-trump/
***
Yet another major 737 gremlin — extensive, premature cracking requiring urgent attention 🙈
And US carriers want to just ignore the issue — dollars before safety 👀
ABALONE
I have no problem with AMOCs under most conditions. AMOCs are called alternate means of compliance because they are 1) approved by the FAA thru1 a documented process. 2) they benefit the flying public. This means that the AMOC needs to fulfill more requirements than operator cost reductions.
Let’s look at a couple AMOCs I understand pretty well. The L13 Blanik had a couple in flight breakup of high time airframes due to flexing of the wing carry through bulkhead and a fatigue failure causing wing separation. This precipitated a world wide grounding of the fleet. The factory repair of disassembly of the aircraft and replacement of the parts very often exceeded the value of the aircraft. A group of American glider clubs engineered a different approach that accomplished a safe flight tested repair as an AMOC. The benefit to the flying public was that literally thousands of otherwise economically scrapped basic training gliders were.placed back into service restoring the ability to continue to train new pilots without an airframe availability bottleneck.
The Robinson Helicopter.had a rotor blade AD due to delaminatiom of the blades.at.the blade tips. The factory fix was to limit flight hours on the blades. An AMOC was developed allowing blade.life to get.to the original service.limits.through the use of a specific metal tape and adhesive application. This saved literally hundreds of thousands of hours of blade life and the benefit to the flying public was the continued availability of the fleet to operators why could operate their otherwise grounded aircraft as the factory could not meet blade replacement demand.
There are others that come to mind, so the story is that AMOCs are granted when appropriate and there’s a good reason to do so. If older 737s are cracking and an AMOC is developed thay does the job Boeing requires in a different way. If it is different timing or a different way to repair cracks that is sound engineering wise I wouldn’t shoot it down Just because its an AMOC. THE NAME IS ALTERNAYE METHOD OF COMPLIANCE after all, and operator compliance is what we require…
CNBC
> Tariff costs to companies this year to hit $1.2 trillion, with consumers taking most of the hit, S&P says
this is special
earlier today
BBC US President Donald Trump has said Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has agreed to stop buying Russian oil, as the US seeks to put economic pressure on the Kremlin to end the war in Ukraine.
Later today “India is a significant importer of oil and gas. It has been our consistent priority to safeguard the interests of the Indian consumer in a volatile energy scenario. Our import policies are guided entirely by this objective,” Ministry of External Affairs’ official spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said in a statement.”
Now who are you going to believe?
look back and note the quota of truthful statements per person.
Output is some probability of this person announcing future things.
AFAIR:
Trump : 80..90% of statement have short shelf life.
Modi is less busy with inane statement and (thus?) has a much better fulfillment quota.
“India contradicts Trump on Russian oil pledge”
“Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told reporters during a weekly media briefing Thursday that he was unaware of a conversation between Trump and Modi the previous day. He also said in a statement that “discussions are ongoing” about deepening energy cooperation with the United States but did not confirm Trump’s assertion that India is ending its purchases of Russian oil.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/16/india-contradicts-trump-on-russian-oil-pledge-00612551
the China global trade shift…the US is being left behind!
“On Wednesday, the bustling opening day of the autumn edition of southern China’s Canton Fair in Guangzhou – the world’s largest trade show – all 15 companies Reuters spoke with said they had seen no U.S. buyers. Most noted an uptick in attendees from Brazil, Southeast Asia and Europe. All said they were prioritising market diversification.
“The situation’s too unstable. (Trump’s) like a child – crying one minute, laughing the next. You can’t play along with that,” said Cherry Yuan, overseas sales manager at Foshan Greenyellow Electric Technology, a maker of mosquito trapping equipment.”
“Trump says threatened China tariff levels are ‘not sustainable'”
“President Trump on Friday said threatened high tariffs on Chinese goods were “not sustainable,” easing fears of further trade escalation between the countries.
“”But that’s what the number is,” he said during an interview with Fox Business. “It’s probably not [sustainable] — you know, it could stand, but they forced me to do that.””
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/trump-tariffs-live-updates-trump-says-threatened-china-tariff-levels-are-not-sustainable-162418537.html
A new layer of lip gloss for the tired old pig 👀
Here’s a “glossy PR brochure” version of the story that I recently posted here regarding a cockpit update for the MAX.
***
“Boeing Bets Big on Avionics to Rebuild MAX Confidence”
“Boeing is decisively overhauling the avionics suite across its 737 MAX family, a move designed to regain trust from regulators, airlines, and the flying public after years of scrutiny.
“While the MAX has been a sales success post-grounding, lingering concerns over software and system reliability have kept some buyers and pilots cautious.
“Enhancements to the cockpit electronics and flight control systems are intended to reinforce safety, improve operational awareness, and position the aircraft as a modern, highly capable narrowbody for the next decade.
“At the core of Boeing’s approach is a layered strategy: strengthening existing systems while integrating new technologies that exceed regulatory expectations. The MAX’s flight control computers, already a focus of post-accident fixes, are receiving updated redundancy protocols and more robust data monitoring.
“These upgrades aim to reduce the risk of system anomalies and provide pilots with clearer, faster feedback during critical phases of flight.
“The avionics refresh also targets situational awareness enhancements. Pilots will benefit from improved flight deck displays, including higher-resolution screens and redesigned alerting logic that prioritizes critical warnings without overwhelming crews.
“Advanced navigation and communications capabilities are being added as standard, supporting next-generation airspace initiatives like performance-based navigation and ADS-B upgrades, which are increasingly mandated in global hubs.”
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2025/10/16/boeing-bets-big-on-avionics-to-rebuild-max-confidence/
***
A tacit admission that the horrendously outdated 737 cockpit is no longer acceptable.
Note the key phrase “to regain trust from regulators”…we know which regulator is being referenced here 😉
One wonders how long it will take to get this upgrade into the field?
And, as Boeing insider @Airdoc commented here last time — it’s an improvement, but it’s still a 737, with its primitive 1960s-vintage bus architecture.
“The avionics refresh also targets situational awareness enhancements. Pilots will benefit from
…
and redesigned alerting logic that prioritizes critical warnings without overwhelming crews.”
Apparently the neccesity to improve the crew alerting system can no longer be denied, downplayed, deflected, exempted and delayed forever.
how’s Trump’s Boeing F-47, a sixth-generation stealth fighter coming along maybe not so stealth after all
article title: China claims new space radar can detect US stealth jets even through clouds
“The implications are immense that stealth aircraft and even low-flying drones or cruise missiles could soon be detectable from space.”
You believe Chinese statements why?
Have you ever done Orbital calcs?
More info for you to catch up on Photo Catcher
China’s new space-borne radar tech can track stealth-moving targets day and night: study
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3329199/chinas-new-space-borne-radar-tech-can-track-stealth-moving-targets-day-and-night-study
China’s New Quantum Radar Could End the Era of Stealth Warfare | GRAVITAS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5QTT7jsHbI
@ David Pritchard
“Stealth” was already dead/dying.
The Russians have a ground-based detection system called “Resonanz NE” that can detect/track “stealth” aircraft at ranges of over 1500km, and target them at closer ranges. It uses long-wavelength radiation. They’ve supplied the system to Egypt, which has located it in the Sinai peninsula.
The Russians incorporated the same principle into the S-400 MDS.
The Chinese use something similar in their HQ-9B MDS.
The Germans showed a few years ago that passive radar could be used to track “stealth” aircraft.
Hi Dave
Years ago, My Father in Law was an Engineer on the B2. He didnt say much about his work because he believed in his security oath, but one dinner, I hit him with this. If the stealth bombers came in low to use ground clutter for added protection, they would be using either laser or radio altimeters. I told him all you needed to defeat that was a bunch of acoustic sensors 100 feet apart, hardwired to report a low flying airplane going over. you could watch the pings of the sensors and generate speed and heading info real time without radar. He wasn’t real happy when I brought that up.
When stealth is not stealth…
> The CCTV segment also emphasized the role of China’s integrated air defense and airborne surveillance networks.
It said ground-based anti-stealth radar and airborne early-warning aircraft helped detect the approaching fighters and passed tracking data to… a factor the program suggested diminished the tactical advantages of stealthy platforms in the near-shore environment.
Don’t accept the torrent of kool-aid, another observation:
> France revealed a surprise: ONERA’s NOSTRADAMUS low-frequency over-the-horizon radar, capable of tracking live B-2 raids departing from the United States
This speaks for itself and to all the naysayers
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-can-hike-737-max-production-to-42-planes-per-month-faa-says/ar-AA1OGCRq
BA still hasn’t managed to get to rate 38 — despite telling us in May that it had.
We’ll see how long it takes for it to reach rate 42.
Abalone.
As you noted, Boeing said they loaded the first rate 38 aircraft in MAY. The production cycle is 210 days long. Even you must understand (Perhaps I’m wrong here) that the line rate will not be stabilized at 38 until 210 days ish after the May announcement. You have seen the rate climbing as the rate has been incrementally increasing delivery flow as the Work in Process accelerations have pulsed through the line. You have even noted the numbers are increasing BUT are not at 38 as Boeing announced in MAY. That is the correct outcome as hysteresis is driven through the system. There is going to be a time that the line has run for 150-18o days at 38 airplanes and Boeing will announce that they are now running at 42 a month, You will do the same thing then because you use a very poor trailing indicator to scream your message of doom. Deliverys are not a reliable neasure of line rates during times of rate changes inside the 210 day MDAY flow. The delivery rate is not the line rate. Line rate measures work in process flow through a specific control code somewhere in the line. As the line accelerates and MDAY compression occurs, the back end of the line is running faster than the middle or end of the line. The line rate is dynamic and it is fully capable of having different flow rates at differing locations inside the line. They call it Industrial Engineering for a reason. The line rate at Boeing is set by the Boeing Firing Order, it lists the line number, customer and delivery date. Everything flows from that. SO in the Boeing system, which you seem to be nearly completely ignorant of, the first 38 rate break airplane, and the line itself is on the 38 rate on its load date, because you gotta load em at 38 before you see em at 38.
Now lets look the other way. lets say Boeing decides to cut the rate, You would probably dish them the same craap about their inability to slow down because the production rate needs to decelerate and its rate of deceleration is dependent on just how and when you insert blank days into each control codes master schedules. And you would be shouting from the mountaintop, look, they can’t even slow down correctly, they said they are going down to 30 (any number will do here) and they are so screwed up they are still faster than that…….
We’re not building toasters.
Interesting tidbit from BA’s Q2 earnings report:
“The 737 program increased the production rate to 38 per month in the quarter and plans to stabilize at that rate before requesting approval to increase to 42 per month later this year.”
Well, the 737 production rate hasn’t stabilized at rate 38…and, yet, 42 p/m has already been greenlighted.
Incidentally, sources on the web indicate that Spirit is currently shipping 36 737 fuselages p/m to BA — despite having a considerable inventory. If only 36 p/m are going into the FAL, it’s no surprise that about 35 p/m are being delivered (737 build nominally takes 9 days).
Logically, 36 in is never going to produce 38 out.
Investors want to know what’s coming *off* the line, because that’s what generates revenue.
Very first line in the Q2 earnings report”
“737 production reached 38 per month in the quarter”
Note the word “reached”…not “is working toward” or “has initiated”.
https://investors.boeing.com/investors/news/press-release-details/2025/Boeing-Reports-Second-Quarter-Results/default.aspx
“Spirit is currently shipping 36 737 fuselages p/m to BA”
some “historic” fuselages in storage @BA perhaps?
I’ve seen photo’s of huge inventories of fuselages out in the open air at Spirit:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/production-rate-fluctuation-swells-spirit-aerosystems-737
Never heard of any fuselage inventory at BA.
ABALONE
It is becoming very apparent that it is critical to your posting to NOT understand the system you are criticizing because its performance does not support your musings.
Those of us who are industry veterans, have worn a badge and actually built these things see the system and understand it’s complexity. You seem to belacking the depth of knowledge many of us have about the system engineering that gos on to build these things. It’s also becoming clear that facts and data without the knowledge of how to read the nuances is your issue. You point to the fuselage delivery rate from spirit being at 36 and the delivery rate at 35 being indicative of the rate not being at 38 when in fact that would be normal when you are accelerating the line. The line rate is determined by the load rate in the first control code, industry guys understand this fact, you report normal as alarming because you either don’t get it, or intentionally deflect opinion because you have a reason to spread unnuanced information painting expected results as problems. Your assertion that the 737 build takes 9 days is also lacking nuance. The moving line portion of the 737 build takes 9 days ish. That’s far different than saying the Build takes 9 days. I could point to more but you get the point.
Go ahead and cherry pick news items about the line and post your unnuanced messages of doom. Facts don’t align with your production line stories and those of us here that did this for a living know better
FAA thus says “they are allowed to go to 42/m”.
Now Boeing has to show that they CAN and will go to 42/m.
( and succeed with that objective 🙂
I find this tendency to repurpose information snippets
relating to one thing
to mean something (entirely) different tedious.
I agree. But when you have people posting to drive an agenda devoid of facts, well that is what you get.
Factually the negatives keep saying Boeing can’t do it and they have done it.
Then they flip to another equally wrong assertion.
The simple fact is Boeing is recovering MAX production.
Boeing is working towards returning to more normal. No one says there are not issues, the latest 777X delay is one.
They take that fact and blare it from the rooftop. They ignore that what is important is that Boeing has control of its end. That is a major change.
Its not going to solve the flow of 777X progress, but its been corrected on their end and that is huge.
“I agree.”
That does not reflect into your creative art placed here.
Facts don’t care about one’s feelings. Oops.
UWE
Agreed. At some point they will continue to accelerate the line to 42. My thought is that this may activate the Everett lines. That would leave stability in Renton at 38
What counts as “rate nn achieved”?
I’d go for exit numbers from production.
Anything else is internal metric afaics.
UWE
The production rate and the delivery rate are synonymous when there are no velocity shifts in the production rate. The production rate has always been defined by the rate that the 1st control code is receiving a work order. People outside have always parsed it differently. When a rate is either accelerating or decellerating, control code load dates or better yet, hours allocated in each contrtol code will have variability as each production position moves in concert with the acceleration curve needed to reach the desired production rate.
Delivery rate is a significantly trailing indicator as the first 38 rate airplane needs to go thru the entire manufacturing flow prior to the delivery rate showing it. It’s the same case with line deceleration, as you slow the line, it will take time for the line to see the end result of the deceleration because as you stretch the process out, the velocity in all the intermediate control codes need to slow to the new rate before you see it in deliveries. It’s a far easier process to slow then it is to speed up and the slopes of the curves can be quite steep. You are free to look at anything you want to to define when YOU think the system got to a particular rate, but those who understand the system define things in very specific terms that some here use without understanding exactly what they mean.
When the new is the old with new faces… the clock is clicking. Wall Street is impatient, job is on the line.
Well, BA is no stranger to publishing overblown status updates and projections, is it?
In this case, BA clearly jumped the gun with its 38 p/m “reached” assertion.
We’ve seen this before with cashflow projections, haven’t we?
Show us — don’t tell us.
ABALONE
Boeing is loading at 38 and green lighted to go to 43. It’s all been explained to you and you choose to ignore facts layed out to you by people that understand the system and have lived in it for a career. Go beat a different drum because there will come a day when the delivery rate hits 38 and that won’t be good enough for you either. I also never saw in your post where Boeing said they REACHED 38, go reread your quote and show it to me…… It specifically said they increased the production rate. Instead of flipping me shit about MY rea s ing skills, perhaps you should stick to what is written instead of incorrectly paraphrasing a specific technical term into something suiting your false fact campaign. Criticizing operations using nonexistent narrative is your MO. I’m really questioning your rationale in twisting tidbits without nuance here. Unless it’s merely to be disruptive. Here’s the cut and paste of what you posted that started this……. You and PEDRO would do well to revisit what was written by YOU not ME.
Abalone
October 19, 2025
Interesting tidbit from BA’s Q2 earnings report:
“The 737 program increased the production rate to 38 per month in the quarter and plans to stabilize at that rate before requesting approval to increase to 42 per month later this year.”
👇😄
> The viral new “Definition of AGI” paper has fake citations which do not exist.
And it specifically TELLS you to read them!
“Safran announces a new LEAP-1A assembly line in Casablanca”
“Safran announced that it has chosen Morocco for its new assembly line for LEAP-1A engines dedicated to Airbus aircraft. The new facility will complement production at Safran’s Villaroche site in France to support the significant ramp-up in production planned by CFM International — around 2,500 LEAP engines a year from 2028. Located on a 13,000 sq.m site, the plant will be operational by the end of 2027 and will have the capacity to assemble up to 350 engines per year. 200 million euros are being invested in the new facility, which will create 300 jobs. ”
https://www.safran-group.com/pressroom/safran-strengthens-its-industrial-footprint-in-morocco-to-support-growth-in-global-air-traffic-2025-10-13
***
This is Safran’s first engine production facility outside France.
One could be forgiven for thinking that BA has retained the services of some of Simple Flying’s writers to do some PR for the 777X — the site has had a whole cascade of recent articles praising the plane.
Some examples:
“Why The Boeing 777X’s New Cabin Architecture Will Be Such A Game Changer For Airlines”
“The Most Superior Aircraft To Replace The Airbus A380 On High-Capacity Routes”
“Why Might The World’s Most Environmentally Progressive Widebody Aircraft Have Airbus Worried?”
“The Aircraft Replacing The Airbus A350 As The World’s Extra-Widebody Twinjet”
“With The Boeing 777X & 787, Does Airbus Need To Step Up Its Game?”
“Why Boeing Built The 777X With A New & Elegant Cabin Architecture”
“Why Might The World’s Most Capable & Fuel Efficient Freighter Have Airbus Worried?”
***
Heavy praise for a plane that’s more than 12 years late, still nowhere near certification, and carrying more than 30 tons of dead weight relative to its competitor…👀
Jeebus. PR dept working overtime..
Laying it on with a trowel 🙈
They seem to be pulling out all the stops lately.
Desperate times require desperate measures…
VINCENT
EEEK
That’s a terrible pile of craap
+1
And if you read the articles, they’re a bunch of hand-waving..
😉
Go back to A380 bashing times.
Interesting to read negative technical articles from people
who had never been active on the technical side.
( like travel journos, “vanishing beauty of the FA” and such )
UWE
Exactly Right.
I’ve always said to anyone who listens that the A380 was a design masterpiece. Just enough design risk and technology grabbing to be at the front without being a technological risk induced failure.
The operational numbers are best left to the operators and finance guy so I do, but my god what a bird……
Thanks for this comment (and Uwe’s).
VINCENT
Nothing too terribly difficult when it’s the truth. Thanks by the way…..
India news:
“IndiGo Expands A350 Fleet with 30 More Orders”
“NEW DELHI — IndiGo (6E), India’s largest airline by fleet and market share, has placed a firm order for 30 additional Airbus A350-900 aircraft, strengthening its commitment to long-haul international operations. The deal follows an earlier order for 30 A350s placed in April 2024, effectively doubling the airline’s total wide-body backlog to 60 aircraft.”
https://airwaysmag.com/new-post/indigo-expands-a350-fleet-30
We live in interesting times when an LCC casually orders 60 widebodies.
This top-up order for 30 units was previously an MOU.
***
“Air India in expanded talks for up to 300 new jets, sources say”
“Air India is in talks with Airbus and Boeing to add more wide-body jets as it expands planned purchases to up to 300 aircraft, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday, marking an acceleration of its turnaround under the Tata Group.”
https://m.economictimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/air-india-in-expanded-talks-for-up-to-300-new-jets-sources-say/articleshow/124583372.cms
It will be interesting to see if BA gets any slice of this new order cake — the ongoing geopolitical chill between India and the US hasn’t shown any signs of a thaw…
PNW,
“Boeing said they loaded the first rate 38 aircraft in MAY.”
Nope. Definitely not! What was reported: “BA *rolled out* a 737 MAX airplane *at a rate of 38 per month on May 30,” “BA held a celebration for the milestone *roll-out*.”
What exactly does BA mean “roll-out”? Don’t tell me it’s smoke and mirror all along!
Boeing Rolls Out First 787 Dreamliner at Increased Production Rate
> BA has rolled out the first Boeing 787 Dreamliner built at the rate of 10 airplanes per month. The airplane, a 787-8 and the 155th Dreamliner built, will be delivered to International Lease Finance Corp. for operation by Aeromexico.
The BA crowd tend to show less-than-optimal reading skills.
Whether deliberate or unintentional…hard to say.
One would think that “reached” is pretty clear in it’s meaning.
For example, when a plane has just taken off, it may be “on its way” to its destination…but it certainly hasn’t “reached” it.
#NarrativeShaping
PEDRO
Go ask ABALONE. Your issue is with his reporting, not mine. If you find his reporting so objectionable that you needed to post something go jump on him. I did nothing other than address his comment. RRAD BEFORE INSULTING PEOPLE THROUGH YOUR IGNORANCE. Theres a reason I dont respond to you. This however was so far even your standards its amazing. DONNTjump on me about it, perhaps you need to which go’s to my overarching point of writing tidbits lacking Nuances.
Abalone
October 19, 2025
Interesting tidbit from BA’s Q2 earnings report:
“The 737 program increased the production rate to 38 per month in the quarter and plans to stabilize at that rate before requesting approval.:
See what I mean, Nuance matters. as does looking at what was actually written by those who have actually done the work….
My god man are you actually allergic to following th
yep
++1
@ Pedro
Here’s an Air Insight article describing what you wrote.
Of interest (emphasis added):
“Boeing has used a variety of markers to denote its transition to higher production rates over the past 15 years across its single-aisle and widebody programs. These include the pace at which it begins wing production, when it rolls out an airplane at that higher rate, *and when it delivers at that pace. The last is Boeing’s current standard for measuring factory output…*
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-production/boeing-rolls-out-737-max-38-per-month-rate/
***
Worth noting that there hasn’t been a single month this year in which BA delivered 38 MAXs from the line.
So, *using its own metric*, it has made a baseless claim.
” These include the pace at which it begins wing production, when it rolls out an airplane at that higher rate”
Really? difficult to increase 737 wing production rate when you don’t have the “new” all electric wing riveters ordered 20 months ago to replace the vintage 1960 Gemcor (hydraulic slug squeeze). While the all electric slug process is faster than hydraulic (point to point-drill, insert slug, shave and move to next location). The “real” benchmark is the floor to floor time which includes loading/unloading panels, tooling changes, two piece fastener installation which will not give the results planned on. Back in the day, the 777 WRS the rate was also slowed down with cold working the holes and trying to use two piece fastener tooling/feed system.
Time will tell if and when the new 737 WRS come online!
Hi David,
Any idea what’s delaying the new electric wing riveters?
And have you any idea what maximum rate the current riveters can (realistically) attain?
I find it interesting that Spirit is shipping only 36 fuselages per month to Boeing, even though they could easily ship more from their huge inventory. Suggests that there’s a bottleneck somewhere else in the FAL…wings are a good candidate.
Thanks. Interesting how easy the “critics” became incoherent. It has nothing to do with “technical”. That’s a poor excuse because one has dug a hole himself. But facts are facts, they don’t care one’s feelings.
BA mentioned specifically “roll out”, not *load* the fuselage or *load rate*. 😂
Well shouldn’t our poster able to point to where BA said “they loaded the first rate 38 aircraft in MAY”?? Should we hold our collective breath for the facts to come out? I have my proof from TAC’s report, but where is the proof from our poster here??
Ironic that no one was so agitated when TAC published the story. Now, it’s a different “story”!
PEDRO.
We are discussing Abalones quote. All of your arguments should be addressed to him. I pointed flaws in Abalones post. Boeing said they increased the production rate to 38 in May. I explained the metric. I never commented once with respect to any rollout,show me where I said it…..You should move on. Here’s ABALONES quote for your review
Abalone
October 19, 2025
Interesting tidbit from BA’s Q2 earnings report:
“The 737 program increased the production rate to 38 per month in the quarter and plans to stabilize at that rate before requesting approval to increase to 42 per month later this year.”
No need to deflect, I was specifically referring to your post above, with quote. I didn’t refer to Abalone’s post, it’s pretty clear.
Boeing referred to “roll-out” while you insist BA said “they loaded the first rate 38 aircraft in MAY.” That’s the issue I disputed and pointed out.
Furthermore, pls point out where I “insulted you”. That’s not factual and you should apologize.
To clarify: no one other than you said “they loaded the first rate 38 aircraft in MAY.” Neither Abalone nor BA.
@ Pedro
You’re wasting your time.
Some people can’t even accurately recollect their own posts, not to mind those of others.
My quote above is being conveniently truncated, and taken out of context. The un-truncated version was/is:
***
“Abalone
October 19, 2025
Interesting tidbit from BA’s Q2 earnings report:
“The 737 program increased the production rate to 38 per month in the quarter and plans to stabilize at that rate before requesting approval to increase to 42 per month later this year.”
“Well, the 737 production rate hasn’t stabilized at rate 38…and, yet, 42 p/m has already been greenlighted”
***
The purpose of this quote was to show that, when it comes to line rates, BA says one thing but does another.
No point in flogging the horse to death: The Air Current article above fully corroborates my/your/Uwe’s interpretation of the 38 p/m (mis-) statement from BA.
If a commenter wants to deflect by pondering ramp-up processes in general rather than BA’s specific assertion, so be it.
How’s that anticipated Turkish MAX order coming along?
Oh dear — no F-35s for Türkiye, and no upgraded F-16s either.
So…
“Turkey in Talks With Qatar Over Used Eurofighter Typhoons”
“The Turkish government is reportedly in negotiations with Qatar for the potential acquisition of used Eurofighter Typhoon jets, as confirmed by defense sources familiar with ongoing talks in Doha involving senior Turkish officials.
“Ankara has not publicly acknowledged these discussions, which come amid stalled efforts to secure new F-16 Block 70s and associated F-110 engines from the United States.
“Turkey is seeking to fill a capability gap created by delays in modernizing its fighter fleet. The country’s air force faces increasing obsolescence as its F-16 inventory ages, prompting a search for interim solutions until the domestically developed KAAN fighter becomes operational in the next decade.”
…”Negotiations with the UK for new Eurofighters have stalled over price concerns, further complicating Ankara’s modernization efforts.”
https://www.airdatanews.com/turkey-in-talks-with-qatar-over-used-eurofighter-typhoons-reports-say/
***
Hard to imagine that Türkiye will be eager to support BA under such circumstances.
Pedro….
Roll out is a term ai haven’t used
Somebody else may have,….. Rollout has nothing to do with either line rate or delivery rate
It is the point in time where the airplane, in the case of the 737, comes off the chain and go to the ramp. Once at the ramp more work is scheduled fuel doc, flight tested, paint and such. Using rollout as a metric isn’t something anyone I worked with would use. You might track it if you were the Planners doing past assembly tasks, but thats not my world. According to Abalones post, Boeing said they increased the production rate to 38 in the second quarter…. Somewhere I’ve seen that attributed to May. Increasing the production to 38 means loading work at a 38 aircraft rate into the first work location. I fail to see what you find confusing here. I’ve explained the metric. I’ve explained the difference between production rate and delivery rate, in caveman like terminology. I’ve explained the MDAY compression during line acceleration, NONE of this has drawn any criticism and honestly I fail to see what you are after other than being argumentative troublesome. It is my humble opinion that you will never accept facts that don’t align with your mission.
As far as an apology that’s on you. Your connection to me of things ABALONE quoted and trying to conflate my writings into an agreement that they have rolled.out a rate we 38 airplane is ridiculous. I’m not that ignorant of the processes.
Rollout is a term I seldom use and I damn sure wouldn’t be saying Boeing is rolling out rate 38 aircraft today…. I believe they are still inside their flow time window, as I have explained ad nauseum…..
As reported by LNA four months ago:
> • 737 MAX production rates are quickly approaching the FAA limit of 38/mo;
• Ortberg expects deliveries to hit 42/mo by the end of the year, 47/mo six months thereafter
AFAIK the FAA limit 737 MAX production rate by how many come off from the FAL, not load to the FAL!
Otherwise, it makes no sense that Ortberg “expects deliveries to hit 42/mo” by year end!!
PEDRO WROTE
AFAIK the FAA limit 737 MAX production rate by how many come off from the FAL, not load to the FAL!
This indicates your lack of understanding of the process. In order to control an output limit, you restrict input. The FAAs position is that the line limit of 38 must not be exceeded until approval to go higher is received. This means that Boeings assembly linen is limited to thruput of 38 aircraft in a steady state condition. They are approved to input up to 38 aircraft a month in the line. That’s an input limit. If it was an output limit as you are suggesting Boeing would be free to build as fast as they wanted to and accumulate to be delivered aircraft. But thats not the world we live in. The world we live in..The FAA wants to monitor the entire manufacturing process of all the aircraft built at a maximum rate of 38. That is the FAA s line limit set at the beginning step of each airplane. I don’t speak for Ortberg, but if they gerrt to 43 by years end, they have greatly reduced total flow time since I’ve retired, I however am leery of that prediction
BA never used the term “roll out”??
Read this:
Boeing *Rolls Out* First 787 Dreamliner at Increased Production Rate
> BA has *rolled out* the first Boeing 787 Dreamliner built at the rate of 10 airplanes per month. The airplane, a 787-8 and the 155th Dreamliner built, will be delivered to International Lease Finance Corp. for operation by Aeromexico. [Which I quoted in my post above 🤦♂️]
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-01-24-Boeing-Rolls-Out-First-787-Dreamliner-at-Increased-Production-Rate
BA confirmed to TAC they held a celebration to mark the milestone *roll-out*.
PEDRO.
Can you actually read. I clearly wrote that I dont use the term rollout. Boeing is not me and conversely I’m not Boeing. They can say they roll out here there or anywhere. Unless I say something specific on a subject it’s presumptive to think that I’m in full agreement with Boeing. Understanding that, what does your quote have to do with me, especially as I detest the Tupperware bird and refused an upgrade to go to it at the program startup. What the article states is that the first Tupperbird built at a 10 airplane rate rolls out. Cool it rolled out of the factory to the flight line and was the first Tupperbird at the 10 airplane line rate. Pardon me but I’m missing your point here….
” I clearly wrote that I dont use the term rollout.”
you are just “commentary”.
I think we have to look at how the relevant parties ( like Boeing 🙂 use “rollout” in their reporting.
I am not a native speaker so I might have misunderstood especially in context of “American Commercial English” intricacies : Ortberg seems to have talked about deliveries @ 38/month.
UWE
Thank you.
I hadn’t considered how differently nuance and specificity of terminology may be viewed from different global locations.
Have a great day
@ Uwe
Being a non-native speaker has nothing to do with it.
You’re German…the German language has relatively complex grammar…as a result, you read accurately, so as to interpret correctly.
Many others — including native speakers — don’t do this: instead, they see (or think they see) a word, ignore and/or misinterpret the surrounding syntax/context, and then pounce. The result is a pointless and irrelevant diversion into a side road. To make matters worse, they then become abusive toward others who haven’t made the same mistake as they have.
Do you recall that story from a few months ago about EFW closing its US plant? Do you recall the reason that the EFW CEO gave in an interview? He said that his US employees persistently weren’t able to read technical documentation…even though their counterparts at EFW plants in Europe and Asia did not have this problem.
Food for thought.
Airbus and non US auto manufacturers intensely educated their workforce avoiding union recruitment. Food for thought 🙂
initial topic and IMHO:
There is a lot of misdirection and weaponizing in US political and commercial communications.
The unwashed public is excessively emotional working from shortsighted evaluation.
ABALONE.
THANK YOU.
Yiu have clearly explained to me why you had such difficulty with…
The 737 program increased the production rate to 38 per month in the quarter
And
Very first line in the Q2 earnings report”
“737 production reached 38 per month in the quarter”
It WAS you that started us dorn this road. Well done my deflective nuisance
Uwe.
It would be good to see what Boeing would say about how they use Rollout in their announcements
How many times I’ve to post this?? 🤷♂️
Those who can’t read, please raise their hands!
Boeing **Rolls Out** First 787 Dreamliner at Increased Production Rate
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-01-24-Boeing-Rolls-Out-First-787-Dreamliner-at-Increased-Production-Rate
PEDEO WROTE AGAIN
Pedro
October 20, 2025
How many times I’ve to post this?? 🤷♂️
Boeing **Rolls Out** First 787 Dreamliner at Increased Production Rate
Post it all you want. Is there a point to it? Boeing told you they rolled an airplane out at the new production rate.
What’s so hard about that?
The first airplane built at that increased rate exited the factory building and went to the ramp. They even posted the picture of the Tupperbird exiting the factory doors. Go read the link. Come on man, this can’t be that hard. What exactly is the item you are having difficulty with. If you spell it out, maybe there’s an answer that covers your needs.
Surely there’s a reason you keep posting this. What exactly are you after?
👇👇👇👇 Do you remember what you said?
PNW posted:
“It would be good to see what Boeing would say about how they use Rollout in their announcements.”
“It would be good to see what Boeing would say about how they use”
Remembrance, Just crossed my mind:
Back when Boeing _planned_ the transition to the 777X production:
B: “We will keep production rate above nn frames.”
Audience: ::derisisive laughter::
B: “We will fire blanks!”
HEY PEDRO
I found ABALONES doublespeak, lets revisit it.
Abalone
October 19, 2025
Interesting tidbit from BA’s Q2 earnings report:
“The 737 program increased the production rate to 38 per month in the quarter and plans to stabilize at that rate before requesting approval to increase to 42 per month later this year.”
Further down in the same post he restated it as follows……
Very first line in the Q2 earnings report”
“737 production reached 38 per month in the quarter”
I overlooked his second reference and went dumpster diving to find it. This may be confusing to those not understanding the nuances of the statements, because my experience is that both are simultaneously true. If I make the assumption that he posted both references from the same report, which looks very likely, one reads this as follows. Boeing increased production to 38 a month AND Boeing Reached 38 per month in the quarter. The statement that they increased production to 38 in my experience there means they put parts in work on the 38-rate schedule. My understanding of their statement that they Reached 38 is drum beating that they in fact loaded the first parts in work on the 38-rate schedule. I suspect they said it twice to clarify the fact that loading parts means to Boeing that they commenced rate 38, so they amplify it by saying they reached it to help those not well versed in Boeing ese. As someone who worked for decades in the place, they are very precise in how they say things and saying it twice had a purpose as I wrote.. If you want to speculate on that purpose, Im open to that, but what they said twice revolved around all of my long winded explanations of how the system functions. I’m not sure if you are a first language English speaker, and until UWE mentioned he wasn’t, I hadn’t considered that the wording differences could be potentially confusing.
Have a great day
“China’s rare earth magnet exports to US plunge 29% as tensions simmer”
“The decline in Chinese shipments to the US accelerated in September, predating Beijing’s new export controls and the flare-up that followed.”
“China’s total exports to the US of the permanent magnets – essential components in manufacturing for several hi-tech industries, including electric vehicles and defence – reached 420.5 tonnes last month, down 28.7 per cent from August, according to data released by Beijing’s General Administration of Customs on Monday.”
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3329693/chinas-rare-earth-magnet-exports-us-plunge-29-tensions-simmer
***
“Why the US needs China’s rare earths”
“Heavy rare earths are used in many military fields such as missiles, radar, and permanent magnets.
“A CSIS report notes that defence technologies including F-35 jets, Tomahawk missiles and Predator unmanned aerial vehicles all depend on these minerals.
“It adds that this comes as China “expands its munitions production and acquires advanced weapons systems and equipment at a pace five to six times faster than the United States”.
“The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial,” said Mr Kroemmer.
“And it’s not only in the field of defence.
“US manufacturing, which Trump has said he hopes to revive through the imposition of his tariffs, stand to be severely impacted.
“Manufacturers, particularly in defence and high-tech, face potential shortages and production delays due to halted shipments and limited inventories,” said Dr Harper.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1drqeev36qo
***
BDS (and LM, NG, etc.) must be running very low at this stage…
BA reports Q3 earnings on Oct. 29.
In the meantime, analysts have sharply revised their EPS estimates downward — expecting a much greater loss than recently envisioned.
EPS consensus estimate evolution (USD):
Current: $1.85 loss
7 days ago: $1.29 loss
30 days ago: 56 cents loss
60 days ago: 39 cents loss
90 days ago: 22 cent loss
🙈
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/analysis/
And now, as a benchmark, the equivalent consensus EPS estimate evolution over at Airbus (EUR):
Current: €1.63 profit
7 days ago: €1.30 profit
30 days ago: €1.37 profit
60 days ago: €1.37 profit
90 days ago: €1.55 profit
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AIR.PA/analysis/
And then Embraer (USD)
Current: 50 cents profit
7 days ago: 50 cents profit
30 days ago: 50 cents profit
60 days ago: 50 cents profit
90 days ago: 53 cents profit
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ERJ/analysis/
***
And BA’s performance is being peddled as “turning the corner”…?
I wonder if Boeing can break the -$2.00 EPS barrier.
We’ll see!
BA’s losses are generally even worse than analyst estimates…
“analyst” should always be in quotes, imo.
Indeed.
According to Mr. Hamilton, many/most of those following BA are “yes nodders” — a potential exception being Ron Epstein.
So, if even the “yes nodders” are this negative, it doesn’t bode well…
VINCENT
If it doesn’t hit -2, it would only be a testament to creative bookkeeping.
I’m a lucky one to get all my money out when I left
+1
No one (in power) in the US acts on safety concerns unless *American(s)* is (are) killed. We see this repeats and repeats again. Hope the latest FAA favor doled out won’t be one of them.
> DEEP DIVE: The safety promise over 15 years in the making may soon be realized in the aftermath of the DCA crash.
In DCA’s wake, Congress acts to implement decades-old ADS-B recommendations
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-policy/dca-congress-ads-b-surveillance-military-loophole/
Boeing 737s grounded following engine failures
> In a statement published on October 16, 2025, the airline announced the preventive suspension of eight Boeing 737-800 aircraft. It confirmed that all engines met the manufacturer’s inspection standards but noted a recurring pattern of failures involving the same engine type.
> The Technicians’ Association (APTA) attributed the issue to potential global blade defects, noting that engines might need earlier-than-scheduled replacements.
It’s Aerolineas Argentinas.
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/aerolineas-argentinas/aerolineas-argentinas-grounds-eight-boeing-737-800s-after-engine-failures/
Blade defects?? Is it true?
> first #A321xlr for #United
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G3yxS7BWEAAIThc?format=jpg
Step by step.. AB slowly and steadily supplants BA.
Yup. Airlines do renew their fleet and switch what aircraft they’ll fly.
> Condor Technik is overhauling its MRO operations as the airline division retires its Boeing 757s and 767s, replacing them with Airbus A330neo and A320neo aircraft.