Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Airbus dominates orders, commitments on Day 2 of Dubai Air Show
Nov. 18, 2025, © Leeham News News: Airbus notched orders on Day 2 of the Dubai Air Show. Boeing announced a small deals today.
The European OEM gained a new customer, flipping from Boeing, with a major deal from flydubai. Flydubai signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for 150 A321neos.
Etihad Airways ordered six A330-900s, becoming a new A330neo customer. The carrier also ordered seven more A350-1000s, bringing its total for the type to 27, and three A350Fs, for a total of 10 aircraft.
Etihad also announced the commitment to lease nine A330-900s from Avolon.
Air Europa signed an MOU with Airbus for up to 40 A350-900s. It becomes a new A350 customer. The airline’s long haul fleet is currently Boeing 787s.
Ethiopian Airlines ordered six more A350-900s.
Boeing
Gulf Air announced today that it finalized a previously announced firm order for 15 787s with options for three more. This brings its total 787 orders to 17.
De Havilland
De Havilland Canada and IndiaOne Air, a regional airline, signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) to acquire up to 10 Twin Otter Series 300-G aircraft.
More Dubai Air Show coverage
LNA’s partner AIN is on site at the Dubai Air Show. Full coverage may be found here. Links to AIN’s air show dailies may be found on that page.
Flightglobal posted an article of Boeing Middle East sales in 2025.
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/the-year-middle-east-carriers-lined-up-to-buy-boeing-widebody-jets/165261.article
“Since taking office in January, Trump, pursuing his “America first” agenda, has used Boeing jets as tools of leverage, pushing trading partners to place orders – with great success. Again and again, countries and their airlines have committed to buy Boeing jets as part of trade agreements with the USA.
“You’ll notice a constant trend: where there is a Trump trade deal, there’s a Boeing sale,” US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent said on 7 November. “This administration backs Boeing because Boeing backs America.”
Ortberg last month presented Trump with the “salesman of the year award, in the Oval Office”, Bessent adds.”
A big, game changing development in international aerospace.
The let go of WTO’s goal a system of rules for open and fair international trade, which is achieved through lowering trade barriers, establishing global rules, and resolving disputes among its 164 member governments.
I guess other countries and blocks will soon follow this road mapmoving ahead.
do Trumps successes go beyond declarations of intent?
( i.e. do they transform into tangible contracts?
afaics the advertised large Korean investment in the US is dead in the water after that ICE caper )
Time will tell how well these deals will work for the airlines and Boeing.
https://logwork.com/countdown-h5o4
Ethiopian Airlines ordered 6 more A350-900 while it still has 11 787 and 8 777-9 on order with options for 12 more 777.
Etihad will soon operate with 15 A330neos despite having 787 on order.
Instead of E-7 Wedgetails Europa will buy SAAB GlobalEye and ITAR-free is the buzz word for European arms producers.
More crackings will show up once the current generation of Atlanticists are shown the door.
the current set of Atlanticists are on a level with Marburg virus infection.
i.e. death (EU) could be the only terminator to that infection.
Uwe.
Did you see the film I sent on BA gactory assembly of the different models??
If not Ill resend.
Let’s hope so.
Politics have always played a role in aircraft sales. The WTO was ineffective in enforcing rules for free and fair trade so now politics will play a bigger role once again. The global order envisioned by the West is ceasing to exist because not everyone is willing to play by the rules and the WTO lacks enforcement will and capability.
Moving the goal posts to justify bad behavior.
Not everybody is willing to play by the West’s [i.e. US] rules, you mean- which is what “Rules-Based Int’l
Order” really means.
“US rules”
++++++++++++++
how astute!
WTO is and always has been a joke
As much as I detest the OA he is just proving that the US should never have limited itself while others ran free.
?? color me unimpressed.
The US has always pushed for advantages and gamed the WTO ( and other institutions ) heavily. Guess where the breakage stems from.
Only they tend to falter on the leveraging of those table tilting activities. Others are more prone to actually invest and are much less “first order greed driven”. Add in less jingoism.
+1
I don’t disagree with you. The table has been purposely tilted in favor of the US for obvious reasons. First we have, until recently, been the largest market and second we are the global police enabling and allowing global trade by ensuring freedom of navigation so everyone on the planet could benefit. Yes, 90% of global trade goes by sea. I don’t see anyone else building a true “blue water” navy to assure global trade for everyone.
Remember the pirates around the horn of Africa? Did the World Police single-handedly round them up/defeat them? Nope. The World Police went to Iraq and caused millions of deaths instead.
@Ewe:
Frankly what you are does not matter in the least.
My perspective I believe is far and above correct, you have indulged in Conspiracy Theories (aka the US Caused Japan to attack it – disregarding Japans attacks in China and the atrocities committed before WWII).
So be as whatever you want, but consider me as not caring less.
Thank you for using “Schopenhauer” to sign that you are out of arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
n/38 : should I enumerate?
The US refuses to follow the WTO rulings; the US Senate aimed to dismantle the organization. The US refuses to appoint members to the WTO Appellate Body, ending the resemblance of “rule based international order”.
Don’t cry crocodile’s tear.
U.S. Refusal to Appoint Members Renders WTO Appellate Body Unable to Hear New Appeals
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/us-refusal-to-appoint-members-renders-wto-appellate-body-unable-to-hear-new-appeals/AAEE87FF75E27F33F58A4CCC33D97A11
“U.S. Refusal to Appoint Members Renders WTO Appellate Body Unable to Hear New Appeals”
Good Airbus now can go back to the 1992 large aircraft agreement and fund 33% of the development with government subsidies
Google AI
“The “1992 large aircraft agreement” limited direct government support for the development of new large civilian aircraft to a maximum of 33% of total development costs. “
When did they stop?
The all time laugh was when Airbus agreed they had the money to develop the A350, and then, of course we are looking for governemtn subsidize! (not exact but close and definitely catches the Spirit (pun)
Yes, but. Original 777X orders are so delayed that I guess they could all be cancelled if not wanted. Pretty sure that if EK only want 100, they’ll only have to take 100. Anyway, many airlines need the capacity
Yep, none have cancelled so there is an ongoing need per Airlines determination not posters.
It overstates the obvious but Airlines make those decisions and to say otherwise (as has been too often done) flies in the face of facts (spitting into a Hurricane etc)
Emirates has to find ways to use up Boeing’s compensation credits.
Stephanie Pope: “We are preparing Boeing South Carolina for decades of 787 production.”
Boeing 787 is the new 737?
It seems we won’t see any 777-8s ever. Empty the -8 weighs 25t more than then a A350-1000, that Qantas will use to fly to the UK. So no supersize here.
Sadly…the freighter is a 777-8F. If you are making the freighter than the pax might as well take the ride.
It makes an interesting aspect that turning the 8F into a Pax and the program costs mostly for the 8F.
FedEx is probably set for some time but that is a long term item of interest.
Feedstock for 777 PCF has been skinny. Ergo FedEx bought new 777F.
There are over 800 777-300ER. Hahaha. Lessors like GECAS (now AerCap) are eager to find outlets for their 777W returned.
KEESJE
Yes the 777-8x weighs more.
I was running numbers and found this, which makes the straight statements of weight for the 777-8x and A350-1000 more interesting
Boeing 777-8X useful load: ~183,750 kg; typical seats: ~384
Useful load per passenger = 183,750 kg ÷ 384 ≈ 479 kg per passenger
Airbus A350-1000 useful load: ~163,000 kg; typical seats: ~369. Useful load per passenger = 163,000 kg ÷ 369 ≈ 442 kg per passenger
Maximum payload capacity (structural limit) is roughly 27,188 kg for the 777-8X and 26,000 kg for the A350-1000.
Useful load at maximum takeoff weight reaches about 183,750 kg for the 777-8X, and around 163,000 kg for the A350-1000.
Maybe the numbers arent nearly as unfavorable as the emmpty weight suggests. I think the data shows that the 777-8x is better than the A350,-1000 at higher load factors. That also means the opposite, where the A350 is better at lower load factors. The crossover point gets muddy because of the fares and distribution of pricing. But there IS a crossover.
Another consideration is that the smaller airplane runs out of the capability to generate revenue as it runs out of seats first. With upgaging happening everywhere in the insustry this really deserves a look. Its complicated when the assumptions get moved around….
This is a really interesting subject and I honestly hadn’t looked at it until you posted the straight weight comparrison. Thanks for the nudge to do so.
oew per pax “value” is not linear.
you need more fuel ( linear ) but you also need more fuel to drag fuel for later along ( the exponential part ).
i.e. lower OEW has quite a significant advantage.
and you need to compare both on real 2-class OEW.
165t appears high here. more like a premium heavy layout with up to 1/2t monuments per premium seat.
UWE
Agreed….LOPA really matters. The way the numbers get pushed around when comparing 2 essentially different sized airplanes revolves around each customers route package and needs. I just got curious to see why the 777x was selling if it was so inferior as a others were saying. The more I looked, the more complicated it gets. It would be better if it was a lot lighter but Boeing wasnt wanting to risk both the wing and a new carbon fuse simultaneously. Remember, they hired out the 787 wing and this is their first hands on carbon wing and they built a new factory around that
@PNW: Boeing launched the 777X in 2013 with an order from Lufthansa. It wasn’t that Boeing “wasn’t wanting to risk both the wing and a new carbon fuse simultaneously.” It was that Boeing couldn’t afford another entirely new airplane program. Putting a composite fuselage on the 777X in addition to a composite wing effectively meant a new airplane program. The 787 had been grounded for three months Jan-March 2013, the MAX was still in development, the 747-8 wasn’t selling, and the KC-46 program was in its early development stages. Boeing was also known at the time for being late and over budget (if people only knew what was to come on this score!). Proceeding as it did with the 777X was the low-risk approach.
Thanks Scott.
All true. Not only was Boeing out of Money and Talent
There were also the memories of the old problems in the Aft Fuselage of the 787 that caused Vought to toss in the towel on the aft 787 fuselage and force Boeing to buy them. There was a huge bad taste in Everett Engineering over the Carbon Fuselage as a place for problems to occur after that kind of stuff. You have no idea how hard I fought to stay off the Tupperplane.
A new fuselage and a new wingbox to join wings would
have “gullability overextended” even the ( as defanged as it were ) FAA as an extension of the exisitng 777 cert from 1995.
and it would not have fixed the weight issue.
That lies in the basic wing design. flexi wings are heavy.
so 777X retained the basic fuselage, the AL wingbox and geometrically got wing root inserts moving gear and engines a bit outboard. The changed planform was transferred into a carbon build. aka “black AL” not the best way to go.
“Aft Fuselage of the 787 that caused Vought to toss in the towel”
what was the beef there ?
The talent pool, what a talent pool!
https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1991008944823939214
In the future, airplanes are designed by AI, managed by AI, flew by AI…
.. and crashed by AI hallucinations.
@PNWgeek:
Well stated.
Clearly there is a reason the 777-9 sells and no cancellation despite the delays.
For fill in you can get an A350-1000 or a 777-300ER (or could)
But yea, lots of moving pieces as none of us knows how well any Airlines does on its Rich Folk seating (or laying)
Add in belly cargo, routes flow and probably other factors I am not in the know on.
Airbus forced their clients into the A350-800 when the A330CEO was dropping out. Then it was, ok, 900 and they all took it.
Airlines (most anyway) are not stupid, they figured they could jump to an A350-900 and make money. Maybe not as much.
As we used to say back in the day, you need a Cray Supercomputer to figure this stuff out. Or a person in a rubber room.
Etihad CEO Antonoaldo Neves about the A350-1000:
“The A350-1000 is a very, very important plane for Etihad because of the payload and range it gives to Etihad to fly ultra long-haul, […] This is a plane that can fly to the US or Australia with almost no payload limitations”.
[…] While Etihad acknowledges that the engines have to go to repair shop visits “more often than they should” after doing just 900 cycles to 1,000 cycles, Mr Neves is happy with the overall partnership.
“We are really happy with the performance of the plane,” he said. “Many people talk about the engine challenges. But we have an agreement with Rolls-Royce in terms of spare-engine ratio availability.”
Spare-engine ratio refers to how many spares an airline needs for a given number of in-service engines. “The spare-engine ratio is really good,” Mr Neves said. “I’m covered and whenever I need to change the engine, then I change the engine. The A350-1000 today has the highest utilisation in the fleet. The plane is flying a lot.”
https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/aviation/2025/11/18/dubai-airshow-etihad-airways-orders-32-airbus-passenger-planes-and-freighters/
I guess the first order of business is to keep one’s customers happy. Sounds RR have managed to do that despite it all, and then some.
I presume that the longevity improvements RR have been coming up with will also find their way into these fleets? That should make for even happier customers.
It would be good to see the engine life improve, if only for old times sake. I can remember years ago (1990s) reading Cathay’s in flight mag, which had an article about one of their RB211’s on a jumbo that’d done a ridiculous number of hours on the wing, had never been off the wing and was still meeting it’s fuel burn spec. Maybe with today’s temps and wafer-thin clearances that level of “forever” isn’t achievable, but as a passenger it did give the impression that this plane one was on was never, ever going to go wrong. There just something very cool about engineering-at-the-very-edge-of-physics that also has an air of permanence about it.
Question is at what cost?
What it means is RR is ponying up to stock their spare engines which means engines sitting there and those cost 20 million or so each.
Long term that should resolve as they get the bugs worked out (wear out) but RR is still having knock ons from the Trent 1000 issues.
Engine swaps impact ops regardless.
900 to 1,000 cycles for the A350-1000 is approximately three years or more? Womp womp.
PEDRO
Its a bit worse than that.
Etihad’s A350 fleet flies about 480-500 cycles per aircraft annually on average, consistent with general A350 fleet utilization
With 6 in hand and 21 more on order, they are looking at engine changes under 2 years. A lot of them. The location of the aircraft when the change is needed is important too. If the aircraft is AOG it can be quite disruptive. I think downplaying this issue makes little sense, unless of course, its an agenda item of yours
Etihad’s A350 fleet mostly flies long-haul to North America, Australia and Japan.
Let’s take a deeper look with real numbers:
Round trip to ORD (incl. time on the ground): 34 hr
SYD: 38 hr
NRT: ~28 hr
Please explain how is it possible for the A350 to average 1.4 flight for 365 days a year?
Does an airline schedule to fly an aircraft 365 days a year? No. Not a single one would do that, without major disruption in its services.
—> “Flying cycle information: There is no specific data available in the search results about the average number of flying cycles per day for the Etihad A350 fleet. This information is proprietary and not publicly disclosed.”
count Etihad planes in the air simultaneously and compare to fleet size. works fine.
PEDRO WROTE
Please explain how is it possible for the A350 to average 1.4 flight for 365 days a year?
“Flying cycle information: There is no specific data available in the search results about the average number of flying cycles per day for the Etihad A350 fleet. This information is proprietary and not publicly disclosed.”
PEDRO,
Lets use some real data instead of your Chat GPT crap.
The April 2025 Airbus A350 Family Facts and Figures report indicates that the monthly utilization in flight cycles for the A350 family is about 40 cycles per month. This figure reflects the typical operational usage of the aircraft, considering the A350’s focus on long-haul flights, which results in fewer takeoff and landing cycles compared to aircraft serving shorter routes. The report aligns with the design intent of the A350 to optimize for long-range operations, balancing flight hours with cycle counts to maintain structural longevity.
Now lets answer your question on how you fly 40 cycles a month when flying long schedule legs when the round trip flight times are so long.
Etihad’s ability to achieve around 40 flight cycles per month on their A350-1000 fleet, despite round-trip flight times often exceeding one day, can be explained by operational factors beyond simple round-trip duration:
Etihad operates multiple A350-1000 aircraft simultaneously on various routes, allowing flight cycles to add up collectively across the fleet rather than relying on a single aircraft doing 40 cycles alone.
Some flight legs within the network are shorter-haul segments or back-to-back routes fitting within a day, increasing daily cycles for specific aircraft.
The term “flight cycle” counts each takeoff and landing separately, so a round-trip count as two cycles. Multiple shorter routes or turnarounds and redeployments contribute to higher monthly cycle totals.
Fleet utilization figures published by Airbus reflect aggregated monthly cycle averages over the whole operated A350-1000 fleet, not individual single-plane round-trip durations.
If you dont want to take Airbuses’ word for it, then I dont know what to tell you.
IN CONCLUSION. It remains a big deal that the A350-100 fleet at Etihad is changing engines so quickly and so often…..
“It remains a big deal that the A350-100 fleet at Etihad is changing engines so quickly and so often…..”
No big deal for Mr Neves who “is happy with the overall partnership”.
We will see later rather than sooner how well a GE9X performs in the desert.
Once again PNWgeek does a great layout of the reality.
As for Mr. Neves, he did not know the issue when he bought the birds. Airbus kept it well hidden like they do many things.
So, what is RR paying Mr. Neves on top of storing excess engines for him?
Penalty for a missed flight due to the engine change out being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Have to think not as its a wear out question vs a failure per the Trent 1000 that had to be fixed or grounded immediately.
So you get a good idea of the change cycle, RR has the engines in stock, flied them to (Dubai?), pays for the change and a missed flight if it take a while (pretty sure they have to do a test flight after an engine change)
Of course he is happy. He gets an otherwise good aircraft (the A350 is a good aircraft) and he makes more money or takes no penalties or combination of that.
Happy happy happy.
PEDRO WROTE
Etihad’s A350 fleet mostly flies long-haul to North America, Australia and Japan.
Please explain how is it possible for the A350 to average 1.4 flight for 365 days a year?
PEDRO, Happy to help you out with this. Its all in the schedule.
Your assertion that the A350-1000 is reserved for long distance flying and the cherry picking of the routes to support the low engine cycles is grossly misrepresentative of actual use. Here are common flights the aircraft fly’s and why the engine problem is more of an issue than what you dismiss as a minor inconvenience.
Etihad Airways operates its Airbus A350-1000 on the following routes in 2025:
Amsterdam (AMS)
Atlanta (ATL)
Chicago O’Hare (ORD)
Delhi (DEL)
Mumbai (BOM)
New York JFK (JFK)
Sydney (SYD)
Tokyo Narita (NRT)
Milan Malpensa (MXP)
AUH DEL 28 a week 4 cycles a day
DEL AUH 28 a week 4 cycles a day
AUH BOM 28 a week 4 cycles a day
BOM AUH 28 a week 4 cycles a day
AUH MXP 18 a week 2.51 cycles a day
MXP AUH 23 a week 3.28 cycles a day
NRT AUH 7 a week 2 cycles a day, 1 round trip
AUH NRT 7 a week 2 cycles a day, 1 round trip
These flights show how you get more than 1 cycle a day out of the fleet.
I could keep going but this makes the point.
What else would you like to learn today
LMAO
Take a look of what EY flies on a typical day, Jan 15 2026, thru Google flights:
AUH to DEL
A321 x 2 flights
B777 x 2 flights
**A350 Zip, zilch, nada**
AUH to NYC
A350 x 1 flight
B787 x 1 flight
AUH to SYD
A350 x 2 flights
AUH to BOM
A350 x 1 flight
A321 x 1 flight
A320 x 1 flight
B787 x 1 flight
AUH to NRT
B787 x 1 flight
**A350 Zip, zilch, nada**
Okay I’m not going to waste my time. You have to repeat for the rest. Next time, put some real effort (not half effort like this!) and try harder.
PNW
Airbus’s A350 family includes:
A350-900 and
A350-1000
Please take note, the two variants come with different engines from RR.
Pay attention, we were talking about the engine XWB-97 of the A350-1000, specifically Etihad’s A350-1000. So the figures from Airbus include also those from A350-900 (and other airlines), which is not what we were talking about. Got it?
Please note that for example JAL has a fleet of A350-900s flying for domestic short-haul. Flight cycles from aircraft like these that fly short-haul would skew the statistics in Airbus’s record.
That is as bad as the old 747 P&W JT9D-7A engines. And the Trent XWB is a big step forward from the T1000….
So RR need to work hard and install certified new turbine hardware.
First they have to figure out how to correct it.
Then they have to test the fix.
Then they have to get it on aircraft and see if the long term is good. Note a fix test is just that, did we make it where it breaks? (PW and the oil seal).
You have to cut in on the production line with the change but you have to get all your suppliers up to snuff with what parts they have in the change.
There are 8000 hours in a year (very close) testing at best is a long process and until you test in real conditions (on wing) you do not know for sure.
In this case probably a good idea as they degrade over time and you can see that.
The fixing is in the work and retrofitting will be available?
tl:dr: the global airliner supply duopoly is once again confirmed.
>The European OEM gained a new customer, flipping from Boeing, with a major deal from flydubai. Flydubai signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for 150 A321neos.
Or, by my calculations, 4.14 miles of A321neos. It’s about time they stopped wasting time talking about these aircraft in singular units.
MOU is the lowest classification of orders. Letter of Intent LOI is sort of next step up before actual commitments occur such as options and orders
Both are NOT legally binding
Indeed so, not even if the memo or letter is on a sheet of paper 4.14 miles long!
Airbus’s A320-family backlog seems to be about 200miles long at present. Boeing’s 737 backlog is also impressively long at about 125 mile. Adding anothew few miles on the end with new MoUs, LoI or hard orders makes precious little difference anymore.
Flydubai needs the A321 for delivery from 2031. It has yet to determine which variants but it won’t take long. Sadly the 737-10’s range is poor and the aircraft is MIA.
The 737-10 range on its standard fuel tanks is better than the A321 which needs 1 extra cargo hold tank to match it
737 since around 1997 has had the more efficient and larger fuel volume wing.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/13/boeing-737-max-10-analyzed/
Out of paywall
Boeing 737-10 payload range chart
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/737-10_payloadrange.jpg
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2023/12/03/how-will-the-737-10-payload-range-compare-against-the-a321neo/#:~:text=The%20aircraft%20can%20though%20carry,X)LR%20can%20do%20so.
Epsilon is wrong . LNA is a better source
The LNA shows how the passenger seating is very similar – without Ozempic style miniscule toilets
A321XLR is a different model, much more expensive and really to be used on regional and international routes.
“The 737-10 range on its standard fuel tanks is better than the A321 which needs 1 extra cargo hold tank to match it”
Which is moot.
A321 has the space for an AUX tank 737-10 not so much.
Same on the MTOW side.
MAX is MAXed out.
Lets see what customers think about the Rube Goldberg Main Gear design:-)
Epsilon posted a chart of payload range of the 737-10 against A321.
What did it get “wrong”??
The A320/321 is wider, so airlines are able to put much preferred 1-2-1 business seats (and even “suites”). That’s why American pick the A321 for premium heavy transcon, not their 737 MAX.
No one mentioned toilets, not Epsilon.
Look, what BA’s customers have in their 737 MAX: tiny toilets that BA sell for ‘space efficiency’!
https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-737-max-lavatories/
Air Europa is interesting as clearly they went with the A350-900 instead of the 787-10.
Either it offers aspects they want or Airbus has sold them at a loss to get the deal.
Airbus has so much money in the bank as they don’t have to pay for their new aircraft builds they have plenty of money to undercut Boeing.
Both 787-10 and A350-900 are good aircraft, but have different payload-range optimizations.
787-10 is best on the Atlantic, A350-900 to/from Asia.
@Keejse:
While I agree factually , my caveat goes hand in hand with some posters who claim Boeing sells under cost!
Off course Boeing is currently selling a lot of planes under cost. Their reported quarterly financial statements for the past few years tell us so, so it’s not a claim, it’s a financially audited reported fact.
I am afraid you just failed economics 010. In my world its called a logic bust.
You seem to think that Boeing could sell the next 787 for 50 billion and clear the books. 25 billion over two? 150 million over 2500?
When you have messed up and are in debt (or circumstances though Boeing messed up for years)
This is an oft repeated fallacy. Trite even.
Boeing may only be making 10 million profit per aircraft, do some match and see how soon they can be out of debt.
As long as the debt is coming down (and it is) then they are selling at more than cost.
Basic business says that Boeing has many irons in the fire. The F-15EX and AH64 are making money. T7A no.
You then have to take all your businesses, do the match, see who is making money and who is not.
You take all your costs (materials, labor, heat and power and air-conditioning and paining the buildings once in a while) and try to assign what each Boeing facility costs and what each Boeing facility that builds stuff for the assembly plant.
While the formula is complex, the basic concept is not. How much did that division spend and how much did it make, assign those costs to each aircraft and what that adds up to.
And yes, if you eeel out of your taxes those are not assigned. It may not be right but as long as they are following the law, its legal.
Trans
Do you have any numbers to back up your claims?
Or read this:
1) BA has lost $36 billion over last six years…
2) BCA lost $4,456 million under unit cost accounting before interest and taxes in the first half of the year.
Just reducing “churn” ( groundings, rework, customer compensation ) should bring some light to Boeing’s financial equation.
To wit: it is magnitudes easier to sink into a hole
than to extract oneself from that same hole.
( that extraction process hasn’t really started yet afaics.)
“… claim Boeing sells under cost!”
BA lost $15 billion before a single 777X is delivered. Is that a record?
Clearly Air Europa knows better than many here about the good and bad of the 787.
TW..
Unfathomable, an AB discount..
Does seem like the most likely cause for bailing.
Yep.
Boeing did it with Hawaiian Air. They made little or no money on the first tranch of 787s.
Over time they think they can change that.
Of course the Airbus can do no wrong group does not get that. And frankly its not wrong. If Boeing wants to cut its margins to zero, they can do it.
All of em sell at loss for first builds.
Its over time you hope to make money. A380 never did, A340 did not. 747-8 probably did not.
If Airbus undercuts Boeing good for them.
@TW: Correct, 747-8 did not make money. Boeing took a few billion in charges.
It’s now taken a charge on the 787, MAX, 767 and 777X programs.
It’s taken charges on the KC46A, T-7, MQ-25, SLS, F-14, F-18 and more.
The only division without charges is Services.
Makes you wonder why Boeing is an airplane company.
You need airplanes ( and customer capture ) for offering “services”?
( razor blade type market )
@TW
Why do you think the A340 did not make money? The A340 shares far more parts with the A330 than the 787-8 with 787-9.
Boeing gives financial details on each program line.
Airbus just gives its separate divisions and mixes unit and program accounting so its not clear
F-14 was a Grumman program, maybe you mean F-15, which hasnt had a reach forward loss and is still in production
Boeings bad management decisions means the shareholders miss out not the customers- airlines and military forces
F-15 was McDonnell Douglas