Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
New policy for Reader Comments on LNA
Jan. 1, 2026, © Leeham News: We have implemented a change for accepting Reader Comments. Due to a small group of readers who consistently fail to observe Reader Comment Rules, despite warnings and in some cases suspensions, all Comments are held for moderator review before publication. Any violations in the Reader Comment rules found during moderation may result in editing before publication or rejection of the comment.
Publication of Comments will be delayed, pending how quickly the review is accomplished and the time zones of the commenter.
Bravo.
excellent MERCI
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Shall I sugest to remove readers comments repeating over and over
aAlso clearly out of subject
Endless length “ce qui se conçois bien, s’énonce clairement”
Good move. The comments could be classified as engineering analysis design-MRO/flight safety, market trends/economical and political/law and if you are only interested in one or more you click on those buttons and just see what you selected once the number of comments exceed a defined number
This change is a very rational step. Thanks!
I have three questions regarding this matter:
Question 1:
Will edits conducted by moderation be made visible as such, so that everybody can see, what was written by the original commenter and what was edited by moderation? If you do not plan to do so from the beginning, do you plan to introduce such a method at a later point?
Question 2:
Will commenters who have a consistend precedent of never, ever violating comment rules, over a (very) long amount of time, will eventually earn the possibility of having their comments published instantaneously? Of course this ability would be contingend, that they continue to continuously never violate the comment policy. If such a process is not planned for the beginning, do you consider introducing it at a later point?
Question 3:
Will we have the option to activate (automatic) E-Mail notification, once our comment has been published, that it has been published? I mean a similar notification system, to the one that you already offer as an option “Notify me of follow-up comments by E-Mail” only that this notification system would notify us, once our comment has been published.
If you haven´t planned this system for the beginning, do you consider introducing it at a later point?
1. Offending parts of any comment edited will be edited out and noted with {Edited] per past policy.
2. There is no automated mechanism to do as you suggest. Readers will just have to wait till the Moderators get around to it.
3. There is no mechanism to do this.
Sorry for any part I may have played in the posting of “bad” comments.
Thank you Leeham News team. This new policy will make for a more pleasant New Year for many. Happy New Year!
Well, these readers will leave more space for others who’d discuss the only subject
“Boeing plans to increase the production of its narrow-body 737 passenger aircraft to 47 per month in late spring or early summer of 2026. ”
https://avweb.com/aviation-news/business-aviation-news/boeing-to-boost-monthly-737-production-further-in-2026/
Maybe someone should check out how those new 8 wing riveters Renton ordered 2 years ago are not in operation (not delivered)…and may never get into operation! This type of set back can cause 2-3 years to recover
There’s chatter of 63 p/m “by 2028”.
https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2025/12/17/boeing-737-max-production-signs-emerge-of-a-potential-63-per-month-rate/
November saw 32 deliveries (at nominal rate 38-42).
December seems to have yielded 41.
Analyst consensus is for a loss of $0.41 per share in Q4 2025, with some estimates as low as -$1.42 per share. One wonders at what rate breakeven will be achieved…the consensus EPS for Q1 2026 is currently just slightly positive, though with a downward trend.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/analysis/
Abalone.
It’s more than chatter. Thats why Everet has at least 1, and room for a second 737 line in place awaiting activation. Originally the plan is to pull the -10 off the Renton build cycle for assembly on the north line to Deconflict the chain rate. Ultimately the shorter airplanes will also go there as neeses to get to the higher line rates. The building they are in has fufficient room for 2 lines to run down the building at varying chain rates if they want to do it that way. They already have the signage on the north line cafe for food service.
Also remember that the delivery rate is calculated by aircraft at rollout and each month has a different target depending on the number of Mdays in it. December had 17 workdays scheduled and November 19. these are 2 of the slowest months of the year. Boeing at a 37 rate schedules roughly 245 days of work depending on holidays. this means the expectation is a daily rate of 1.82 a day or 34 in december
And which company was to supply those riveters ?
I like it. Yes I am one of the listed specially.
Trying to manage an interactive Forum is a tough situation for the owner. Most of the forums have volunteer moderators. Someone who has a full time job/company to run, phew.
There are posters who are (were) frustrated and violated the rules in response. A lot like a US Football game, someone skirts the edge or over it, I respond and get the 15 yard penalty.
I do get it, Scott is trying to deal with a problem, my wrestling coach always said, you wrestle, I will deal with the referees.
I do think volunteer moderators with good records would be a benefit. And no, I am not putting myself up for it. Others that have a good record. I admire them for their restraint.
Not trying to go off topic but I think the deliveries are worth looking at.
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/airbus-vs-boeing-who-won-2025/
Congratulation Airbus and managed more (as usual) than I thought they could. Hopefully the hangover is not too bad.
Boeing did well though they have issues to overcome for sure.
It should be an interesting year with the -7/-10 and seeing how they do on the 777X.
Happy New Year!
Interesting things are on the list for this year (or the next):
– MAX-10
– 777-9
– A350F
– 777F/767F ICAO exemptions?
– MD11 comeback?
– …
Let’s not forget the action outside of the mainstream:
– Potential Chinese CJ-1000A turbofan certification.
– Potential C919-600 (high-altitude variant) FAL rollout.
Very interesting to read in this week’s LNA article that COMAC has already secured 7% of the narrowbody market…versus 2% for Embraer.
> Very interesting to read in this week’s LNA article that COMAC has already secured 7% of the narrowbody market…
Indeed.
I am having a hard time seeing a C919-600 as significant.
Miner variation taking their eyes off the ball for a niche aircraft.
The so called sales numbers show they need to get production going.
But then as noted below, the numbers are not valid.
Bloomberg: “Airbus Said to Beat 2025 Annual Delivery Goal of 790 Aircraft”
“Airbus SE delivered 793 aircraft in 2025, exceeding its revised annual target, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbus-said-beat-2025-annual-153558435.html
Following the pattern from previous years, Jan/Feb will now probably be relatively quiet.
That should be amended to achieved a revised delivery goal. I think 820 something was the goal.
The numbers are listed in my post above.
As noted, Airbus was impressive if they hit 750. What they did hit was even more impressive. Mostly it is not being in full control of the supply chain (or the supply chain not delivering on schedule).
Neither Airbus nor Boeing can do anything more than see where the problem is and what needs to be done to correct it. You would need a company rep at every widget supplier to catch all the issues.
Some like interior cascade. Their customers want botique interiors so they can charge boo coo bucks for the high priced seats. Each new seat needs to be engineered to aircraft standards.
Airbus had one small area they had issues with they should have caught (thin panels). Easy to solve, very hard to catch up from a gap.
That stuff happens. They caught it and that is what the layers of safety do when they work right.
while the XLRs seem to add longhaul complexity into the build process, Lufthansa complained that A320s from XWF were of better build quality than TLS.
On the positive side, i would hope the XLR will generate a stronger push for increased hunt of improvements on the A32x platform, as clients will crave for more range for their XLRs.
And these improvements should make their way into regular A320s, lifting the baseline capabilities (like single slotted A321 wings, new landing lights etc)
I know what ANC is (PANC now I believe) but not XWF or TLS though guessing the 2nd one Toulouse?
XWF China?
XFW is Hamburg (Finkenwerder) in Germany. The AIRBUS plant has its own runway. It is situated some kilometers south of HAM airport.
As Comac does not have any serious production of the C919 going, the percentage is bogus.
Obviously they are talking sales.
Airbus has worked their sales into a gain of market share increase by increasing production, not sales.
Sales can be a valuable metric, but only if backed up by production.
Between the A320 and the A220, Airbus builds something like 80 single aisles a month. Boeing just cracked 38 building to 42. 46 by mid year likely. 48 is their goal for Renton if I remember that right (higher numbers as Everett line goes active).
COMAC on the other hand delivered 8 -10 this year? Doing a bit of back of the napkin math, that is .007 (that does not include Embraer added to Airbus and Boeing)
If you look at the so called sales, its all Chineese companies be it airlines or banks or leasing arms and owned entities in places like Indonesia.
Anyone think that they have to put any money down ? (LOL).
Airbus gained true market share on increasing production and Boeing decreasing production (zero at times).
Airplanes are not cell phones nor computers. You can’t ramp up build at the flip of a switch. Its a long hard process. Airbus has shown how hard it is, well run operation and they have had significant issues.
No, the sky is not going to fall, but they also repeatedly have missed the production increases they were aiming for. They are dealing with the problems, none of it is as out of hand as Boeing got, not even close.
Boeing is recovering, Comac is limping along at IR and no where close to numbers. What numbers they are shooting for are not even A220 numbers.
Auto mfgs can turn on a dime, retool and build a popular item in a 6 month time span (Ford Mustang being one of the famous ones). Aircraft mfgs can not.
Orders are subject to fakery. In this case, orders not backed up by production.
“Orders are subject to fakery. In this case, orders not backed up by production.”
Oh, well, if that’s the measurement standard, then BA’s 737-7, 737-10 and 777X numbers need to be ignored…which will put Airbus and Embraer on a stronger footing in the orderbook statistics 👍
Fully agree.
If its not delivered its not valid.
You can normally gauge interest by orders. But that is when the orders are valid. China cooks the books worse than Airbus who is famous for it.
Boeing adheres to the cleaner order book requirement.
Airbus does not have to cook the books, clearly their orders are valid (or as valid as a backlog into the 2040 time line can be).
As Ronnie said, trust but verify. Deliveries can not be faked.
COMAC rates higher than Embraer on all orders and little production, phew.
Embraer makes more in a month (probably not too exaggerated) than COMAC does in a year.
More A320 flying now than 737, despite the huge order dispairty, took all this time. Long term the disparity is not the orders, its what is delivere3d before the next new aircraft and then the orders morph to that.
Abalone
Orders are indeed subject to fakery by everybody in one way or the other. It is interesting to note that Boeing is in a position forced by law to maintain their orderbook in accordance with ASC606. No other manufacturer is so constrained. As far as the 777x not being in realistic production, some 30 are already built and in line for Change Incorporation as soon as the TC is issued, thats far from an imaginary product. Same with the 737s noted. They have aircraft in inventory awaiting the TC release. Lets work on maintaining civility and intellectual honesty so Scott doesnt pull the plug.
After years’ refusal to admit, finally the truth came out late last year from Boeing that Etihad has canceled orders of both 777X and 787.
I wonder how such shenanigans are able to go under the radar for so many years!
FWIW, LNA reported the Etihad orders were nonsense.
10 + 10 777X cancellations in November, and 33 777X added to ASC606.
One wonders which customers are behind those shaky orders?
Any rumors?
@Abolone: Under ASC606, any order for any airliner (not just 777X) that is beyond the contracted delivery schedule and subject to cancellation becomes an ASC606 classification. So under this accounting rule, many 777Xs for Emirates, Lufthansa and others are ASC606. The same is true for 737s and 787s. This does not mean the airlines will cancel; it means the may cancel.
@TW
My online search indicates 16 C919 produced last year. Market share is a funny number; it should be easy to calculate. I prefer to measure market share in the next ~ 2 years of production forecast. The reality is that all OEMs could deliver more if they could simply make them.
COMAC will have their excuses as will the other OEMs and they will have a 2026 commitment that is “optimistic.” That said…they are capable of more than 16. The -600 may have a measure of sales as it is targeted towards Tibet operations. The -800 has more opportunity as it is a comp of an A321.
Embraer actually has a tougher exercise if they want more than 2% of the market. The 2% does not include the E175…but that’s not really a comporable or significant segment. Embraer would need to fundamentally tool up to be a bigger company.
Boeing can get back to the 40s% of market share…just make aircraft.
LNA looks at COMAC on Jan. 15. It’s paywall, though.
@ Casey
All valid points.
Apart from the limited use case for the C919-600 in Himalayan and Andean operations, the aircraft is interesting because it has been indicated that it will have more powerful engines than the current LEAP-1Cs on the regular C919. This may point to the CJ-1000A.
For COMAC, everything stands or falls with implementing an alternative to the LEAP-1C, since the Chinese won’t want to continue to be beholden to western suppliers.
As it relates to the -600…the A319ceo had a high-thrust variant. They are fundamentally the same engines as the other variants. It is simply the case that nobody is buying the A319neo today…period.
There was campaign activity at one point to provide a viable A320-size aircraft for the same mission…but the thrust was never there.
Top-end thrust ratings on the CJ-1000A are ambiguous to find…but I would be surprised if they are out of line with the CFM56. You are simply adding weight with heavier engines for a very limited opportunity. The final answer should be apparent when the specifications are released for the -800.
My sense is that the true capacity “today” is around 5-6 frames per month. Engines are not the limiting factor; there is a more fundamental learning curve or supply chain risk at play.
From the link below:
“…But challenges this year hurt capacity, notably difficulties receiving a steady flow of parts for new aircraft — including engines from CFM International, a joint venture between GE Aerospace and France’s Safran SA, that were subjected to a US export ban.”
https://www.gulf-times.com/article/717477/business/chinas-comac-on-track-to-miss-c919-delivery-target-by-half
From the same article:
“The potential miss comes as Comac last month received a boost from several state-owned shareholders, injecting 44bn yuan ($6.3bn) into the planemaker, according to data from Chinese corporate registry platform Tianyancha that was cited by local media. The cash would enable Comac to scale up and boost production.
“Comac said as recently as a supplier conference in March 2025 that it planned to raise capacity output next year to make 100 of the aircraft. That will be followed by 150 in both 2027 and 2028, and then 200 annually by 2029, the company said.”
***
They won’t be hitting those numbers with CFM engines, so they evidently have some other engine up their sleeve.
On the A319Neo, i’ve recently wondered why Airbus is not taking more inspiration of Boeing, and offereing “shrunk” XLR as ACJ Business jet, eseentially XLR Wings, Tank, Aerotweaks s etc. but shorten the fuselage to A319 or A320 length.
At the 101,5T MTOW this should add some serious legs to the their business jet offering – especially aimed at the government plane replacements of aging ACJ319 etc..
@Frank
If I had to hazard a guess…it’s because Airbus does not want to make the a319 at all given the market conditions.
The A319neo has 32 deliveries over seven years with 25 more in backlog. The A319ceo had 1484 deliveries over the life of the program. The market simply does not exist any more, at least for Airbus. They have an A220 for that.
China just “ordered” 115 A320neo in total from Airbus.
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-12-calc-orders-30-additional-airbus-a320neo-family-aircraft
(the rest may be options from other Chinese airlines)
remind me again…what year was Boeing’s last order from China!
China put Boeing — and several other US entities and persons — on a sanctions list in December, in relation to US arms sales to Taiwan.
That will probably lead to a continuation of BA’s order drought in China.
2024 would be the year.
CDB leasing ordered 50 max 8 aircraft that year.
Technically, CDB Aviation Lease is an Irish company…though it’s owned by CDB in Shenzhen. So, in actuality, the order came from Ireland 😉
Apart from that, one has to go back to 2017 for a Chinese *airline* order. I suspect that @ David Pritchard was referencing that.
Yea, back door deliveries.
just a fyi..IATA website
“CDB Aviation Lease Finance DAC (“CDB Aviation”) is a wholly owned Irish subsidiary of China Development Bank Financial Leasing Co., Limited (“CDB Leasing”) a 34-year-old Chinese leasing company. China Development Bank is the largest Chinese bank for foreign investment and financing cooperation, long-term lending and bond issuance, enjoying Chinese sovereign credit rating.”
can’t really say they are Chinese orders look at CDB Aviation customer list https://www.cdbaviation.aero/what-we-do/#!/customers
Not an area I follow much, be interesting to see if China Mainland airlines lease from anyone but Chinese lessors?
Lessors in China have a portfolio of global customers, including airlines in the US.
Actually,the last Order from a “Chinese” *Airline* was not 🚫 2017.
Greater Bay Airlines of Hong Kong placed an order for 15 Max 9’s in 2023.
Last I checked,Hong Kong was indeed part of China.😌
The order from the Greater Bay Airlines is tiny.
There’s a lack of understanding here:
Cathay Pacific is also an airline from HK, a SAR of China, also a (separate) member of the WTO. Things got complicated, there’s a separate currency that’s freely convertible, the immigration control is separated and HK also has separate air services agreements with other countries and **its own aircraft register**.
Think Bermuda, do you consider Bermuda airline a British airline??
Then there is the theory of Duck Identification.
If it quacks like a duck, it has duck feet, it has a duck bill and checks out with Duck DNA, it it not a Duck?
Have you heard of the parable of the blind men and an elephant?
I believe the total is 145 Airbus A320 families. For more details, see my post here: https://leehamnews.com/2025/12/23/merry-christmas-and-happy-new-year-3/#comment-555903
(30 + 60 + 30 + 25)
Would you please stop making excuses about the last Boeing order from a Chinese Airline.
I simply corrected Abalone’s mistake about the last Boeing order from a Chinese carrier…Large or Small…..
That’s what starts conflicts,and I’m sure Scott can see this as well.
Not an excuse. It’s important clarification because neither Greater Bay Airlines nor Cathay Pacific is a “Chinese airline” as you claimed.
Flights between HKG and China are negotiated between the two aviation authorities.
@Casey: I figured I was wrong but not all that far off on COMAC.
Cars do not break out on orders, the sales numbers are deliveries. Aircraft are different but clearly China 1300 orders are meaningless as far as market share. It does not take any real money to get a far off slot, and in their case probably no money.
I like build numbers as that takes into account the variables. Worst has been the 737 complete stops but that was the 787 as well. 777X has not delivered anything.
Backlogs are nice as they give you something to plan for, but in single aisle its silly as they are not real. How many years of rate 75 would it take Airbus to deliver that backlog? 15 years? They wheel and deal slots all the time and good for them, enough backlog and you don’t have white tails.
Boeing at rate 50 and Airbus at rate 75 does work out to 40%. Be less than that for Boeing as you have to include the A220
Looks like Boeing should hit around 600 deliveries for the year.
Handing over at least 63 aircraft in December, according to preliminary figures.
out of the 600 deliveries ..any idea how many aircraft were build and park before 2025
Dec 2025
AW: Boeing Aims For 650 Deliveries Amid Production Surge
I see the C919-600 as a PR priority not a need. Its not like Tibet suddenly appeared on the map and oh, we need a plane.
Divert from getting the lines rolling. Same as selling in Burma or Laos. No return, PR. If the desire was real, that means you are cutting off your good customers for a PR win.
It would be interesting to see the real C919 utilization rate.
“China has the most high-altitude airports globally, with 43 airports at least 1,524 meters (5,000 feet) above sea level as of April 2023, including 23 at over 2,438 meters (8,000 feet). The highest is Daocheng Yading Airport (4,411 meters), making it the world’s highest civilian airport.”
Daocheng Yading isn’t in Tibet — it’s in Sichuan province. It’s currently only served by A319s.
Bolivia and Peru also have high-altitude airports.
China evidently considers it to be an important niche.
@abalone
It will be continue to be served by either A319 or C919-600 (Boeing -700 notwithstanding).
Airbus is not particularly motivated to sell the A319 and unless the A220 goes with a higher thrust option is not really an option either. The A320-size aircraft required a thrust of 35K…which was a reach too far for the existing powerplants.
Airbus announced it is discontinuing the A319neo except for ACJ.
A good chunk of the Western US East of the Sierra is 4000 feet +.
120+ degrees is not uncommon.
@TW
The easist hack is both to understand that not every airport is 10000 feet plus and to understand that not every day is 120 degrees.
I have seen instances where operators a fixed number of throttle bumps in max takeoff conditions during a refurbishment cycle (thinking Frontier may be in this bracket).
But the simplest solution is to simply take seats out of a Max8 or A320 (not literally but limit pax seat sales). Nobody wants to do that but it in very limited scenarios it might make sense.
Flights are delayed or canceled, or seats restricted in hot days.
> Over 7,000 Flight Delays Monday—Here’s How Extreme Heat Disrupts Air Travel
TRANS
The C919-600 would be an interesting North American jet for Pearson Airport in Canada. Severely noise limited and a jet with outstanding low altitude runway performance makes for intrresting conversations… Orange County Californias noise abate.ent departures also
Change is in the air!?
Is the industry approaching the inflection point or has it been reached that as airlines have better visibility and are able to take a look if they will have excess aircraft in coming years?
In 2024, CDB Aviation ordered 80 Airbus A320 family aircraft.
CDB Aviation delivered A320 family aircraft to Azerbaijan Airlines, airlines in Mexico and China; Embraer to airline in France and 737 MAX to Turkish Airlines last year. But there’s no evidence that any Chinese lessor is used as “back door delivery” as some claimed.
I have seen some notes of China lessors delivering 737s.
How common that is, ???? Leeham probably has that at their finger tips.
It was ironic to see China not certifying the -8/9 for reentry when EASA had and their lessors were buying it.
If China needs lift, they can get it.
Chinese lessors have been allowed to deliver 737s to non-Chinese airlines throughout the Beijing boycott of Boeing for domestic orders.
Did they deliver any new 737 MAX to Chinese airlines after March 2019?
Otherwise it’s all noise.
> “While CDB Aviation, a Chinese-owned lessor, has delivered 737 MAX aircraft to various international airlines (such as Oman Air in 2023 and Turkish Airlines’ AJet in 2025), and Boeing resumed direct deliveries to Chinese airlines starting in 2024 (e.g., to China Southern and Xiamen Airlines), there is no record of CDB Aviation delivering new 737 MAX jets to Chinese carriers after March 2019.”
MAXes have been delivered to China in the past year.
I was referring to “back door delivery” through leasing companies.
Boeing’s letter to the SEC dd June 15, 2020
Covers questions from the SEC regarding Boeing’s order backlog (ASC 606) and other disclosures
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/12927/000001292720000056/filename1.htm
“December had 17 workdays scheduled”
Airbus nonetheless was able to deliver (record-breaking?) over a hundred aircraft last December, with more than two dozen scheduled for a single day! Koodo!
Proof that AB is not BA, it aimed to tackle issues as they arise.