Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Comments Open Forum
Jan. 6, 2026: LNA is creating this Comments Open Forum to allow Readers opportunities to comment about any post (note, we said “Post”, not any “Topic”). All comments will be held for review and Moderation per our new policy. The Open Forum enables Readers to Comment on paywall articles (to the extent the paywall preview is open to all readers). LNA is increasingly shifting to paywall from freewall articles, but we are not becoming exclusively paywall.
Maintain civility and follow Reader Comment rules.
A new Open Forum will be posted weekly.
So, am I correct in saying that readers could comment here about one or more of the following articles from the past few days?
– A220 stretch / regional status;
– New Airbus commercial CEO;
– Latest market share numbers?
Or is something else intended?
Any published Leeham post of any timeframe may be commented on. References to other articles with links also may be published as they relate to the published Leeham topic. This is broadly viewed as technical papers, articles in other newspapers (etc) about (for example) Emirates Airlines on Boeing, Airbus, engines, etc.
Nothing on politics unless there is a direct relationship to the Leeham post, wars, COVID, and so on except if there is a direct impact on commercial aviation. As before, I do not find relevant things about Communism, Fascism, ancient history and stuff like this.
Hamilton
Okay, well then, here goes.
This topic has been handled by Leeman in the past, but was also the subject of an AirInsight article this week. Relevant in view of the recent pick-up in A330neo orders, and general lack of widebody slots.
Readers may find the article’s pentagon comparison diagram instructive / interesting.
“A330neo vs 787-9: Is Boeing’s Premium Worth It?”
https://airinsight.com/a330neo-vs-787-9-is-boeings-premium-worth-it/
It had to be Airinsight, eh? 🙂
Sorry…I just saw the article popping up yesterday, and found that pentagon very informative.
I do recall this being a subject here on LNA on various occasions, but don’t have the relevant LNA links to hand.
Interesting as I read it yesterday I( believe.
I thought it was worth a Bookmark as its one of the few places I have seen an assessment of the A330NEO engines.
Being more a tech geek than a financial guy, I found the shrug off of the issues most interesting.
Airbus has to be ruing the day they did not get a GE engine on the A330NEO.
That is an awful on wing time. We have seen the reports on poor ops on the A350-1000.
It makes sense why its not selling, single aisle you can adjust with but wide body leaves a big hole.
Makes good sense you don’t want to buy into unreliable.
Add in the twist that despite the fixes for the Trenat 1000, there are airlines that still are having an impact from those engines – it takes both time and major costs to get the fixes into engines.
I think GE & Boeing used to make strong partnership comitments to each other, openly, which seemed a good idea in the high days of 777, 737 and exploding 787 forecasts.
Things have changed & GE has made several efforts to get on the A350 and A330. Which would basically in line with Airbus policy of offering multiple engine types on each aircraft types too..
I have a problem with what GE and Airbus say on the subject.
I could be wrong but Airbus wants an all new engine (like the engines that RR offers are not RB211) and GE wants to offer derivatives of what they have (seems about the same as RR)
The Trent 1000, TEN and XWB are all out of the Trent 1000 family.
As noted below, I suspect the biggest issue o0n the A330NEO is the engines.
A350-1000 not selling ?
2025 was a standout year for the -1000, with at least 82 orders recorded.
Deliveries in 2024 were around 1/3 of all A350 orders
The A350F is of course a short body (3m) A350K with same gross weight/engines
For the Trent 7000 on the A330 neos , it was a derivative of the Trent 1000/10 ( same fan size) with some tech from the Trent XWB as well. The users dont have significant ( apart from that expected for a new engine) reliability problems
Airlines including TAP Portugal, Starlux, Cathay Pacific, and Virgin Atlantic operate Trent 7000-powered A330-900neos with no widespread engine-related grounding events publicly reported.
@All
You are not likely to see an engine choice on widebody installations again anytime soon. Three on a wing was brutal but even two is splitting a thin market more than what makes a viable buisness case.
A better question is whether whatever the 737-ish replacement is will be dual source.
@Duke:
I do not have any true provable insight into the why, but Airbus customers are very loyal and close mouthed. We have all seen that. It takes either obvious on going failures (Trent 1000) or rare case of unhappy aka Qatar aka the A350 coatings to come out.
This is not trying to tear RR down. It is a cold look at what had been a famous respected engine builder. RR is aerially like Boeing in how it fell off the top of the heap. Both clearly are working at and getting recovery.
I have seen references to the Trent 900 issues and some added ones on the Emirates only group. TC kept it on the QT.
No one is saying the A350-1000 is not selling, it was opened up that the TOW was poor on its engine. No question that is far better than breaking but its a cost issue.
Airlines keep buying it despite the beating they take for early engine rebuilds. Logic says they should shift to the 777-300 until the engines are fixed.
It takes a long time to figure out the fixes, prove them and get the problem children out of the system. PW and GE with their single aisle engines make that clear that its not just RR, if not done right, its a decade to clear.
So yea, RR engine issues are kept quiet on Airbus for X reasons. Emirates probably leaked the -1000 issues for leverage.
We only see hints, I have a couple of folders going now where I log PW, GE, RR articles so I don’t loose them.
One I had I thought would be easily retrieved with a search and could never find it again.
All the Airbus wide body engines are interrelated now. It makes tech sense that the issues would be as well.
The A350-900 engine may have escaped due to the extensive testing Airbus wanted as well as a much delayed program giving them that luxury.
I keep seeing those hints that while they are not seeing the same complete engine failures that they had on the Trent 1000, there are TOW issues and not just by a little bit.
A good question then is, did Airbus get the reliability they wanted including the -900 but did not get the longevity they benchmark to?
Boeing customers are very loyal, too. There’s a lot tied up in choosing a model from a line of products. Of course, at this point, with only two major manufacturers of mainline airliners, almost all big air transport companies have relations with both companies, and in many cases they carry both competing models.
The extensive publication of high quality freewall posts enabled LNA to have a much wider readership than other industry supported newsletters, resulting in LNA being influential in public conversations on aviation issues.
By reducing these freewall posts I assume that the loss of this influence is not important to LNA.
Will this loss be compensated for with an increase in subscriptions?
We’d rather have more money and fewer views than more views and not make as much money.
no more free research from posters….its a business and poster choice new ownership means new rules!
It’s always been a business.
Places to linger for dialog change over time.
We need to respect Scott’s hustle.
I never like that term. Its originally definition was a nefarious setup act. Then Gen X got ahold of it.
Leeham is a full on classy operation.
Hopefully it works for you. I’ve always enjoyed your writing and your books.
Slot constraints is growing again, and Tim Clark wants new A380s for his booming business connecting megahubs. The more seats pr slot the more profits, so he can outbid the 2-engine operators, with 50 more seats eq, On LH, 6 times a day, thats 600 extra pr day. TC has suggested to AB to make a Neo with 25% lower running costs. TC flies 120 A380s. 777x will take that, when the 38o retires.
The Achilles heel of the A380 is that converting F gates to H gates is pricey for the airport, & they risk their most prized realstate eg apron m2, on that A380 flights. Same for airlines, who can only use their 380s on airports that has made the investments.
Now, could we could mitigate that somehow? Like the killer feature. Now if the 38oNeo got longer & new folding wings, so it would fit into standard 70m F gates? That would allow the megahubs to use 380Neos on normal gate Fs, with 590 pax, so not longer having to risk their priced realsestate, but expanding the pax thru on the same apron m2. Even if they have to invest in dual level gates, that is small amounts. Also when more airports invest in accommodating the A380neo w folding wings, the airlines get more freedom to fly with them, as they a no longer dependent on the existence of H gates, just F gates. 3G was the iPhones killer feature.
That could be a topic for an article: Are folding wings and F gate compatibility the killer feature for the renewed A380Neo?
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
TC Wants: But he does not want to pay for his wants, he wants a deal. The A350-1000/777X are not selling in huge numbers, decent but not huge. All the economics against the A380 are still there. People were dropping the A380 before termination and there was zero used market. The price per the -900 Variant would have been twice the 777X price.
Folding Wing: You would have to do an entirely new wing for it to work. Something like 4 Billion. An adder is the existing wing box, it would need to change and cascades into major fuselage changes.
Resurrection Suppliers: No shared systems, a hydraulic pump is going to need to be twice as big as any hydraulic pump. Even if you can get the original supplier to build it, its going to cost a lot more in limited number build.
If there are common items (fasteners) there are a lot not. All have to be resurrected or new design.
You are probably talking a 15 billion dollar program that has all the issues of a non flexible design.
It should be noted TC was flying the A380 to a number of non A380 needed cities.
Airbus had the -900 design ready to go, it was built into the A380. Airbus saw no future for a -800 let alone a -900.
I gather a 777-10 is possible. Probably a one off for TC and only viable as a stretch of the 777X and or a A350-1500
In the five years leading up to early 2024, around 17 second-hand Airbus A380s were sold, with most transactions occurring in 2020 (7) and significant activity in 2022 (4) and 2023 (4), plus one in 2024, signalling a shift from scrapping to reactivation.
I see Qantas has reactivated the last of its stored A380s – they scrapped only 2 of the original 12, both low serial numbers .
British Airways also has its 12 flying.
Sure its a niche plane and many were owned by lessors who chose to scrap rather than D major overhaul
@Duke
Therein lies the rub. An airline re-activating an A380 is choosing between salvage value and the DOCs of running these aircraft.
A more critical element is the lack of “new” secondary operators.
Its not critical to have ‘new secondary’ operators , as its just not that sort of plane.
Global Airlines, registered in Malta seems to be giving the A380 a go
Emirates is buying more from lessors
“This year, Emirates has agreed to buy four A380 from Doric Nimrod Air Three Limited, as Aerospace Global News reported. Last year, the airlines bought five from Doric Nimrod Air Two Limited, according to Business Inside”
The catch was those were planes it already operated
I don’t think we are necessarily disagreeing. Your list of potential operators is largely limited to existing operators. Maybe an odd wet lease of a select few aircraft
You have a large number of lessors taking back aircraft they don’t want. For the right airline there is a real opportunity to score some relatively young and cheap aircraft. Not enough to restart production
Best example I can remember is Delta buying up a bunch of MD90s for a few million each.
Emirates is in the market because Boeing is so far behind on its 777X and tbh there is no direct replacement coming. Don’t be surprised when they are flying 80% of the worlds fleet
Its interesting that Emirates who sells off 10 year old Aircraft normally, now is buying any A380 they can get.
Reality is when the big guys don’t sell and buy new big birds, then the markets goes bust.
Reality here is the A380 is an Emirates only market.
BA kept theirs, they had a shot at the common engine type Malaysia bought, at the right price they would take some more. BA never took any more.
They too will face increased costs and no way to buy new ones.
Qantas did not replace their retired two either. You can bet they are happy to have two parts doners.
So yea, its Emirates or scrap out. If you are not keeping them, scrap out gets you far more money than selling intact. Emirates is only going to go so far aka BA for a used one.
That gets into F conversions and is it worth it.
1. Etihad Airways reversed its original decision to permanently retire its Airbus A380 fleet.
2. Furthermore, Etihad is reactivating more of its Airbus A380s to meet strong travel demand.
3. Strange! Isn’t it? Contrary to prominent voice here declaring its demise.
A321 neos have been scrapped, there is also over 100 in storage, even as new builds pour off the lines. There maybe 40- 50 A350s in storage :
‘early 2024, Lufthansa notably flew two brand-new A350-900s (registrations D-AIXR and D-AIXS) directly from delivery to storage at Teruel (TEV) for cabin reconfiguration and strategic fleet planning. ”
The whole market has been turned on its head since 2020 for a number of reasons, not just the A380 and its issues. But its a punching bag for some
@Duke: Come on. 40-50 A350s in storage? Nonsense. Cirium doesn’t list any as in “Storage.” There might be a handful awaiting cabins, but nothing like 40-50.
@Pedro
A little context…Etihad has 10 A380 (seven in service). They are bringing back 2 of three in storage. Emirates has 116. The entire fleet ever delivered was 251.
The amount of secondary market is not zero…but this is not even secondary market. This is an airline flying a plane it already owns.
Lease returns will provide a measure of activity as the decision between salvage and new lease looms. Therein lies another factor that will limit the market potential of the B777X. A nonexistant lease market. The lessors learned a very expensive lesson on the A380.
I’m less pessimistic TBH. Many airlines which are still flying their A380s are going to hang on with them for many years. Say Korean Air will continue to fly their A380s, reversing their previous decision to retire them by 2026. Boeing is still unable to deliver their 777-9 and Trump wants to push oil price below $50.
BTW it looks like the A380 has more airlines flying than the 747-8i passenger aircraft and may possibly survive longer.
1. Was going through a thread on the A net, noticed a 77W wfu by one of the ME3 after just 15 years and parted out in 2023.
2. Dug up some old info from a closed-end fund which held several A380s. According to that analysis, even as the A380 was parted out, investors who had held since the inception of the fund would receive the principal plus roughly 4-5% annualized return for European investors (including exchange gains) or 2.2-3% annualized return in USD.
Hi Scott, I like this idea of the open weekly forum,
Let’s see how this works out.
Thanks.
+1
Given the obvious supply line problems and associated quality escapes, seems A and B should be looking to return to a – more – vertical integration model of operations for the long term.
Case in point ex-Spirit repurchase/purchase of course forced by its financial problems, but perhaps also resulting n better industrial performance under the new parents.
The original model worked pretty good.
Some like electronics has gone so far as to be impossible (my view) to created a cost competitive option.
Clearly structures was a Bridge To Far. I have seen the model fail repeatedly. But Boeing trying to do their own APU? (in conjunction with a partner)
My model was I focused on the work that was impossible to hire out and hire out what I could as I had more than I could handle of the first.
Embraer for its E series is very successful for airframe almost entirely outsourced.
Check out airframer.com for the details of almost all the suppliers for different planes
The Dc-9 set the trend in the early sixties and all passenger planes including 747 since have done so. Of course aluminium structures were well known and have a good choice of suppliers.
Carbon fibre was very new in fuselage and to a lesser extent in wing sections build.
Hi @Scott,
In your most recent article, it mentions:
“Boeing ended the third quarter last year with more than $50bn in long-term debt, a near-breakeven if slight positive cash flow, and **small profits**.”
It doesn’t align with what’s in Boeing’s Q3 2025 result, showing loses for both the Q3 and the first nine months of the year. (Net losses: $5,339M and $5,982M respectively.)
@Pedro: Yes, that should have stopped with near-break even cash flow. Updated. Thanks.
Those Boeing ‘losses’ are just balance sheet engineering- now and since they use program accounting that will mean balance sheet engineering profits later.
Cash flow is the metric on financial sustainability
Investors saw it differently:
Incredible that in the week Boeing CEO said the 777-9 wouldn’t be able to meet its EIS schedule and hinted at reach-forward losses, the stock fell from its prev week close at $229.61 to $215.94 on September 12. 💀
No, contrary to what you said, it isn’t about engineering “future profits”, but recognizing deferred production costs carried on the balance sheet aren’t recoverable in future periods anymore. As the kid said: the emperor is walking around without any clothes!
Week by week stock price isnt a valid investment criteria. Day trader territory
By the end of calendar year 2025 Boeings stock price had gained 23% over the end of year 2024
This is what actual reputable financial pundits said
‘Boeing Stock Is on a Roll. Why It Could Gain 25% in the Next Year’
https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing-stock-price-target-d0c479e6 Paywall
Like I said its financial engineering of the program accounting as they have been changing the accounting block number for 777X downwards – even though orders are rising.
Hence the reach forward accounting program losses
October 2025 Adjustment: 33 orders moved to the “uncertain” category, leaving 473 777X in the official backlog as of the end of September.
February 2025 Adjustment: Previously, in early 2025, Boeing removed 38 777X orders from its backlog.
Original “Iffy” Shift: A significant reclassification occurred in February 2021, when 118 777X orders were shifted to the ASC 606 bucket.
The delays are the main reason as the ASC 606 standard is quite onerous. Which is why Airbus doesnt follow it.
Sigh. Readers of Boeing’s F/S are aware that accounting quantity of the 777x hasn’t changed for years!
The reach-forward loss is caused by Boeing’s recognition — under scrutiny by its external auditors (and the SEC occasionally) — that the deferred production costs of the 777x carried on its B/S as of the end of 3Q25 is not recoverable within the current accounting quantity.
Stock price fluctuations pinpoint the effects of a significant event like the $4.9 bilion charge of 777X reach-forward loss.
As the 777 classic is still included in the ‘block’ its difficult to distinguish the 777X only part of the accounting block, those of the 777X reduction may be greater
For 2025 the financial statements are a few weeks away, which will likely confirm the 2025 changes.
Where is the source of your quote, may I ask?
A Google search returns *no result*.
##########
Read what’s in Boeing’s SEC filing:
“we determined that estimated costs to complete the 777X program plus the costs already included in 777X inventory exceed estimated revenues from the program. The resulting reach-forward loss of $xxx [balance of the deferred production costs of the 777X program as of Dec 31, 202x is $x] was recorded as a reduction of deferred production costs and other non-recurring costs.”
Did anyone catch this?
FAA to require replacement of all radio altimeters because of 5 g interference
The FAA has proposed new regulations requiring all radio altimeters to meet specific minimum performance requirements to withstand interference from wireless signals in neighboring spectrum bands. This proposal aims to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable aviation operations in the presence of wireless signals in the Upper C-band. The regulations would apply to all aircraft equipped with radio altimeters operating under parts 91 and 121, as well as to part 129 aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats or a payload capacity exceeding 7,500 pounds. The deadline for compliance is set for the date the Federal Communications Commission authorizes wireless services in the Upper C-ban
This gets messy for FBW aircraft because of all the autopilot programming. It is also complicated because the EASA hasnt followed suit. Im not sure if 5G is used in Europe because of all the different cellphone bands used everywhere. Is this going to cause a defacto world wide replacement requirement as lessors outfit aircraft for universal use of will it create subfleets, An interesting subject to keep a eye on
I saw that and its one of the things I have been following.
I am disgusted it was allowed to get to be allowed to get there.
You want that spectrum, then you pay Airlines to replace their gear on a 15 year time line. See how eager you are then.
Does this mean lidar might be the next low altitude sensor, or do we use gps
Not a clue.
First aspect is to stop the inanity or impinging on other spectrums unless you have and fund a replacement.
Frankly its a variation on seizing property without compensation. I would love to see Airlines sue on that basis.
Get a stay unless or until a plan is worked out and Airlines are paid for their costs to do so if that is the way it goes.
It separates out the greedy from the, oh, this costs too much.
Mr. Hamilton,
I was rather puzzled by your side note:
> Russia’s Sukhoi MC-21 is not included in this analysis because the market is closed
The aircraft is not currently in production and won’t be for many years to come.
IMO, this is an actual reason to exclude.
@Alexander: Good reason, but the airplane still has a backlog and Airbus and Boeing can’t sell or deliver any airplanes to Russia.