July 25, 2022, © Leeham News: Boeing announced last week during the Farnborough Air Show orders and commitments for 278 737 MAXes, nine 787s, and two 777-8Fs.
Now, Boeing must deliver. Some of the 737 delivery positions in earlier orders were promised to begin in 2023. Some in the Farnborough orders are promised from 2025. These early delivery positions are one of the reasons (but not the only, to be sure) that Boeing has won some 1,000 MAX orders since the plane was recertified in November 2020.
But Boeing struggles to bump its MAX production rate. Officials hoped to hit a rate of 31/mo early this year. Boeing hasn’t confirmed a report that it hit rate 31 only this month. Confirmation may come during the Boeing 2Q2022 earnings call on Wednesday. Delays from the supply chain hurt Boeing’s ability to ramp up. With a projected production ramp up to 52/mo by 2025 (the pre-grounding level in March 2019), the question is whether the supply chain will be able to meet Boeing’s schedule.
Among the supply chain delays is a delay of up to six weeks in the delivery of the CFM LEAP 1B engines. A similar delay from CFM and Pratt & Whitney effect Airbus’ ability to deliver aircraft. Airbus has about two dozen A320s stored without engines. Stan Deal, the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said during the air show he won’t build “gliders.”
At the end of the first quarter, Boeing had 320 MAXes in inventory. More than 250 were “legacy” stored aircraft produced during the MAX grounding, with the balance of new production aircraft not yet delivered. Of the 250, about 140 were built for Chinese airlines. Boeing awaits Chinese government approval to begin delivering these to airlines and lessors. The regulator recertified the MAX in December, but because of domestic COVID policies and political pressures between Beijing and Washington, deliveries remain stalled.
Delivering stored aircraft has gone more slowly than originally anticipated. Each airplane must be thoroughly checked after long-term storage. All the systems and engines must be confirmed as operational, without flaws. Software must be updated, from the Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System (MCAS) to any other updates that were implemented in the new-production aircraft since the recertification. Personnel shortages needed to “wake up” the airplanes contributed to the slower-than-forecast deliveries.
Also, MAXes that were built for airlines that either went out of business or canceled orders due to delays must be reconfigured for new buyers.
“You have a couple of things that happen,” Mike Fleming told LNA during Boeing’s pre-air show briefing. Fleming is senior vice president of 737 MAX Return to Service, Commercial Customer Support, and Commercial Derivative Programs. “Number one is, when you have an airplane come through production, you don’t have to wake it up. Turn it on when you get to a certain point in the production and then you move through. As it came through production, it’s got all the latest changes on it.
“On the stored airplanes, you do have to turn those airplanes back on. There are changes that have come together. Since we built that airplane, there are additional changes that we have to put onto those airplanes as opposed to bringing them back up to speed with the current production configurations. Those additional steps take longer than if you have one come off the line. It’s just because you have additional work to do,” Fleming said.
Boeing also faces uncertainty over the certification of the MAX 10. As part of the US Congressional investigation into the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines MAX accidents, Congress adopted a law, the Aircraft Certification and Safety Accountability Act, that among other things have manufacturers (in this case, Boeing) two years to put certain pilot warning systems into the cockpit. It was anticipated that the MAX 10 would be certified by the deadline, which is December 31 this year.
Certification of the MAX 10, however, has been very slow. But the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration, stung by criticism over its role in certifying the MAX in the first place, has been meticulously slow in processing certification of the MAX 10 (and the MAX 7, discussed below).
“We’re putting the [MAX 10] through our paces out in the flight test program. We’re nearly complete with all the engineering test points we have to do,” Fleming said. “We’ve flown over 500 flight hours, over 600 flights on that airplane. We recently wrapped up performance testing of the airplane. We’ve tested the new main landing gear. We’ve been going for brake testing, which is a consequence of the heavier weight and then the gear as well.
“We’ve also been testing the enhanced angle of attack system that we put onto the airplane. It’s been flown by our crews. We’ve had customer pilots looking at the enhanced Angle of Attack indicator.”
Fleming said that now it’s just working through with the regulators, providing all the documentation in the order that they’d like.
David Calhoun, CEO of The Boeing Co., told Aviation Week magazine that if the MAX 10 wasn’t certified by year-end, and if Congress doesn’t extend the MAX 10’s exemption from installing the additional pilot warning system which will make the MAX 10 cockpit not common with the MAX 7, 8 and 9, he might cancel the program.
There are now about 800 orders for the MAX 10. Despite placing a firm order for 100 MAX 10s and options for 30 more, announced at the air show, Delta said it might cancel the order if the cockpits aren’t common with other 737s. Delta has a large fleet of 737NGs. Alaska Airlines, which previously ordered 60 MAX 10s, previously said the same thing.
The handwriting was on the wall that certification wouldn’t come this year. The key question then becomes whether Congress will act to exempt the MAX 10 from the December 31 deadline. At least through the start of the air show, Boeing says it hadn’t asked for an exemption. (An update might be coming on that July 27 earnings call.) Some expect Congress to grant an exemption, perhaps as early as the first quarter.
Certification of the MAX 7 also is taking much longer than expected. Flight testing was completed last year, Fleming said.
“We’re in the process of working through all of the documentation requirements to provide the FAA. The one that is with us along has to do with the Aircraft Certification and Safety Accountability Act. We’re working through all that. We’re nearing the completion of that,” Fleming said. “The service-ready activity is already underway. By virtue of the fact that it’s nearly identical to the -8 and 9, we expect it to go into service and perform just like the 737-8/9 airplanes as well. That is just us working through all of the documentation.”
It’s unclear if the MAX 7 will be certified by year-end or whether this, too, slips to next year.
Then on top of these challenges, Boeing had 115 787s in inventory on March 31, a figure that should not have changed much in the intervening three months. Deal, the BCA CEO, said at Farnborough that he believes deliveries will resume soon. The production rate was slowed to about 0.5 airplanes a month. Bringing the 787 production rate back to 5/mo or higher also may be supply-chain constrained.
Despite the boost in orders at the air show, Boeing has a long road back to pre-ground, pre-pandemic levels. But I believe the company has bottomed out.
Category: Boeing, Farnborough Air Show, Pontifications
Tags: 737 MAX, 737-10, Airbus, Boeing, Mike Fleming
On past form, it is unlikely B shall perform well on all this. On past form as well, Congress shall undoubtedly bail them out. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…
It was never intended by congress that the Max series would be affected. The 2 yrs window was thought to be enough time …. pandemics and FAA foot dragging ( as mentioned in the story) changed that If they wanted that to happen it would have been say a 90 day window ( or less) and that would have caught all the Maxs uncertified.
Making this up as you go along, are you? Perhaps you can quote the preamble of the law in question, so that we may see for ourselves what the “intention” was? Or better still: have the trajets préparatoires been published?
Further more, the so called Crew Alert system is not base on any science, its based on opinion.
While AF447 is the most stark example, anyone who follow aviation to move than a 1/16th inch depth knows there are innumerable incidents where the vaunted Crew Alert system was ignored.
Having worked for a living, I drove dump trucks a lot. First it was a mechanical clanger on the wheels when you went backward that was ignored (background noise, humans tune that stuff out).
As time has gone by we are into our 4th or 5th generation of whopeee electronic sirens, flashing lights and they are ignored (I think they got that from the Belgium police).
To quote Einstein, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Astonishingly, there are no regulation on how the automated system work but by golly we will have bells, whistles, voices and the Ray Christie Minstrel playing.
In science its called human factors and you accept what human are, how they react and then you work out systems to get inside that decision circle (otherwise you are on a ship and spitting into a Hurricane Wind)
Unfortunately for you and Duke, the ASCAA law was passed and the ASCAA law stands “as-is” — regardless of your theories as regards its “intentions”.
Yes it was passed, congratulations for stating the obvious. Water is wet by the way as well.
If required, this will get a waiver. There is a single democrat that does not want to and he will be outvoted.
The committee may well be run by republicans the way the vote looks right now.
Regardless, Boeing is a huge company and major impacts involved and there is a required reports as to whether there is an merit to installing a kludge in system to the -10.
As a pilot, you want the same stuff in the same location and the same responses to the same issues. It does not have to be perfect.
You might want to look at the horror that was a Spitfire cockpit. It was ergonomically a disaster and its not wonder new pilots did not survive. Sadly that was the way it was.
While US layout was better overall, the Brits did put in Artificial Horizon in their aircraft and blind flying was hugely easier. Having flown with it taken away, its a dicey balance using Turn and Bank along with Airspeed and the VSI/Altimeter. I would have to look in my logbook but as I recall, Airspeed was also taken away as it was vacuum powered and it was Turn and bank (stand alone) as well as VSI (off the static port).
Of course it take a pilot to really get it, some well informed non pilot understand it but its like touching 480 volts, you really get electrical shock when you touch the innocuous wires/buss/contacts.
I grabbed a 277 wire one time (color confusion). Good news was I was on a ladder and all I had to do was step off and I dropped off it.
My arms and upper body were doing the Funky Chicken.
Always good to know that US corporations think they can have laws undone “to order” 😏
However, the opera isn’t over ’til the fat lady sings.
The law had a 2 yr delay on its implementation specifically to allow Boeing to complete the certification under way on its last 2 737 variants. There was no other reason for the 2 years and this is why it was part of many reforms of the FAA and passed. The Senator who indroduced the bill was Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington- BCA home state, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee with oversight of the FAA. https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cantwell-congressional-aviation-leaders-applaud-comprehensive-bipartisan-bicameral-aircraft-safety-and-certification-reforms-passed-as-part-of-omnibus-funding-bill
“The law had a 2 yr delay on its implementation specifically to allow Boeing to complete the certification under way on its last 2 737 variants.”
And Boeing missed the boat. And when you miss the boat, it doesn’t come back to pick you up. Time to adjust to a new reality here.
The crew alerting is based on law and regulation. Every commercial airliner since the 80ties but the 737 has it. As the 737 jurassic did not have it, the classic, the NG and the MAX 8 and 9 got an exemption. Even the P8, a military 737NG derivative has EICAS. The military did not accept it without. It was time to call an end to this exemption with NG and latest with the MAX. In the report about both MAX crashes the missing EICAS was mentioned as a contributing factor
A recent MIT audit commisdioned by the FAA implicated the current 737 CAS in no less than FIVE crashes…
EICAS was mandatory since 1-1-1993. It was never intended for any plane flying to need 30 years for something like EICAS.
Imagine having no seatbelts nowadays because the manufacturer has been grandfathering a 50 year old plane.
All FAA wants is BA to dot all i’s and cross all t’s in accordance to the rules and regulations. No doubt BA has lost its institutional memory since it hasn’t done so for awhile, long enough for a whole product development cycle. The surprise here is the institution appeared so lack of self-awareness and caught flat-footed.
Congress will give them a certification extension – its the cheapest way of keeping Boeing in business – and for the same reason Boeing will receive the next tanker contract.
The problem is, if EASA and other certification bodies insist on changes because the deadline is exceeded.
Its a US requirement and we have not heard from EASA.
It was not in the requirement by them for return to service, the Synthetic AOA/Airspeed was.
China also did not require the so called alert system.
If the US grants a waiver it never comes up as an issue.
EASA can make its own decisions, for its own reasons, and according to its own timeline.
The EASA re-cert documentation did contain a separate appendix on (1) synthetic AOA, and (2) CAS — saying that these topics would be revisited before the provisional re-cert is finalized.
FAA and EASA are in ‘lockstep’ regarding the B737 max requirements , according to Director Ky M. Ky isnt an aerospace engineer or safety expert , as he came over from the ATC side- or as they call it in Europe ATM. Im sure ‘his people’ are the experts there
Ky is director of EASA, and he calls the shots — even if he was a baker or a shoemaker in a previous job.
And EASA and the FAA are certainly not “in lockstep”: as was explained to you in detail last week, re-cert of the MAX in the EU is *conditional* upon certain conditions being met …
Not how aviation safety works my computer chip friend. M. Ky probbaly has little understanding of the complexities of certification Neither does the FAA head ‘call the shots’ over their safety requirements.
There would be a complex bureaucratic process, but one Senator did call the FAA’s oversight of Boeing ‘like a dog watching TV’
Maybe not how aviation safety workED (past tense), but things have changed now — surely you’ve noticed?
“Boeing hasn’t confirmed a report that it hit rate 31 only this month.”
Spirit AeroSystems said last month that they would deliver 315 MAX sets this year. That corresponds to 26.25 per month — which, indeed, indicates that rate 31 was not achieved early in the year.
Shortages of parts … even whole engines are months behind. Boeing doesnt want to be building more 737s for the parking lot
Spirit is able to maintain a rate above 50 p/m for Airbus…
… in a planned / negotiated environment.
not in Boeing’s stops and bouts framework.
More like self-harmed but it’s easier to point finger at others to shift blame.
Spirit does not make the whole fuselage for Airbus.
Spirit also had a backlog of fuselages and where those got stored?
And clearly fuselages without engines be they Boeing or Airbus are not going to be delivered to anyone until they have the suck and blow mounted on the wings.
“Spirit AeroSystems builds the wing leading and trailing edge elements of all the A320 family of aircraft at the company’s plant in Prestwick, Scotland. The components for these narrow-body jets are shipped to Airbus’ three A320 assembly lines in Toulouse, France; Mobile, Alabama; and Tianjin, China. New composite technology for the spoiler developed by Spirit will appear on the A320neo in mid-2019.” One of many locations outside EU, Prestwick a former BAE plant taken over in 2006
They left out Hamburg Final assembly. Of course A320 didnt have the long shutdown like the B737 did https://www.spiritaero.com/programs/commercial/commercial-programs/
And yet, “shortages of parts” aren’t impeding the components that Spirit is shipping to Airbus…amazing that only BA is being affected in this way, isn’t it?
Boeing isnt getting parts from Prestwick , nor did A320 have the complete halt to production that B737 had. last year A320 was 40 pm at end of 2020, and went to 45 by the end of 2021
I hope you can count and observe one manufacturer went from 40 to 50 plus while the other went from Zero ( after Dec 2019) to…
There, its something simple for you to pontificate on yet you failed to even get the basics . I hope you stay well away from the ‘big noise’ like aviation safety
That “complex halt to production” effectively ended 19 months ago, when the MAX was ungrounded. More than enough time to get things up and running again — for a competent OEM, that is. Perhaps we should ask Spirit which OEM they prefer working with from a planning point of view? I wonder if they could give an expletive-free answer.
“For sale” (or should be for sale) stored somewhere in Washington State 140 Chinese 737 Max (with engines) So do you really need a near term rate increase?
Indeed. But whitetails aren’t selling well for BA, are they?
Unless the Chinese revoke the purchase those aircraft are for China who will have money down and a significant amount on completed aircraft.
The reason they are sitting there is China has not rescinded the delivery of those.
China can revoke those but have not, so they will stay there until China takes them up or kills the contract for that group.
Future obligation depend on China as they have to put money down again for any new production that were for them.
As usual its more complicated than a washer (granted production of washer is quite technical).
BCA’s “no gliders” policy seems like them presenting a necessity as a virtue, to me.
Well its a dig at Airbus but as CFM is behind on deliveries to both, either Boeing has aircraft sitting waiting for engines or they limited ramp up so that does not happen.
Airbus wants to go to rate 75 but does not have the engine delivery for that (and they have two sources).
Might want to think which mfg is smoking dope or maybe both are.
AB can deliver a manufactured frame as soon as its engines are delivered. In contrast, BA only starts manufacture of the frame when the engines are on the way. Which approach is more satisfying to customers, who are waiting for planes?
Once again that is wrong. He is into 500 strike outs by now? Worst ball player ever. While not .000 even I could hit a ball better than that (I was a wrestler and chess player not a ball player other than recreational). Granted I was AK 3rd and 1st in Wrestling as well as the Anchorage Area chess champion.
Boeing is throttling its plan of production by what it knows is coming. There may be a bit much or a bit too little.
Airbus on the other hand is hell bent on 75 a month no matter what with both P&W and CFM telling them they will not even meet current until next year.
None of which negates or addresses my previous post…
AB has orders on hand and needs production slots to meet demand; OTOH BA is cash poor and can’t afford to build gliders as excess WIP burns cash. That’s the dilemma it’s facing.
I share Scott’s sentiments. As much as we hope Boeing will get their act together & start volume deliveries of good aircraft to the industry again, there’s a lot to be accomplished first. A few hundred (questionable) orders at Farnborough don’t change that. It’s not about marketing, hoping, it’s about delivering.
(“questionable” as in uncertified, production stop aircraft types).
A big (5 yr) EICAS retrofit program for all 737MAX produced should be considered IMO. Biting the bullet it’s called.
https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-ceo-737-10-production-risk/
What is the net order count? some orders seem to just be restatements of earlier “sales”.
I go along with keesje and Scott.
That said, some of the orders were rehashed (Vietjet) and two 777-8F were moved from ANA pax order to freighters. Nice for the Freighter part but overall mfg wise its just a swap not new order.
I continue the belief that Boeing does not recover to its best under current lack of management.
It is really desperate if Boeing reaffirms the vietjet order from 2016 and 2019 again in May 2022, then AGAIN during Farnsborough.
Meanwhile, reuters reported both times 200x MAX orders. Boeing is gaming journalists, who in turn want clicks. A match made in hell.
Scherer said that current year orders is about 800 for Airbus.
Agree. The press went all in on a pathetic number of orders for an airshow.
That said I have to laugh at Airbus spin as well.
I have to give Boeing the press battle, not deserved but we live in clicky times.
One can wonder if they can develop a mixed system, using exisiting databus and wireless data from modified boxes to the EICAS and have it as an optional SB for the already certified 737MAX’es. The requirement is certifying the 737MAX-10 with it but airlines can choose to turn it off to get commonality and have it as part of the emergency checklist on the ones having it.
I don’t think so.
If the FAA mandates it then it becomes a mandate by the mutual agreement on cert by EASA and the rest of the world including China.
It only applies to the -10 at that point. Then a decision to back fit it to the rest for commonality.
Unfortunately is not a program aspecft as its a different alert system that in turn means removing the original NG/MAX and probably back further alert system, acknowledgement and status when it is acknowlede0.
That is why Boeing is against it. Its a major change and then requires that, split commonality as well as more delays to install it.
All MAX customers are going to be seriously unhappy and with very good reason (perfect)
Much like the Alaska Railroad having to put in bullet proof windows because of problems on the East coast with people shooting at trains (the train body itself are not, right)
That does not happen up here. But they had to spend millions to do so, we are not big enough to force a waiver.
@TW, My idea was an additional EICAS to be used only as part of an emergency checklist. During 99.99% of flights you don’t use it, but when warnings lights up the airline procedures would allow pilots to light it up for better understanding of what is happening for aircraft “post SB”. Still I agree certification could be very cumbersome for a partly wireless warning system.
B737 max series already has warning systems. theres warning lamps next to most switches to cover an anomaly.
The engine power, electrical and hydraulics have modern digital displays on the large PFD screens which are switchable.
EICAS is just an alphanumeric display like cell phones from the late 1990s an a bit bigger screen instead of lighted buttons. Corrective action wording can be displayed after the warning ‘message’
This is A320 series ECAM but engine displays amoung some others are already on PFD for the B737 max https://klmukiaa.com/mod/page/view.php?id=3974
for a readable description https://www.politicalfunda.com/2021/10/electronic-centralized-aircraft-monitor.-ecam-explained.html
Its not a miracle worker as this incident shows – chosen randomly form Aviation Herald results that use “ECAM” ‘An Air Canada Airbus A330-300, registration C-GHKC performing flight AC-110 from Vancouver,BC to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 152 passengers and 10 crew, was on approach to Toronto’s runway 05, when upon selecting the landing gear down the crew received a “Brakes – Auto Brakes” message on their ECAM display. The crew went around, worked the related checklists and determined only the alternate braking was available for landing. The crew declared PAN PAN, requested runway 15L and landed on runway 15L without further incident.” https://avherald.com/h?article=4f8b3ccc&opt=0
A warning light could easily say the same thing…’Brakes-auto brakes’ and the pilots go through their checklists !
Again another flight ‘An Air Transat Airbus A330-200, registration C-GUBC performing flight TS-327 from Cancun (Mexico) to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 315 people on board, was climbing out of Cancun’s runway 12R when the crew received a Brake Hot ECAM indication. The crew worked the related checklist, the brakes cooled down and the gear was retracted. However, the warning re-appeared two more times, each time the checklist was completed. The crew declared PAN PAN, stopped the climb at FL150 and returned to Cancun for a safe landing on runway 12R about one hour after departure.’
From what I understand is, that a centralised messaging system is much easier and clearer to handle for pilots.
– Instead of scanning the whole cockpit for errors, you focus on a single point – When multiple errors pop up, EICAS can prioritise more critical errors over less urgent ones
As many improvements, in daily operations it might not really make a difference, but in a true emergency it really shines.
The 737 has a steam-age attempt at a warning system. We’re talking now about modern warning systems — ones that are centralized, descriptive, and which list issues in order of priority.
Things have moved on since the 707 era…
MAX-7 “Flight testing was completed last year, Fleming said.”
“It’s unclear if the MAX 7 will be certified by year-end or whether this, too, slips to next year.”
If the MAX-7 which completed flight testing last year and “the fact that it’s nearly identical to the -8 and 9” may not be certified by year-end … this means that there is no way that the MAX-10 will be certified by year-end or Q1 2023 unless Boeing has decided that MAX-7 can wait until the MAX-10 is certified, but really ?
OK so Boeing won’t build gliders, could we have a technical term for the “115 787s in inventory on March 31” and the “320 MAXes in inventory.” please.
Boeing really need to concentrate on delivering aircraft and yes there’s an FAA component, but perhaps there wouldn’t be if Boeing could still be trusted to certify the aircraft they build.
Boeing needs to get back to what it used to do well … designing, building and delivering decent aircraft, it’s been a while.
Get on with it Boeing, we need a duopoly at the very least.
“Boeing needs to get back to what it used to do well … designing, building and delivering decent aircraft, it’s been a while.”
It can’t — massive braindrain.
“Get on with it Boeing, we need a duopoly at the very least.”
Why are you worried? In 10-15 years, when Boeing has descended into a mere ghost of its former glory, Comac will have risen to a serious competitor.
In around 5 years, when the majority of the development of the C929 is completed, they will start with a C919neo or another clean sheet narrow body. Why? Cos first of all, they can afford to just dump the previous model, second, because by then they have learned enough to get it “right” and get much closer to Airbus’ latest models.
Indeed. I suspect that COMAC will very quickly start to upgrade/tweak the C919 once it’s in volume production. They have a huge market, they have money, and they have a vast pool of skilled workers to draw from. Most importantly: they have motivation.
The gents from back office insist COMAC is/will not be competition, but when you look at how Boeing’s doing.. details not necessary on the latter, I think.
The 929 was never going to fly as it was a fight between the Soviets and China as to who got what and why (call it a match made in heaven).
The 929 is on hold and will never be delivered with Vlad and his imperialist ambitions
Once the C919 is certified and in production, COMAC than then concentrate on completing the CR929 project on its own, if necessary.
The 929 cannot continue as it requires the Soviet tech of out of auto – clave composites that the Chinese both lack and have no experience at in or with.
Of course in 20 years they can do an A330 type wide body with an aluminum wing.
But then without FAA/EASA cert it can’t fly anywhere.
787NEO will be out by then leaving it two generations behind. US/UK will no longer supply engines.
The Chinese are very quick learners — they’re more than capable of having a good go at the CR929 😎
Russia can still supply parts, if required.
Not sure about any possible “Soviet” role — though I do recall that Scott asked you (twice) last week to cut the Soviet crap…
A monopoly would be bad for consumers.
In 15 years, perhaps what you say about Comac will be true, but in the shorter term, “Western” airlines are going to be a bit hesitant to buy Comac aircraft until there’s been a good measure of how reliable they are (dispatch & especially safety), there’s no shortcut.
I wonder now and then what Boeing would look like if they hadn’t had any competition from Airbus, more recently, I’ve started to think they look pretty much the same as they do at the moment (but probably without the MAX, just more NGs, no reason to innovate/progress).
Safety is probably the biggest reason I think we need a duopoly at the very least.
COMAC doesn’t need western markets for its aircraft. Apart from the huge domestic market, the Chinese can also sell to their friends in SE Asia, central Asia, the Middle East, South/Central America and Africa.
Which companies in South America would buy Comac?
@ Ricardo Braz Any and all of them, if they like the deal:
“China’s Growing Influence in Latin America”
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-influence-latin-america-argentina-brazil-venezuela-security-energy-bri
Yes, better to focus on one model, the 919 and learn from the first one to make a better second one. Prestige can stop it admitting the first is not perfect with all the high ranking officials in the program and after serious funding you can make the 2nd cheaper, better, lighter and more easy to work on.
“Boeing needs to get back to what it used to do well … ”
For a co. that sold its soul to devil is it even be possible without a fundamental sea change like GM’s??
Let’s not forget that we’re heading into a travel slump / recession once the summer’s over — which increases the risk of deferrals and/or cancellations. Huge portions of BA’s order book can be cancelled without penalty, due to ongoing delivery delays.
Are the 140 aircraft built for China and unlikely to be delivered in the near-ish future a potential pool of pare engines and other parts to keep production flowing? Or are they stored without engines, meaning that once they are delivered they’ll be competing with the production line for incoming deliveries of engines? It seems strange that with Leap deliveries no longer needed for the C919 and P&W GTFs no longer needed for the MHI Spacejet both manufacturers would have some slack manufacturing capacity to divert to support t the major airframers.
Its not slack mfg in place. GE and P&W both look down the road and assess what is committed to and the realistic status of a program.
They know what they need to have available for the C919 (very few) and P&W wrote off Spacejet a long time ago.
Anything that could be moved was and you have the throttle back with Covid as well as the MAX grounding.
CFM for example delivers a whole jet to Boeing or Airbus, but behind that delivery are hundreds of suppliers to GE. Those suppliers have been hit as well and an engine sitting on the floor without a key part is as worthless as a MAX or NEO with no engines.
No one is vertically integrated and never were though some more so than others in the past.
So CFM (and GE) as well as P&W have to watch their supply chain and manage it as well as themselves for their personal.
RR probably is in the best shape as no one wants the Trent 1000/10 now and they can shift their supply to the few A330 and A350 engines.
As the Trent 10 and the 7000 are very close, that mfg and its supply chain morphs over.
The XWB may not and it depends on how RR has managed that part of the supply chain.
In a fit of irony, RR now has huge surplus of repair centers they did not want to license as the cancellations and no orders for RR new 787 means its a mute issue though maybe they can work on the 7000 and XWB engines!
Stepping on each other in a mad dash to the fire escape … casualties are unavoidable??
-> LNG buyers in Japan and South Korea are outbidding rivals in Europe to secure winter cargoes
https://mobile.twitter.com/SStapczynski/status/1551506421396967425?cxt=HHwWgsDUode3h4grAAAA
Wait: wasn’t the Narrative- just a few days ago!- that airlines were bringing back mothballed A380s and the like, because of stunning, off-the-charts demand?
Well there is planning and there is reality.
Lufthansa was bringing back A340 they were that desperate.
But reality may well be that with BA5 and the Ukraine situation causing a world wide recession it all flops back.
Its impossible to really plan ahead when things are shifting this fast. That is equally a reason no one will return to the Soviet union, they are nothing but chaos creators and as was forecast by the US long ago, weaponizing gas and oil supplies.
> That is equally a reason no one will return to the Soviet union.. <
@ TW More Soviet crap — you really just can’t control yourself, can you?
Well its a fact of Aviation life that the Soviets seized whole fleets of aircraft from the Lessors.
And who created Ukraine war? That is a fact of Aviation as well. Its driven oil prices sky high (since dropped back a bit) and the ripple affect into the recession you just talked about.
Ignoring the economic impact of the Soviets is the same as ignoring BA5 impacts. It all plays into what is going on in the world in case you had not notices.
Lufthansa never ‘retired’ all its A340s. It had 19 still in service and like many airlines during pandemic just parked them
‘By the end of 2022, monthly A380 flights will be almost 60% of pre-Covid totals, Cirium data show, defying the jet’s doubters. British Airways will operate more A380 flights by the end of the year than it did before Covid-19.’ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-19/once-spurned-superjumbos-return-to-skies-as-travel-roars-back
The US may – in theory- having a recession, but in practice with unemployment at 3.5% many arent noticing it. Canada is over 5%!
The current high inflation has a greater negative effect on consumer demand than either economic contraction or unemployment levels.
Kind of splitting hairs as Lufthansa had not intended to put the A340s back in the sky.
A missing point is Lufthansa is having pilot shortage issues. It might be better to fly an inefficient non full aircraft than to cancel flights.
BA clearly likes the A380, they might even pick some more up as they are retired by others. But that is Heathrow and severe capacity constraints and issues.
Also the big Kahuna is Emirates and they have an outsized impact on the A380 use.
But BA has also said it works very good in some markets but it does not in many and those are specific markets it works in.
The one thing an A380 is not is flexible. It either works and you have high pax load number or it fails badly.
FedEx does the same thing on the Freighter end, they park and mothball aircraft and bring them back out if needed. Some regularly like Xmas and others if there is a hiccup in the fleet.
USian unemployment stats (“U-3” is what gets reported) are not directly comparable to any other country’s: if one even briefly stops looking for work here, they are no longer counted as part of the “labor force”, and are therefore not counted as unemployed. Strange, huh? The net effect is to make the US unemployment rate look much lower than it is.
“The U-6 real unemployment rate includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. It’s usually much higher than the U-3 unemployment rate, which is the rate most often reported in the media. The Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are included in the labor force for the U-3 rate. They must have looked for a job in the last four weeks to remain in the labor force.
“The U-6 real unemployment rate is a broader definition of unemployment than the official U-3 rate. The U-6 was 6.7% in June 2022, down from the rate of 7.1% seen in May 2022. There has been an overall downward trend beginning in December 2020. It still marks a vast improvement from the 22.9% rate in April 2020 which was close to the record unemployment rate of 25.6% set in May 1933..”
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198
“Figures don’t lie, but Liars figure.”
@ Bill7 I suspect the decision to mothball the A380s was taken before the downturn/recession picture became clear…
It seem that we’re talking past each other on this relatively minor issue. Myself, I do not see adequate demand for bringing the A380s back into service, but we’ll see how it goes.
I also don’t see that demand. It may have been there in the summer, but I suspect that the landscape will change in the fall. Still, if the earnings from the A380s exceed the mothballing costs, then it will have been worth it. And BA is subsidizing some of these airlines, in the form of monetary compensation for late 787s and 777Xs…so that reduces effective costs even further.
I wonder if the 320 MAXes in inventory have engines of not?
Some of these 320 MAXes might be 5 years old when they finally will be delivered. I wonder how that will influence the value of the aircraft.
Scott needs to hire one of the satellite companies to take some pictures for us!
Or ask Airbus for theirs (I am sure Boeing is taking picture of Airbus backlog)
Interesting to see Airbus announcing another order for 40 jets just after Farnborough closes. Condor is really going for it with this new order.
And I liked the comment of Christian Scherer: “We do business, not show-busines” when asked why it wasn’t announced during the show.
Right, Airbus being like a snake oil salesmen with orders at the end of a year to win the order numbers when none of hte contract were signed and the whopee at both Farnborugh and Paris air shows.
Tell me another one! I need the laughs, its raining.
My experience is that management will offer extra discounts at the end of a quarter and more at the end of a financial year just to get orders in. So I’m not surprised when Airbus pops up with orders at the end of the year, and I’m not aware that those end of year orders are more fragile than the others. I can’t explain why it doesn’t happen as much for BA.
I am surprised at so many orders being placed at a show. My experience again is that any good salesperson will never delay picking up an order at the very earliest moment, flying red eye, neglecting spouse etc, or doing whatever is necessary to get it signed and pick it up. I suppose some of these “show” orders were really signed long before, but there are times when, for one reason or another you can’t delay the announcement for very long.
So I’m not really surprised when AB announced the large Chinese order not long before the show.
I disagree. Airbus MO is to stash order for the two big airshows and this is a huge change on the Chinese orders.
Something behind the scenes for that. We likely will not get to see what was behind that curtain.
The 2 big defections earlier this year — Qantas, AF/ KLM — weren’t “stashed” for any air show…
Why was Qantas group a ‘defection’ They already fly A320s, A330’s, A380s as well as B737, B787 and used to fly B767 Once again the claims dont match the facts
Flight Global: ” **Defections** of two long-time narrowbody customers – Air France-KLM and Qantas – to Boeing’s arch-rival in Toulouse…”
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/loss-of-qantas-and-air-france-klm-deals-to-airbus-highlights-boeings-competitive-gaps/146875.article
You answered your own question: for its mainline NB fleet, Qantas switched — i.e. defected — to Airbus.
“Once again the BA “back office” window dressing efforts don’t match the facts”.
@DoU: Qantas itself flies BA NB jets only.
Facts? When did BA wake up to face facts?? Otherwise, what’s the explanation for the MAX 7 cert. delay?
Leahy was all about show and he is now gone. Airbus may have changed how it goes about orders and this is the yea we really mean it so don’t wait for the Airshow because it no a work no more.
Might be why Condor order was delayed, Condor was trying to find out if there was some hedge there (nope!)
You do hear Airbus is more disciplined now and they are making airlines take commitments.
Boeing on the other hand may well have given Delta some slack to get them to commit to the MAX. Clearly they are more in need of orders but also keep in mind Ryanair did not get what they wanted so between the two someplace.
Work from faulty observation and deride from there. ( at least you are consistent 🙂
Your allegation could work if it was a single event.
But it is Airbus MoO: get lingering contracts out the door on year end closure. Every Year! The same they do with airframes delivery.
“Ryanair Voices Concern Over Boeing Delays and MAX 10 Certification”
“DUBLIN (Reuters) – Ryanair on Monday said that Boeing had warned it of possible delays to 21 737 MAX aircraft due for delivery before the end of the year and said it was also worried about the certification of the new MAX 10 aircraft.”
“”In the last two weeks, we’re getting letters out of Boeing telling us there might be problems with 21 aircraft this side of Christmas,” O’Leary told investors on a conference call.
“A delay would be “inexplicable and unacceptable,” he added.
“O’Leary said that he had been assured that Ryanair deliveries would take priority this winter.
“”Management in Seattle… need to get their finger out,” O’Leary said, repeating a call for a change in management at Boeing’s Seattle operations.”
https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-07-25/ryanair-voices-concern-over-boeing-delays-and-max-10-certification
One wonders what’s causing this latest delay…
‘ “Management in Seattle… need to get their finger out,” O’Leary said, repeating a call for a change in management at Boeing’s Seattle operations.’
I guess politesse is not O’Leary’s thing?
I like OLeary. He is out for himself (or his airline).
Flip side is he scalped Boeing a couple of times and while true of Boeing, OLeary is not a poster child for definitive. I worked with one guy who was really good at assessing others performance. the problem was he did the same things he noted in others.
Like TC he always has a spin he is trying to pull.
OLary is at least entertaining.
If one reads the story by Scott , no need to wonder any more
‘Among the supply chain delays is a delay of up to six weeks in the delivery of the CFM LEAP 1B engines. ‘
It also says thats not the only supply chain issue.
Ryanair CEO should stick to making sure his passengers get to their destinations on time – getting what they paid for in advance. https://inews.co.uk/news/ryanair-boss-flight-delays-cancellations-summer-airport-1697655
Maybe theres some ‘wondering’ needed for Ryanairs passengers
There are more than 5 months left in the year. Explain to us now how a *6-week* delay can cause non-delivery of ** 21 planes** in a *5-month* period…🤔
Logic dictates that the whole block of 21 planes should shift by just 6 weeks…
Logic?? You expect that from our commentator?
What if BA has the *cash* to build gliders? Shrug.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/farnborough-air-show-2022-day-three/ On the 787 Boeing is still trying “to look how you might make it” after more than fifteen years.
There was a statement that Boeing would go to 3 x 787 a month once deliveries resumed (or would work up to that)
Seems about right with 115 to deliver and the current low state of orders for wide body aircraft.
Who’s the snake oil salesman? The guy that promised delivery repeatedly but failed to deliver.
FARNBOROUGH, England, July 19 (Reuters) – Pratt & Whitney said on Tuesday it expects to have engine deliveries to Airbus for its A320 airliner back on track by early 2023 at the latest and to be able to meet the planemaker’s schedule for upping output to 75 aircraft per month by some time in 2026.
“In regard to where we are with Airbus PO (purchase orders), our intent is to try and climb that back this year,” Rick Deurloo, P&W’s president commercial engines, told reporters at Farnborough Airshow on Tuesday, adding that it would be no later than early next year..”
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pratt-whitney-sees-airbus-a320-engine-deliveries-back-track-by-early-2023-2022-07-19/
Lets see, 2026 is 3 years away and with the current chaos? Good luck with all that planning.
One of the excellent reasons for planning is to adapt to *changing circumstances*.
Maybe the other guys’ approach is better, though (737-7, 737-10, 787, 777-X, KC-46A, debt levels, workforce relations, supplier relations; larger service to civil society..).
Its funny but as I recall from reading, Airbus should be up through 60 a month if it ever hopes to hit 75 a month.
Shrug. Have to back check if the 36 a month was just Europe or included Alabama and China.
-> GE and P&W both look down the road and assess what is committed to and the realistic status of a program.
You can’t expect that commenter to have any consistency or rigor, Pedro: it can’t remember what it just said thirty seconds ago.
It’s a [“Soviet”-fixated] Troll.
It does not argue in good faith- as a commenter I respect here pointed out awhile back.
Musing about the “parts shortages” we’re hearing about from Boeing, and their competitor’s relative lack of them, I wonder if the two companies’ stores of goodwill with suppliers might be a factor. Also, just survival instinct: who, as a supplier, are you gonna trust for future steady, decently-compensated work?
No question that suppliers are loath to invest in expansion when you whack them (forget for sure, something like 3 months notice?)
So yea, the small guys will not expand or tell the next tier up, put your money where your mouth is. No interest loans, guaranteed contracts.
Thank Toyota and its Just In Time Delivery system that only works in a perfect world and its no longer a perfect world!
A side note about Farnborough:
Is Airbus pissed off with the organizers there?
A couple of weeks before the airshow, they come out with the China order for 300 aircraft and a couple of days after the show – it’s another order for 40 from Condor – which is a flip, replacing the 757’s there.
They do a little business there, let BA have their moment in the spotlight, and say goodbye.
I see no reason why the Airshow be it Farnborough of Paris would have any affect on Airbus or Boeing as far as getting ticked off.
They only present a place to display, they don’t set any policies
Worst was pricing at Paris Airshow for a time and that was other vendors not Boeing or Airbus (Lockheed?)
Agreed something odd but maybe two different aspects of odd. China may have been one reason and Airbus playing hardball on contracts for the Condor order.
Kind of like the Mafia, once we got you we are not going to let go! (my dentist told me that one time and it is true!)
The Condor order wasnt a ‘flip’ As the report says ‘They will replace the sixteen A320ceo’s that have an average age of almost eighteen years, the A321ceo’s (average age just over eight years), as well as the Boeing 757.’ No word on the 767s in service. Thats 24 A320/321 and 13 757 replaced and nice repeat orders for Airbus Condor of course is in new ownership now
An interesting note on Airbus A320 production per month.
They are counting production at station 40 where the wings are attached. Real production as of Mid June was 36 a month of the A320 series.
Not sure how that plays out in Alabama or China. Engine delivers and or parked aircraft. Where is our Alabama observer when we need them? (China of course you would be arrested)
Fun to point fingers at Boeing (and justified) but Airbus has a history of deceit as well in false sales and air show numbers.
Dont forget the ’13th month’
I believe the article included that in the calcs and that included the end of the year hiatus at Airbus.
Not sure Alabama and China share that but those are (4 a month each?)
I see that that one reality-challenged commenter is still going on and on about nonexistent “Soviets”.
Stuck in the past. No wonder have difficulty to comprehend what’s happening now.
You and others might get a related chuckle out of the early-60s cartoon series called ‘Mr. Magoo’.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Click to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Copyright © 2022 · All Rights Reserved · Leeham News and Analysis
Sitemap · RSS Feed · Log in