We saw Boeing win big aircraft orders recently, both narrowbodies and widebodies. Certification processes look better then before.

Is Boeing management really turning things around ?

I mean it’s not like Boeing was simply going to be shut out of the market, getting orders was never the issue at Boeing.

It’s all about seeing them improve at a management and cultural level and I think slowly they are starting to show improvement and find their way.

As we all know Boeing winning big orders is because they offered fire sale prices(sarcasm).

B787oftheworld wrote:

We saw Boeing win big aircraft orders recently, both narrowbodies and widebodies. Certification processes look better then before.

Is Boeing management really turning things around ?

That seems to be pretty obvious, wouldn't you say?

JohanTally wrote:

As we all know Boeing winning big orders is because they offered fire sale prices(sarcasm).

We'll lose a little bit on each plane but make it up in volume!

ElroyJetson wrote:

B787oftheworld wrote:

We saw Boeing win big aircraft orders recently, both narrowbodies and widebodies. Certification processes look better then before.

Is Boeing management really turning things around ?

That seems to be pretty obvious, wouldn't you say?

It does seem after serious headwinds they finally have a bit of a tailwind. If the MAX 7 and 10 can get across the finish line in a timely manner things will really be looking up.

Definite progress has been made, but also definitely quite a ways left to go. It's a work in progress but the trend is good.

Looking better? Sure.

Things still aren't all that rosy:

• B37M and B3XM are running way behind schedule with no foreseeable date of delivery to customers.
• B779 is still stuck in regulatory hell.
• B778 has questions as what market role it will actually play (thought I downplay the questions of whether it'll be built, as those appear to be only among AvGeeks and not Boeing clients, at least publicly.)
• B787 seems to go into a delivery freeze every 9-12months for the last three years. Hopefully that's sorted out.

Other than that, peachy, I guess.

When all 4 narrowbody offerings start moving out the door, that'll REALLY help with cash flow though.

Stock price has been remarkable consistent this year so far: it's the same now as it was right after New Year's.
Not the greatest thing, but not bad either, considering yet another 787 delivery halt.

But what sucks for Boeing is that they'll be in a position of playing catch-up to their rival for a longggg time. Particularly in the all-important narrowbody segment.

LAX772LR wrote:

Looking better? Sure.

Things still aren't all that rosy:

• B37M and B3XM are running way behind schedule with no foreseeable date of delivery to customers.
• B779 is still stuck in regulatory hell.
• B778 has questions as what market role it will actually play (thought I downplay the questions of whether it'll be built, as those appear to be only among AvGeeks and not Boeing clients, at least publicly.)
• B787 seems to go into a delivery freeze every 9-12months for the last three years. Hopefully that's sorted out.

Other than that, peachy, I guess.

When all 4 narrowbody offerings start moving out the door, that'll REALLY help with cash flow though.

Stock price has been remarkable consistent this year so far: it's the same now as it was right after New Year's.
Not the greatest thing, but not bad either, considering yet another 787 delivery halt.

But what sucks for Boeing is that they'll be in a position of playing catch-up to their rival for a longggg time. Particularly in the all-important narrowbody segment.

I don’t think the MAX 7 and 10 are without a foreseeable delivery date.

Boeing has historically been complacent and arrogant. I think that aspect of the culture has changed through the multiple crisis. There was an interesting column from Scott Hamilton a few days ago about Airbus is shifting into that mindset: https://leehamnews.com/2023/03/21/ponti ... exclusive/

sxf24 wrote:

I don’t think the MAX 7 and 10 are without a foreseeable delivery date.

....the obvious followup being: well, then when is it?

Not to be flippant, but I don't even think it's safe to try to predict which quarter it'll be in, let alone a foreseeable date.
For Boeing's sake, one would hope that it'll be this year (which contrary to common belief, has never been stated nor assured).

sxf24 wrote:

There was an interesting column from Scott Hamilton a few days ago about Airbus is shifting into that mindset

That's some pretty sloppy work, if we're being honest.

1) he points to Boeing getting a massive order in India, while omitting that Airbus got an even larger one, despite being production slot limited--- so, um, how's that an example of Airbus arrogance/complacency?

2) he points to supplier delays, long known, and uses that as an example of Airbus somehow being in the wrong?

3) he outright points to sold-out production slots, as if that were somehow an undesirable thing, while ignoring that Airbus has done everything from open additional lines, to converting others.

.....almost nothing in that article makes sense. Very shoddy work by Hamilton.

JohanTally wrote:

As we all know Boeing winning big orders is because they offered fire sale prices(sarcasm).

Well as long as airbus is not getting them. I think they could settle for slimmer margins for now, and focus on improving on that later when they are more stable and confident.

Anyways as more airlines place orders, it's a vote of confidence which attracts even more orders.

I wonder if some at Boeing arent secretly not too concerned about the delays in ramping back up 787 production and the 777X being stuck in suspended animation. International travel still hasnt returned to pre pandemic levels. There must be plenty of widebodies still sitting.

LAX772LR wrote:

Looking better? Sure.

Things still aren't all that rosy:

• B37M and B3XM are running way behind schedule with no foreseeable date of delivery to customers.
• B779 is still stuck in regulatory hell.
• B778 has questions as what market role it will actually play (thought I downplay the questions of whether it'll be built, as those appear to be only among AvGeeks and not Boeing clients, at least publicly.)
• B787 seems to go into a delivery freeze every 9-12months for the last three years. Hopefully that's sorted out.

Other than that, peachy, I guess.

When all 4 narrowbody offerings start moving out the door, that'll REALLY help with cash flow though.

Stock price has been remarkable consistent this year so far: it's the same now as it was right after New Year's.
Not the greatest thing, but not bad either, considering yet another 787 delivery halt.

But what sucks for Boeing is that they'll be in a position of playing catch-up to their rival for a longggg time. Particularly in the all-important narrowbody segment.

B37M should deliver this year and B3XM next year. That is within the foreseeable future.
779 recently cleared the objection from EASA meaning it should be able to proceed with Certification starting this summer.
I doubt the 778 will ever surface either, other than as Freighter. I put a lot more weight on an 365T 777-10 passenger model showing up eventually if slots continue to become more rare over time.

787 now has over 700 in backlog - in 2025 they should be able to deliver 10ish new frames per month, and eventually move to 14.

If you haven't noticed the markets are not having that great of a year - the Market Value of Boeing is still highest in Aviation.

Wall Street analysts are projecting Boeing will also have the highest Cash Flow in the next few years as well.

It really depends on how you count what defines winning. For a publicly traded company I would argue its the cash you make out of the business. There is one winner from that perspective.

I believe margins are better in widebodies and Boeing holds a larger lead in market share in that segment than they are behind in SA >150 seats.

Yes things at Boeing are looking up.

LAX772LR wrote:

Looking better? Sure.
...

[*]B779 is still stuck in regulatory hell.
[*]B778 has questions as what market role it will actually play (thought I downplay the questions of whether it'll be built, as those appear to be only among AvGeeks and not Boeing clients, at least publicly.)

The 779 really will not come into its own until the VLA replacement cycle begins in earnest. While I think they could and should have gone a little bigger —this would have almost certainly forced Airbus to develop an A350-1100 for lack of more definitive nomenclature— it remains well positioned to catch everything from 77E upgrades to A388 fleet rationalizations. There will be ferocious competition from A's 350 family, but they will catch a goodly number of orders. I would even say that there is a good probability it will be much more of a breakout seller than at first anticipated.

And while I agree that there are good regulatory concerns, I feel that that is much more a product of a more performative FAA. I get that this is after all the same company that made an unmitigated disaster out of what should have been a simple update to their narrowbody family. But their' incurring setbacks here and now —especially when the market is very soft anyway— is fine if it avoids the idiocy and arrogance that lead to the MAX even being a thing.

Ultimately I feel like the 779 will be a good deal more successful than most of us here imagine.



The 778 will also be more successful than we here think —or want it to be?— The 77F has been a fantastic success and likely would continue to be. But I do not think it is practical for BCA to continue to produce a 777 Classic and 77X alongside each other. I get that there is some precedent for a small bit of overlap, but that is really not something that OEM wants to do long term. For that reason, the 778's future is assured, even if PAX versions remain few and far between.

LAX772LR wrote:

When all 4 narrowbody offerings start moving out the door, that'll REALLY help with cash flow though.

Makes the assumption that there will be no further disasters, groundings or deficiencies discovered down-line. Honestly at this point, more offerings are more opportunities for liability.

Cash flow along that product line will come only from back end support.

LAX772LR wrote:

Stock price has been remarkable consistent this year so far: it's the same now as it was right after New Year's.

Shacking up with Boeing Defense will hide a lot of slack...

Sermons wrote:

Well as long as airbus is not getting them. I think they could settle for slimmer margins for now, and focus on improving on that later when they are more stable and confident.

Ironic considering Airbus do not offer or sell planes for that reason themselves.

Anyway, yeah, they need to take whatever margins they can get. But making something just so Airbus will not get a sale is expensive and consuming of needed engineering resources. It was great from our point of view that they made a 748i, but a more rational company would have left that on the table in favor more or more capable F variants.

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if some at Boeing arent secretly not too concerned about the delays in ramping back up 787 production and the 777X being stuck in suspended animation. International travel still hasnt returned to pre pandemic levels. There must be plenty of widebodies still sitting.

morrisond wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Looking better? Sure.

Things still aren't all that rosy:

• B37M and B3XM are running way behind schedule with no foreseeable date of delivery to customers.
• B779 is still stuck in regulatory hell.
• B778 has questions as what market role it will actually play (thought I downplay the questions of whether it'll be built, as those appear to be only among AvGeeks and not Boeing clients, at least publicly.)
• B787 seems to go into a delivery freeze every 9-12months for the last three years. Hopefully that's sorted out.

Other than that, peachy, I guess.

When all 4 narrowbody offerings start moving out the door, that'll REALLY help with cash flow though.

Stock price has been remarkable consistent this year so far: it's the same now as it was right after New Year's.
Not the greatest thing, but not bad either, considering yet another 787 delivery halt.

But what sucks for Boeing is that they'll be in a position of playing catch-up to their rival for a longggg time. Particularly in the all-important narrowbody segment.

B37M should deliver this year and B3XM next year. That is within the foreseeable future.
779 recently cleared the objection from EASA meaning it should be able to proceed with Certification starting this summer.
I doubt the 778 will ever surface either, other than as Freighter. I put a lot more weight on an 365T 777-10 passenger model showing up eventually if slots continue to become more rare over time.

787 now has over 700 in backlog - in 2025 they should be able to deliver 10ish new frames per month, and eventually move to 14.

If you haven't noticed the markets are not having that great of a year - the Market Value of Boeing is still highest in Aviation.

Wall Street analysts are projecting Boeing will also have the highest Cash Flow in the next few years as well.

It really depends on how you count what defines winning. For a publicly traded company I would argue its the cash you make out of the business. There is one winner from that perspective.

I believe margins are better in widebodies and Boeing holds a larger lead in market share in that segment than they are behind in SA >150 seats.

Yes things at Boeing are looking up.

Yes they're doing better but that's not exactly very hard for them.

There's only really two manufacturers so getting orders for the 737 isn't exactly an amazing achievement.
Total market share in the narrowbody segment is firmly in Airbus' favour.

If there was a third OEM Boeing would be pretty screwed right now.

The Dreamliner is still a brilliant aircraft and the backlog speaks for itself.

The only concern will be when the first generation of 787s come up for replacement. Airbus has plently of cashflow and resources and there closest competitor the A330neo is coming up for replacement.
They should be targeting this space and the potential for an Airbus made 787 sized aircraft should cause Boeing concern.

Then there's the 777X. I think the 777-9 has a better future than most people think. It won't reach the heights of the 77W, but even with a potential A350 but it could still reach 500 plus frames over it's life time.

A 777-10 could also work however it's potential is limited by the 80m box.

Boeing are doing fine for the rest of this decade however for the next could be very uncertain.

Metchalus wrote:

morrisond wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Looking better? Sure.

Things still aren't all that rosy:

• B37M and B3XM are running way behind schedule with no foreseeable date of delivery to customers.
• B779 is still stuck in regulatory hell.
• B778 has questions as what market role it will actually play (thought I downplay the questions of whether it'll be built, as those appear to be only among AvGeeks and not Boeing clients, at least publicly.)
• B787 seems to go into a delivery freeze every 9-12months for the last three years. Hopefully that's sorted out.

Other than that, peachy, I guess.

When all 4 narrowbody offerings start moving out the door, that'll REALLY help with cash flow though.

Stock price has been remarkable consistent this year so far: it's the same now as it was right after New Year's.
Not the greatest thing, but not bad either, considering yet another 787 delivery halt.

But what sucks for Boeing is that they'll be in a position of playing catch-up to their rival for a longggg time. Particularly in the all-important narrowbody segment.

B37M should deliver this year and B3XM next year. That is within the foreseeable future.
779 recently cleared the objection from EASA meaning it should be able to proceed with Certification starting this summer.
I doubt the 778 will ever surface either, other than as Freighter. I put a lot more weight on an 365T 777-10 passenger model showing up eventually if slots continue to become more rare over time.

787 now has over 700 in backlog - in 2025 they should be able to deliver 10ish new frames per month, and eventually move to 14.

If you haven't noticed the markets are not having that great of a year - the Market Value of Boeing is still highest in Aviation.

Wall Street analysts are projecting Boeing will also have the highest Cash Flow in the next few years as well.

It really depends on how you count what defines winning. For a publicly traded company I would argue its the cash you make out of the business. There is one winner from that perspective.

I believe margins are better in widebodies and Boeing holds a larger lead in market share in that segment than they are behind in SA >150 seats.

Yes things at Boeing are looking up.

Yes they're doing better but that's not exactly very hard for them.

There's only really two manufacturers so getting orders for the 737 isn't exactly an amazing achievement.
Total market share in the narrowbody segment is firmly in Airbus' favour.

If there was a third OEM Boeing would be pretty screwed right now.

The Dreamliner is still a brilliant aircraft and the backlog speaks for itself.

The only concern will be when the first generation of 787s come up for replacement. Airbus has plently of cashflow and resources and there closest competitor the A330neo is coming up for replacement.
They should be targeting this space and the potential for an Airbus made 787 sized aircraft should cause Boeing concern.

Then there's the 777X. I think the 777-9 has a better future than most people think. It won't reach the heights of the 77W, but even with a potential A350 but it could still reach 500 plus frames over it's life time.

A 777-10 could also work however it's potential is limited by the 80m box.

Boeing are doing fine for the rest of this decade however for the next could be very uncertain.

Airbus and RR are not doing so hot with A330neo deliveries and reliability. I don’t think the airplane is the winner A.net makes it out to be.

sxf24 wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

morrisond wrote:

B37M should deliver this year and B3XM next year. That is within the foreseeable future.
779 recently cleared the objection from EASA meaning it should be able to proceed with Certification starting this summer.
I doubt the 778 will ever surface either, other than as Freighter. I put a lot more weight on an 365T 777-10 passenger model showing up eventually if slots continue to become more rare over time.

787 now has over 700 in backlog - in 2025 they should be able to deliver 10ish new frames per month, and eventually move to 14.

If you haven't noticed the markets are not having that great of a year - the Market Value of Boeing is still highest in Aviation.

Wall Street analysts are projecting Boeing will also have the highest Cash Flow in the next few years as well.

It really depends on how you count what defines winning. For a publicly traded company I would argue its the cash you make out of the business. There is one winner from that perspective.

I believe margins are better in widebodies and Boeing holds a larger lead in market share in that segment than they are behind in SA >150 seats.

Yes things at Boeing are looking up.

Yes they're doing better but that's not exactly very hard for them.

There's only really two manufacturers so getting orders for the 737 isn't exactly an amazing achievement.
Total market share in the narrowbody segment is firmly in Airbus' favour.

If there was a third OEM Boeing would be pretty screwed right now.

The Dreamliner is still a brilliant aircraft and the backlog speaks for itself.

The only concern will be when the first generation of 787s come up for replacement. Airbus has plently of cashflow and resources and there closest competitor the A330neo is coming up for replacement.
They should be targeting this space and the potential for an Airbus made 787 sized aircraft should cause Boeing concern.

Then there's the 777X. I think the 777-9 has a better future than most people think. It won't reach the heights of the 77W, but even with a potential A350 but it could still reach 500 plus frames over it's life time.

A 777-10 could also work however it's potential is limited by the 80m box.

Boeing are doing fine for the rest of this decade however for the next could be very uncertain.

Airbus and RR are not doing so hot with A330neo deliveries and reliability. I don’t think the airplane is the winner A.net makes it out to be.

So far airlines retiring A330CEOs aren't chomping at the bit for NEOs thus far. There is always the possibility that Airbus offers the A350-800 if the A330 line can no longer sustain itself. Until then the 787 is the most popular small widebody available.

Metchalus wrote:

Airbus has plently of cashflow and resources and there closest competitor the A330neo is coming up for replacement.
They should be targeting this space and the potential for an Airbus made 787 sized aircraft should cause Boeing concern.

The A330neo (which is almost the exact same size as the 787) has only been in service for a little over 4 years. It is not up for replacement anytime soon and it’s future direct replacement is not Airbus’s current priority. Any improvement on the A330neo replacement over the 787 will be largely engine driven, and those engines would be ported over to the 787; with over 1600 787 sold engine manufacturers are not going to say no to doing a 787neo.

Metchalus wrote:

A330neo is coming up for replacement.
They should be targeting this space and the potential for an Airbus made 787 sized aircraft should cause Boeing concern.

Unless you meant "CEO" then this makes almost no sense.

The NEO isn't even 5yrs old, and hasn't yet targeted a replacement-cycle in earnest.

It missed the cycle for 763/A332/A340/77A replacement, that the 787/A359 capitalized upon mightily, and it likely won't see the 764/A333/77E replacement cycle that it's aimed at, until near the end of this decade.

JohanTally wrote:

So far airlines retiring A330CEOs aren't chomping at the bit for NEOs thus far.

Part of that is internal, as quite a few A330/A340 customers (SQ, FI, SK, AF, LH, EK, etc) decided to go with derated units of the A359 for some of their regional/shorthaul TATL needs, instead... which is a tradeoff I'm sure Airbus would happily take, every time.

But there's still plenty (DL, TP, MH, VS, etc) who did decide to supplement or replace their A33Cs with A33Ns.

And even a few outstanding (most notably CX) who could go either way (787s, A33Ns, derated A350s) with their needs as well.

LAX772LR wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

A330neo is coming up for replacement.
They should be targeting this space and the potential for an Airbus made 787 sized aircraft should cause Boeing concern.

Unless you meant "CEO" then this makes almost no sense.

The NEO isn't even 5yrs old, and hasn't yet targeted a replacement-cycle in earnest.

It missed the cycle for 763/A332/A340/77A replacement, that the 787/A359 capitalized upon mightily, and it likely won't see the 764/A333/77E replacement cycle that it's aimed at, until near the end of this decade.

I think I wasn't very clear.

I didn't mean the physical aircraft in service I meant the place in the Airbus product line. And by up for replacement I meant the next 15 years.
I'm probably too tired right now.

Anyways not saying that the A330neo is a failure. Well the 800 is but the 900s doing too badly but it's not exactly flying off the shelves. Yes it can still do some sales replacing existing aircraft but beyond that it doesn't have much of a future.

It's losing head to heads against the current generation 787s. Hawaian and China Airlines for example.
Against a re-engined 787 it won't stand a chance.

Polot wrote:

The A330neo (which is almost the exact same size as the 787) has only been in service for a little over 4 years. It is not up for replacement anytime soon and it’s future direct replacement is not Airbus’s current priority. Any improvement on the A330neo replacement over the 787 will be largely engine driven, and those engines would be ported over to the 787; with over 1600 787 sold engine manufacturers are not going to say no to doing a 787neo.

Yes but are Airbus going to just let Boeing take that entire market.
When new engines go on the 787 Airbus can't respond by putting them on the A330 it's too old and too heavy.

I get that its not some impending crisis facing Airbus and that it may not be a priority.
But it's not like Airbus has anything else to do.

Metchalus wrote:

When new engines go on the 787 Airbus can't respond by putting them on the A330 it's too old and too heavy.

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

LAX772LR wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

So far airlines retiring A330CEOs aren't chomping at the bit for NEOs thus far.

Part of that is internal, as quite a few A330/A340 customers (SQ, FI, SK, AF, LH, EK, etc) decided to go with derated units of the A359 for some of their regional/shorthaul TATL needs, instead... which is a tradeoff I'm sure Airbus would happily take, every time.

But there's still plenty (DL, TP, MH, VS, etc) who did decide to supplement or replace their A33Cs with A33Ns.

And even a few outstanding (most notably CX) who could go either way (787s, A33Ns, derated A350s) with their needs as well.

I'm not counting the A330NEO out at all but some fleet replacements definitely need to go it's way. The backlog is in precarious shape with the IR order and also D7 doesn't seem reliable enough to be a sure thing. DL could definitely increase their order but if the NEO looks like an orphan others may steer clear.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Looking better? Sure.
...

[*]B779 is still stuck in regulatory hell.
[*]B778 has questions as what market role it will actually play (thought I downplay the questions of whether it'll be built, as those appear to be only among AvGeeks and not Boeing clients, at least publicly.)

The 779 really will not come into its own until the VLA replacement cycle begins in earnest. While I think they could and should have gone a little bigger —this would have almost certainly forced Airbus to develop an A350-1100 for lack of more definitive nomenclature— it remains well positioned to catch everything from 77E upgrades to A388 fleet rationalizations. There will be ferocious competition from A's 350 family, but they will catch a goodly number of orders. I would even say that there is a good probability it will be much more of a breakout seller than at first anticipated.

And while I agree that there are good regulatory concerns, I feel that that is much more a product of a more performative FAA. I get that this is after all the same company that made an unmitigated disaster out of what should have been a simple update to their narrowbody family. But their' incurring setbacks here and now —especially when the market is very soft anyway— is fine if it avoids the idiocy and arrogance that lead to the MAX even being a thing.

Ultimately I feel like the 779 will be a good deal more successful than most of us here imagine.



The 778 will also be more successful than we here think —or want it to be?— The 77F has been a fantastic success and likely would continue to be. But I do not think it is practical for BCA to continue to produce a 777 Classic and 77X alongside each other. I get that there is some precedent for a small bit of overlap, but that is really not something that OEM wants to do long term. For that reason, the 778's future is assured, even if PAX versions remain few and far between.

LAX772LR wrote:

When all 4 narrowbody offerings start moving out the door, that'll REALLY help with cash flow though.

Makes the assumption that there will be no further disasters, groundings or deficiencies discovered down-line. Honestly at this point, more offerings are more opportunities for liability.

Cash flow along that product line will come only from back end support.

LAX772LR wrote:

Stock price has been remarkable consistent this year so far: it's the same now as it was right after New Year's.

Shacking up with Boeing Defense will hide a lot of slack...

Sermons wrote:

Well as long as airbus is not getting them. I think they could settle for slimmer margins for now, and focus on improving on that later when they are more stable and confident.

Ironic considering Airbus do not offer or sell planes for that reason themselves.

Anyway, yeah, they need to take whatever margins they can get. But making something just so Airbus will not get a sale is expensive and consuming of needed engineering resources. It was great from our point of view that they made a 748i, but a more rational company would have left that on the table in favor more or more capable F variants.

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if some at Boeing arent secretly not too concerned about the delays in ramping back up 787 production and the 777X being stuck in suspended animation. International travel still hasnt returned to pre pandemic levels. There must be plenty of widebodies still sitting.

Umm, 737 is already generating cash on every delivery. The Boeing CFO is suggesting cash margins will be back to pre-disaster and pre-Covid within the next 24 months.

LAX772LR wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

When new engines go on the 787 Airbus can't respond by putting them on the A330 it's too old and too heavy.

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

It’s an aluminum 1970s era airframe with a wing about 3 generations old?

JohanTally wrote:

The backlog is in precarious shape

Quite an exaggeration, seeing as even without IR/D7 they still have 4yrs' worth of build for the A33N at the current production rate.......

.....however Airbus decided just last month to increase that production rate, so they can't be all that worried about it:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-pla ... d-4a108f80

sxf24 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

When new engines go on the 787 Airbus can't respond by putting them on the A330 it's too old and too heavy.

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

It’s an aluminum 1970s era airframe with a wing about 3 generations old?

So in other words, nothing of numerical substance.

Figured.

LAX772LR wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

When new engines go on the 787 Airbus can't respond by putting them on the A330 it's too old and too heavy.

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

Yes but that's not exactly going amazing for it. It can barely keep up against the 787 now.
A re-engined 787 with updated wings, landing gear etc. Will leave it in the dirt.

It's already got a modified wing from the ceo but to keep up with the 787 it'll need an entirely new one.

Even then it'll be a 50 year old aluminium airframe with roots going back even further going up against a 30 year old cfrp one.

It's similar to why the A350 isn't just a rejigged A330 but a completely new airframe.

Being cash positive is one thing, but Boeing continues to throw money down the toilet.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... c5bbc3520e

Another $500ish million charge on the way.

B787oftheworld wrote:

We saw Boeing win big aircraft orders recently, both narrowbodies and widebodies. Certification processes look better then before.

Is Boeing management really turning things around ?

I am going to say no. Not until they deliver 30 737 per month and 5 787 per month for 12 months in a row will I be convinced Boeing has a clue.

Which should be easy since Boeing announced rate 31 was achieved in July 2022.

It is the age of the A330 design (1990), the wing (1990), the cabin pressure of 8,000 ft asl (1990) vs 6,000 ft asl of the A350 and 787 that will date it. For my money the 787 should have a longer useful life before becoming obsolete. AIrbus is probably dumping the A330neo on the market to keep the assembly line active. Other than DL these are not high quality airlines ordering the type.
Boeing post McDonnell Douglas merger is a gift that keeps giving to AIrbus!

scbriml wrote:

Being cash positive is one thing, but Boeing continues to throw money down the toilet.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... c5bbc3520e

Another $500ish million charge on the way.

You neglected this quote from the same article:

"West said the new charge and negative Boeing defense margins—which were expected—will not affect Boeing’s ability to meet its free cash flow forecast of generating $3-5 billion by the end of the year, or $10 billion by 2026. Those forecasts were provided in a November 2022 investor briefing and have become key to Boeing’s financial recovery."

Many current airplanes are 30ish years old aluminum technology. It's hard to see how the composite tech on the 787 paid off....it came in overweight and is still very heavy for its size. The smallest 787 is something like 50,000 lbs heavier than a 767 (empty weight).

And given the hangover from Covid, the current geopolitical problems, the number of stored 787s that need rework, and the number of widebodies still sitting, it may take International airplane production a decade or more to fully recover. I remember Richard Anderson saying there were way too many widebodies before Covid. Imho it'll be at least 5-7 years before we see Boeing pumping out 10+ new 787s a month, let alone the 14-15 they hit for a short time.

scbriml wrote:

Being cash positive is one thing, but Boeing continues to throw money down the toilet.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... c5bbc3520e

Another $500ish million charge on the way.

This is not "throwing money down the toilet". It's investing in an airframe product with a very long future ahead of it.

The current KC-46 contract is worth an estimated $55B over it's lifetime. Further it's likely the USAF will forgo KC-Y competition and double the KC-46 order. Which will bring the total KC-46 aircraft contract value into the $100B range, over a service life of 50 years.

If Boeing invests an extra $7B in delivering what the USAF wants, against that value and that lifetime, that's quite wise. And the fixed cost contract that necessitated that investment, is a thing of the past, a mistake that won't be repeated on either side, according to both Boeing & USAF comments.

LAX772LR wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

The backlog is in precarious shape

Quite an exaggeration, seeing as even without IR/D7 they still have 4yrs' worth of build for the A33N at the current production rate.......

.....however Airbus decided just last month to increase that production rate, so they can't be all that worried about it:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-pla ... d-4a108f80

sxf24 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

It’s an aluminum 1970s era airframe with a wing about 3 generations old?

So in other words, nothing of numerical substance.

Figured.

Yeah and the 787 has a 17 year backlog at their current rate. The A330NEO backlog is not currently in great shape which is no exaggeration but that can change. It's okay to acknowledge that the program isn't currently performing well but still has plenty of prospects.

Boeing still needs to clean house at the top. Has Boeing top brass really learned a lesson? Or are they just upset they got exposed? Time will tell I suppose.

SteelChair wrote:

Many current airplanes are 30ish years old aluminum technology. It's hard to see how the composite tech on the 787 paid off....it came in overweight and is still very heavy for its size. The smallest 787 is something like 50,000 lbs heavier than a 767 (empty weight).

And given the hangover from Covid, the current geopolitical problems, the number of stored 787s that need rework, and the number of widebodies still sitting, it may take International airplane production a decade or more to fully recover. I remember Richard Anderson saying there were way too many widebodies before Covid. Imho it'll be at least 5-7 years before we see Boeing pumping out 10+ new 787s a month, let alone the 14-15 they hit for a short time.

The empty weight of an 9W 57M Long 788 that can fly almost 7,400NM is 120T

The empty weight of an 7W 61M 764 that can fly 5,600NM is 104T

You are comparing apples to oranges

The empty weight of an 9W 63M 789 that can fly about 7,700Nm is about 129T - hence your 50,000lb figure - however its a significantly larger more capable aircraft. It should weight more.

That are aiming for 10 per month 787's in two years.

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Many current airplanes are 30ish years old aluminum technology. It's hard to see how the composite tech on the 787 paid off....it came in overweight and is still very heavy for its size. The smallest 787 is something like 50,000 lbs heavier than a 767 (empty weight).

And given the hangover from Covid, the current geopolitical problems, the number of stored 787s that need rework, and the number of widebodies still sitting, it may take International airplane production a decade or more to fully recover. I remember Richard Anderson saying there were way too many widebodies before Covid. Imho it'll be at least 5-7 years before we see Boeing pumping out 10+ new 787s a month, let alone the 14-15 they hit for a short time.

The empty weight of an 9W 57M Long 788 that can fly almost 7,400NM is 120T

The empty weight of an 7W 61M 764 that can fly 5,600NM is 104T

You are comparing apples to oranges

The empty weight of an 9W 63M 789 that can fly about 7,700Nm is about 129T - hence your 50,000lb figure - however its a significantly larger more capable aircraft. It should weight more.

That are aiming for 10 per month 787's in two years.

Funny that you chose the 764....very few were built.

Comparing a 763 to a 788, the difference is about 50k IIRC. Very few flights a day need 7000+ nm range. Boeing built far too much capability into the 787, and the composites didn't generate weight savings. Thus the MOM segment was abandoned by Boeing.

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Many current airplanes are 30ish years old aluminum technology. It's hard to see how the composite tech on the 787 paid off....it came in overweight and is still very heavy for its size. The smallest 787 is something like 50,000 lbs heavier than a 767 (empty weight).

And given the hangover from Covid, the current geopolitical problems, the number of stored 787s that need rework, and the number of widebodies still sitting, it may take International airplane production a decade or more to fully recover. I remember Richard Anderson saying there were way too many widebodies before Covid. Imho it'll be at least 5-7 years before we see Boeing pumping out 10+ new 787s a month, let alone the 14-15 they hit for a short time.

The empty weight of an 9W 57M Long 788 that can fly almost 7,400NM is 120T

The empty weight of an 7W 61M 764 that can fly 5,600NM is 104T

You are comparing apples to oranges

The empty weight of an 9W 63M 789 that can fly about 7,700Nm is about 129T - hence your 50,000lb figure - however its a significantly larger more capable aircraft. It should weight more.

That are aiming for 10 per month 787's in two years.

Funny that you chose the 764....very few were built.

Comparing a 763 to a 788, the difference is about 50k IIRC. Very few flights a day need 7000+ nm range. Boeing built far too much capability into the 787, and the composites didn't generate weight savings. Thus the MOM segment was abandoned by Boeing.

They didn't get the smaller MOM segment but are leading in the larger widebody segment.

Hope so but I see the KC 46 program just recorded another massive loss

It seems impossible that particular program will ever break even, let alone show a profit

Max Q wrote:

Hope so but I see the KC 46 program just recorded another massive loss

It seems impossible that particular program will ever break even, let alone show a profit

Umm ... no. Please read the post just above. The lifetime total value of the KC-46 contract will approach $100B.

LAX772LR wrote:

There was an interesting column from Scott Hamilton a few days ago about Airbus is shifting into that mindset

That's some pretty sloppy work, if we're being honest.

1) he points to Boeing getting a massive order in India, while omitting that Airbus got an even larger one, despite being production slot limited--- so, um, how's that an example of Airbus arrogance/complacency?

2) he points to supplier delays, long known, and uses that as an example of Airbus somehow being in the wrong?

3) he outright points to sold-out production slots, as if that were somehow an undesirable thing, while ignoring that Airbus has done everything from open additional lines, to converting others.

.....almost nothing in that article makes sense. Very shoddy work by Hamilton. [/quote]

1. Boeing was initially supposed to get none of the order. Airbus was rumored to be the preferred manufacturer for almost a year, and somehow Boeing managed to slide in there one month before the announcement and get orders not just for 737 Max aircraft (which is the one competing with the filled A32X line), but 787s (which AI has a troubled relationship with) AND 777Xs (which has a less certain future than the A350-1000)

2. Supplier delays are one thing, complacency is another, and quality is another.

3. ...And not necessarily succeeded (see the A220)

Airbus is getting sloppy (and Boeing is still very sloppy and complacent in many ways, don't get me wrong, but we're talking about Airbus here), they've had almost 5 years of leverage over Boeing and are preferred in huge markets. Will they overrule good engineering judgement like Boeing did with the 737-MAX? Probably not, and I certainly hope not, but that doesn't mean complacency won't breed trouble later on. Boeing has plans for future aircraft, so much so that if their changes prove successful with TBW, they will undoubtedly have the upper hand in the narrow body segment if they can pull it off and manufacture that thing for cheap. NMA was too late, give it a decade, it'll be back.

Airbus has huge success with their A32Xneo lines, but the A330 lines have been severely struggling, and the A350 order book had been lacking significantly for the past 5 years (up and until AI. In addition, they could barely get support for A350Fs), and despite its success this year, it has still lost significantly to the 787 (UA, AI, SA, RI, EV, LH, HA, AC) over the past year. It's not like the program isn't doing well, but you can't ignore the fact that the 787 has garnered nearly four times as many orders as the A350 and a330 combined (even more if you ignore the QR orders, but that's honestly not reasonable given that those frames would have been eaten by someone). If that doesn't spell indifference or lack of competitive will, I don't know what does.

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Many current airplanes are 30ish years old aluminum technology. It's hard to see how the composite tech on the 787 paid off....it came in overweight and is still very heavy for its size. The smallest 787 is something like 50,000 lbs heavier than a 767 (empty weight).

And given the hangover from Covid, the current geopolitical problems, the number of stored 787s that need rework, and the number of widebodies still sitting, it may take International airplane production a decade or more to fully recover. I remember Richard Anderson saying there were way too many widebodies before Covid. Imho it'll be at least 5-7 years before we see Boeing pumping out 10+ new 787s a month, let alone the 14-15 they hit for a short time.

The empty weight of an 9W 57M Long 788 that can fly almost 7,400NM is 120T

The empty weight of an 7W 61M 764 that can fly 5,600NM is 104T

You are comparing apples to oranges

The empty weight of an 9W 63M 789 that can fly about 7,700Nm is about 129T - hence your 50,000lb figure - however its a significantly larger more capable aircraft. It should weight more.

That are aiming for 10 per month 787's in two years.

Funny that you chose the 764....very few were built.

Comparing a 763 to a 788, the difference is about 50k IIRC. Very few flights a day need 7000+ nm range. Boeing built far too much capability into the 787, and the composites didn't generate weight savings. Thus the MOM segment was abandoned by Boeing.

Boeing didn't "build too much capability" into the 787. There's a fair argument to be made that the 787-8 is too heavy for a MOM aircraft, but that's a completely different argument and ignores the rest of the program which you are criticizing.
Does the -8 have too much capability? Maybe, but at least 400 were sold so far (maybe up to 450 if UA's order includes some -8s). Also, it's kind of nice that Air Canada can fly to Seoul and Tokyo from Montreal with a relatively dense 270-seat 787-8 and make plenty of money. JL and NH seem to be doing fine with running them on domestic runs too.

Does the -9 have too much capability? Most airlines choosing it don't seem to think so, QF seems to enjoy the margins on their Perth-LHR flights. I'm pretty sure most airlines love the fact that they can serve far destinations without providing 450 seats on a 747, 777, a350, or a380. I'm sure the customers of most US hubs also love the fact that they don't have to take additional flights from a central US hub to a coastal hub to fly to Europe or Asia, now that most hubs can see service to most major destinations.

Does the -10 have too much capability? Well, UA recently made their decision to replace a good chunk of their 777s with 787-10s instead of A350s or 777Xs (the former of which wouldn't have been too much plane for them). Singapore Air, EVA air, and AF seems to be doing just fine with them for their services.

Yes, very few flights need 7000nm of range, but that's not how operating efficiency works. The optimum fuel consumption for a 787-9 occurs at around 2500 NM, and isn't that much worse at 5000nm. If you make a plane lighter, you just shift that optimum range lower, and increase fuel burns at higher ranges. Yeah, a 787-9 can fly 7000nm, but will it do so as efficiently as it would at 3500 NM? Absolutely not.

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Being cash positive is one thing, but Boeing continues to throw money down the toilet.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... c5bbc3520e

Another $500ish million charge on the way.

This is not "throwing money down the toilet". It's investing in an airframe product with a very long future ahead of it.

The current KC-46 contract is worth an estimated $55B over it's lifetime. Further it's likely the USAF will forgo KC-Y competition and double the KC-46 order. Which will bring the total KC-46 aircraft contract value into the $100B range, over a service life of 50 years.

If Boeing invests an extra $7B in delivering what the USAF wants, against that value and that lifetime, that's quite wise. And the fixed cost contract that necessitated that investment, is a thing of the past, a mistake that won't be repeated on either side, according to both Boeing & USAF comments.

It’s not “investing”, it’s paying cash to fix stuff that should never have been broken in the first place.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Ironic considering Airbus do not offer or sell planes for that reason themselves.

Anyway, yeah, they need to take whatever margins they can get.

Well airbus are not trying to recover from massive delays (777X) , a 20+ month production halt for the 787 and a situation like the MAX saga ( groundings + painful re-certification process ) are they? That's the the reason for this thread, about Boeing's turn around.

I know this is self inflicted on Boeing's part but I'm sure Airbus would have done something similar if they had found themselves in a similar situation.

This is not an ideal situation, it's recovery mode. Anyways as I said, BA could improve their margins when they are more stable and confident, or back to pre-covid levels.

scbriml wrote:

It’s not “investing”, it’s paying cash to fix stuff that should never have been broken in the first place.

This is false. The RVS upgrade that the USAF is getting for free, was not even feasible at the time the contract was let. It's all new technology, it's not just a "fix" of the existing system. This is all well documented.

So much misinformation involved here, as usual. That regularly defines the debate about Boeing. In other threads as well.

The current problem with fuel tank priming, was a supplier issue. Boeing will no doubt take a charge for that, and will work it out with the supplier. It affects the entire 767 program, not just the KC-46.

Lamp1009 wrote:

1) he points to Boeing getting a massive order in India, while omitting that Airbus got an even larger one, despite being production slot limited--- so, um, how's that an example of Airbus arrogance/complacency?

Airbus Got a smaller order than expected, I think that's what he meant.

Airbus was huge favorite to win a large chunk of this order and I'm sure AI would have preferred going all AB for it's NB, but that did not happen.

Now Boeing managed to bag a commitment for up to 290 jets (+ options of course) , which is larger than 250 for Airbus ( if options are already included) . That's still a loss for Airbus, they could have gotten much more than Boeing.

Truth Be told, Airbus limited production slots and delays for the a320neo/a321neo are what is going to help Boeing quickly recover. Potential airbus orders, will be snatched away by Boeing due to earlier or more flexible delivery timelines with the 737MAX.

Lastly, I think Now that Airbus feels they are in a much better place than Boeing, they are less aggressive with pricing and not as active with negotiations . That's were the "arrogance " he implies is coming from I guess. They are more likely to let an order slip than before.

Airbus doesn't have their greatest salesman John Leahy anymore. He was very instrumental in Airbus' rise. He didn't like to lose any order to another OEM.

LAX772LR wrote:

Um, yes, really.

Seeing as that has nothing to do with the revenue generated by the aircraft versus other options at BA's disposal. The fact that they continually choose to send it to one of their largest N.American stations, belies such a nonfactual comment.

I think you quoted this one into the wrong thread...however:

It does when it's responsible for so much EU261 compensation.

Where else are they going to send it? It goes to the N. America stations because a) dispersal options are greatest in the event of cancellations b) going east is expensive given airspace closures and c) few other places can fill it.

Since the fleet returned from storage it has been beset by tech issues. This isn't news to anyone that keeps up with or is a part of the BA operation.

B787oftheworld wrote:

We saw Boeing win big aircraft orders recently, both narrowbodies and widebodies. Certification processes look better then before.

Is Boeing management really turning things around ?

It is interesting that no one has mentioned Boeing's defense division. Any discussion on Boeing management should include the military side.

Boeing Apache AH-64 attack helicopter
Boeing CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter
Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft
Boeing KC-46 inflight refueling tanker
Boeing F-15EX fighter jets
Boeing T-7 advanced jet trainers
Boeing MQ-25 US Navy drone tanker
Boeing MQ-28 loyal wingman drone
Boeing E-7 wedgetail airborne radar aircraft.

An amazing list of products, all in production with big order books from many different militaries. The defense division had $23 billion in revenue in 2022 and it has been steadily rising. This is more than double of Airbus and with the above list of products that shouldn't be a surprise.

Three upcoming big contracts have Boeing in the box seat.

FA-XX US Navy 6th gen fighter.
It is rumoured that Boeing will build the Navy fighter and Lockheed will built the USAF fighters.
https://eurasiantimes.com/us-navy-seeks ... x-fighter/

NGAS USAF stealthy refueling tanker.
Boeing already makes the USAF KC-46 tanker and the US Navy unmanned tanker.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/hunte ... th-future/

USAF MR-F cheap lightweight F-16 replacement after 2030.
The T-7 as a single seat armed version is in the box seat to replace the F-16.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-f ... 7-for-now/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_ ... _and_Space
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_ ... 6_Security

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Many current airplanes are 30ish years old aluminum technology. It's hard to see how the composite tech on the 787 paid off....it came in overweight and is still very heavy for its size. The smallest 787 is something like 50,000 lbs heavier than a 767 (empty weight).

And given the hangover from Covid, the current geopolitical problems, the number of stored 787s that need rework, and the number of widebodies still sitting, it may take International airplane production a decade or more to fully recover. I remember Richard Anderson saying there were way too many widebodies before Covid. Imho it'll be at least 5-7 years before we see Boeing pumping out 10+ new 787s a month, let alone the 14-15 they hit for a short time.

The empty weight of an 9W 57M Long 788 that can fly almost 7,400NM is 120T

The empty weight of an 7W 61M 764 that can fly 5,600NM is 104T

You are comparing apples to oranges

The empty weight of an 9W 63M 789 that can fly about 7,700Nm is about 129T - hence your 50,000lb figure - however its a significantly larger more capable aircraft. It should weight more.

That are aiming for 10 per month 787's in two years.

Funny that you chose the 764....very few were built.

Comparing a 763 to a 788, the difference is about 50k IIRC. Very few flights a day need 7000+ nm range. Boeing built far too much capability into the 787, and the composites didn't generate weight savings. Thus the MOM segment was abandoned by Boeing.

Funny, you are still comparing Apples to oranges, and you never put "Capability" into your initial statement, and it makes more sense to compare the two closest in size models. An original 762 weighs even less should we use that?

If Boeing had built a brand new 763ER that was the same size with the same range and technology as they used on 787 it would have weighed significantly less, simply because it would have to carry much less fuel.

If you are arguing 787 is too big for MOM - then yes that is a valid statement. However 787 was never intended to be the MOM aircraft, airlines wanted something larger at the time to accommodate growing passenger demand. As they well are over 2,100 orders - assuming the Indian and Saudi orders go firm less cancellations since inception, it has not been a bad choice.