PDA

View Full Version : Ryanair 737 Max order


kkbuk
8th Apr 2020, 21:06
Does anyone think that Mr.O'Leary will cancel his order for the Boeing 737 Max8s that were ordered some time ago?

qwertyuiop
8th Apr 2020, 21:20
Do we think an airline that is not flying will cancel its order for an aircraft that can’t fly?

In today’s mad world, the only thing I can predict with certainty is, the ain’t getting them anytime soon.

The AvgasDinosaur
8th Apr 2020, 21:29
Does anyone think that Mr.O'Leary will cancel his order for the Boeing 737 Max8s that were ordered some time ago?
And forgo his compensation from Boeing?
I somehow donít think so!
David

tdracer
8th Apr 2020, 21:33
Do you think any order for any new aircraft is currently safe, or going to be delivered per the original schedule?

Douglas Bahada
8th Apr 2020, 21:59
The stars have aligned. Delay in Max tick. Compensation tick. Retire old aircraft tick. They are safe.

kkbuk
8th Apr 2020, 21:59
I was curious as to the current progress on the Max's return to the skies or is it doomed ?

tdracer
8th Apr 2020, 22:06
I was curious as to the current progress on the Max's return to the skies or is it doomed ?
Contrary to what the doom and gloom posters around here think, does anyone really believe Boeing will simply scrap ~1,000 new/nearly new aircraft worth ~$100 billion?

double-oscar
8th Apr 2020, 23:27
With most airlines looking to defer or cancel orders isnít this the time that OíLeary will be looking to place a big order at a huge discount.

giggitygiggity
8th Apr 2020, 23:33
With most airlines looking to defer or cancel orders isnít this the time that OíLeary will be looking to place a big order at a huge discount.
There already in the #1 position, with the most planes in their sector, MOL will remain quiet for a while until he sees which way this thing ends up going. Why would he risk his position at the moment when the future (as of April 8th) is so uncertain?

mates rates
9th Apr 2020, 00:36
What I see is this.Max at a discounted price,oil 20-30 dollars a barrel,15% fuel saving on burn,no more pilot shortage,Its an airline accountants dream! OíLeary will not miss this opportunity.The only unknown is when do we start?We have Corona virus,no Max certification,economic downturn.

procede
9th Apr 2020, 06:34
What I see is this.Max at a discounted price,oil 20-30 dollars a barrel,15% fuel saving on burn,no more pilot shortage,Its an airline accountants dream! OíLeary will not miss this opportunity.The only unknown is when do we start?We have Corona virus,no Max certification,economic downturn.
You are forgetting the income part of the equation...

IcanCmyhousefromhere
9th Apr 2020, 07:29
Contrary to what the doom and gloom posters around here think, does anyone really believe Boeing will simply scrap ~1,000 new/nearly new aircraft worth ~$100 billion?

Eh, just me then?
Is that $ figure the RRP or production price?
Either way it is of no consequence if the market wonít accept the aircraft. That is the problem, how does any airline in the near future advertise their new shiny aircraft with any confidence with its track record?
Thatís assuming certification which isnít there yet.

krismiler
9th Apr 2020, 07:48
Contrary to what the doom and gloom posters around here think, does anyone really believe Boeing will simply scrap ~1,000 new/nearly new aircraft worth ~$100 billion?

Any used car dealer will tell you that what you have put into a vehicle has little bearing on what you will get for it, that is determined by the market. Even if the MAX returns to the sky demand for new aircraft will be highly depressed as airlines will be in survival mode with previous expansion plans shelved. A large number of good, used aircraft on the market at the same time from bankrupt or downsizing airlines will put a further dampner on price. With oil around $30 a barrel fuel consumption won't matter so older aircraft will have a life extension.

If they can get the MAX flying again it will only be to realise some of the money spent on the grounded aircraft and reduce the loss. It would be a good chance for an opportunistic purchaser such as Ryanair to replace it's entire fleet at a bargain basement price and sit out the next ten years until Boeing can bring out a B737 replacement. Brand new aircraft would reduce maintenance costs, improve dispatch reliability, and increased fuel efficiency would pay off in the medium term when oil prices recover. With the number of order cancellations likely to come as airlines won't be in a position to take new aircraft and keeping Ryanair in the Boeing camp there could be "buy one, get one free' on offer, Boeing might even give him a few for nothing in order to free up space in the employee car park.

MOL took full advantage of the 9/11 terror attacks to drive Boeing down on price, he may do it again.

iandy912i
9th Apr 2020, 08:31
Do you think any order for any new aircraft is currently safe, or going to be delivered per the original schedule?

Wizzair is going to get 15 new aircraft this year as it was scheduled, so it depends

Less Hair
9th Apr 2020, 09:30
Looking at post 9-11 I'd say Ryanair will take their aircraft and maybe even upsize their order with whatever becomes available for cheap now. Given that the FAA clears the MAX to fly again what I expect to happen.
Aside from that widebodies are cheap now. This might be the moment for Ryanair to launch their separate long range brand for transatlantic flights. There will be more demand for cheap flights as many people still need to travel but don't have money to burn for luxuries anymore.

Arfur Dent
9th Apr 2020, 09:43
I can categorically state that, whatever the situation, I would never fly in a 737 MAX.
And that’s from someone with over 24;000 hours operating Boeings of all types but mainly 747s.

FullWings
9th Apr 2020, 10:48
Contrary to what the doom and gloom posters around here think, does anyone really believe Boeing will simply scrap ~1,000 new/nearly new aircraft worth ~$100 billion?
From what I read, there are ~400 with customers and another ~400 in storage. Given we donít know yet if it will fly again commercially and what future demand for new planes will be, I can see the distinct possibility of recycling some of the stored airframes. Airbus are going to cut production of the 320 Neo by 50% as a background to all this, which shows the seriousness of the situation.

Less Hair
9th Apr 2020, 10:59
Airbus does some steep fast cut indicating that those MAXes built might finally get delivered. It's just not the airframes it's the crews, the parts, the maintenance licences. Nobody will turn away so easily.

Boeing 7E7
9th Apr 2020, 11:12
I can categorically state that, whatever the situation, I would never fly in a 737 MAX.
And thatís from someone with over 24;000 hours operating Boeings of all types but mainly 747s.

What is it that you know, that the aviation regulatory authorities around the world will miss?

FullWings
9th Apr 2020, 11:22
Airbus does some steep fast cut indicating that those MAXes built might finally get delivered.
I think that might be for other reasons, such as the lack of demand for air travel for a while as well as the lack of money to pay for shiny new aircraft?

Wing Commander Fowler
9th Apr 2020, 11:49
What is it that you know, that the aviation regulatory authorities around the world will miss?

That's an odd question? You think regulatory authorities around the world know better than an individual's personal choice?? Don't imagine big bro' has reached that level yet.......

STN Ramp Rat
9th Apr 2020, 11:51
remember that Ryanair have not ordered standard MAX's, The Ryanair order is for MAX-200's a design that has an issue beyond that of the "standard" MAX airframes.

https://www.aerotime.aero/ruta.burbaite/24277-ryanair-s-737-max-200-design-issue-prompts-new-delays

A second emergency exit along the aft fuselage and behind the plane’s wings is a special feature of the 737-8-200, ordered by the low-cost giant. The new set of doors was necessary to increase the certified seating capacity on the modified MAX 8.

I would imagine that Boeing would want to get the "standard" MAX off the ground before they focus on the -200.

Less Hair
9th Apr 2020, 12:17
The MAX 200 is just some stock MAX 8 with another pair of cabin doors. No big deal technically.

STN Ramp Rat
9th Apr 2020, 12:27
The MAX 200 is just some stock MAX 8 with another pair of cabin doors. No big deal technically.

apparently not.........

Because of its high-density, the up to 210-seat 737-8-200 variant requires a separate type certificate from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and its European counterpart

and the doors seem to be the issue.......

an unspecified “design issue” related to the second over-wing exit has reportedly prompted this Ryanair-specific delay.

esscee
9th Apr 2020, 12:28
Many future passengers may well themselves "wait" a further period of time even after resumption of flying again before they consider buying a seat on a MAX! Something for Boeing and airlines may have to factor in.

Less Hair
9th Apr 2020, 12:29
So what else is changed?

DaveReidUK
9th Apr 2020, 12:34
Does anyone know what this mysterious, unidentified "design issue" related to the additional door on the Max 8-200 is ?

UAV689
9th Apr 2020, 12:56
I expect ryr to order even more. Just like post 9/11, but this time Boeing are properly on their knees.

He already put a tender in for some of the bigger max10s.

Bend alot
9th Apr 2020, 22:49
Does anyone know what this mysterious, unidentified "design issue" related to the additional door on the Max 8-200 is ?
Apart from the reply by MC below - it seems the practical evacuation tests required have not been "practical" for a number of years. They have been using some formula to arrive at a number as real evacuations are dangerous.

I expect the calculations will be compared to real evacuation tests now. Would not surprise me if the calculation numbers match a wide body - but not so good on a single aisle aircraft.

marchino61
10th Apr 2020, 01:44
bring this fabulous aircraft back into service as soon as they possibly can

Thanks for that laugh. It brightened up my day.

Pugilistic Animus
10th Apr 2020, 03:42
Boeing has lost a lot of trust that I had but personally, after reading some articles where they grandfathered in things, like control cable spacing and other stuff not up to code. In light of all that stuff, I would never fly on a Boeing 737 Max and I'm not too impressed by 787 re fuel tanks and lightning protection not to mention Li ion batteries I won't fly on that one either...my apologies to pilots who fly them but that's my position

Atlantic Explorer
10th Apr 2020, 08:06
Itís a wonderful position to shout from.. Me too, I have many hours in Boeing, some 4,000 left seat at CX on the -200 alone ! .. along with others that donít right now need a mention.. Iím also privileged to have flown 450 plus hours on the Max 8 and I do feel your little Ďfussí is so unjustified... Get a life and let the people who know what they are doing bring this fabulous aircraft back into service as soon as they possibly can.. Oh I forget to mention, I just celebrated being 56! Many more very useful years to come in this engaging and incredibly entertaining industry ;) ..Tx

Ad..

The ďpeopleĒ were supposed to know what they were doing before the 2 crashes! Iím afraid it doesnít give one much faith in the system that was supposed to protect the flying public and keep them safe.

Deltasierra010
10th Apr 2020, 09:23
Fitting a new system for trimming an aircraft but forgetting to tell anyone about it it is bad enough, when they do know about it and find out how to deactivate it they cannot trim the aircraft manually. Now it has all been brought into the open it is likely that the only way the Max is going to fly again is if the airframe is modified, which will need certifying, the cost of that is going to be cheaper than scrapping 800 aircraft - isn’t it?.

esscee
10th Apr 2020, 09:30
Fabulous aircraft? When there is a regulator understaffed and relying on the Boeing company certifiers and supervisors to do the regulators checking is why we are here in this situation! Boeing management overruling engineers on safety was sometime going to end in tears, very unfortunate to those whose lives were lost in the 2 accidents. We now here of many other "happenings" in the company Boeing, 787 at Charleston and less said about the 767 tanker aircraft. But Boeing will not be allowed to fail, too many lobbyists.

Deltasierra010
10th Apr 2020, 10:51
”Boeing will not be allowed to fail“. That is going to be the reality, it is too big and the US taxpayer is going to have to bail them out. That in itself is going to be problematic because Airbus was had serious issues with accepting state aid, just how it’s all going to be handled is going to be very interesting.

qwertyuiop
10th Apr 2020, 11:06
ĒBoeing will not be allowed to failď. That is going to be the reality, it is too big and the US taxpayer is going to have to bail them out. That in itself is going to be problematic because Airbus was had serious issues with accepting state aid, just how itís all going to be handled is going to be very interesting.

I think it will be under ďCV rulesĒ. Boeing will definitely be saved. Who will bail out Airbus?

Una Due Tfc
10th Apr 2020, 11:19
I’m not so much doubtful if the MAX will fly again as I am as to whether it will be on the same type cert as the NG. If different ratings are required to predecessor, that’s a big impediment.

Jump Complete
10th Apr 2020, 11:49
Iím not so much doubtful if the MAX will fly again as I am as to whether it will be on the same type cert as the NG. If different ratings are required to predecessor, thatís a big impediment.
Would still be a possible opportunity for Ryanair though. If they replaced the NGís with dirt-cheap new Maxes, (with type-ratings thrown in) they wouldnít need dual-fleet crews anyway, once the change-over was complete.

DaveReidUK
10th Apr 2020, 13:20
Iím not so much doubtful if the MAX will fly again as I am as to whether it will be on the same type cert as the NG.

The Max can only be certificated if it's on the same TC as all the other 737 variants. There is no way it could be certificated as a new type under current rules.

Turbine D
10th Apr 2020, 14:25
I think much is going to depend on the FAA's requirements to return the MAXs to full service. For instance, should the FAA require current 737 pilots or MAX pilots to undergo 4 hours of full motion simulator training, as Boeing had once said, the return will be problematic given the number of pilots to be trained and simulator availability worldwide. For example, I have read where American and Southwest Airlines have ~13,000 pilots to train with one available simulator.

Pugilistic Animus
10th Apr 2020, 14:42
I think much is going to depend on the FAA's requirements to return the MAXs to full service. For instance, should the FAA require current 737 pilots or MAX pilots to undergo 4 hours of full motion simulator training, as Boeing had once said, the return will be problematic given the number of pilots to be trained and simulator availability worldwide. For example, I have read where American and Southwest Airlines have ~13,000 pilots to train with one available simulator.

I suppose if worse comes to worse they can do some or all of the training on the actual aircraft

airbuske
10th Apr 2020, 15:27
The ryanair max's need a locking mechanism for the extra door. At the moment that was not foreseen so any luny could open it. So a bit more work on integration in the PSEU... And certification.

SamYeager
10th Apr 2020, 15:40
For example, I have read where American and Southwest Airlines have ~13,000 pilots to train with one available simulator.
I'm sure some way will be found aka fudge to enable the use of the existing NG simulators with a software upgrade.

Less Hair
10th Apr 2020, 16:34
The ryanair max's need a locking mechanism for the extra door. At the moment that was not foreseen so any luny could open it. So a bit more work on integration in the PSEU... And certification.

Thanks. First factual response.

golfyankeesierra
10th Apr 2020, 17:38
I'm sure some way will be found aka fudge to enable the use of the existing NG simulators with a software upgrade.
That will be a challenge because while the system (overhead) panels look quite the same on the Max and the NG, the instrument panels don’t.
The NG panels look like the B747-400 and B777, the Max looks like a B787.
I know a lot of people are led to believe that the cockpit layouts are the same, but they aren’t.
You will need a hardware upgrade as well to let it look like a Max.

yoganmahew
10th Apr 2020, 18:41
What is it that you know, that the aviation regulatory authorities around the world will miss?
Surely you mean "what did regulatory authorities already miss that makes trusting them a fool's errand"?

Una Due Tfc
10th Apr 2020, 21:22
The Max can only be certificated if it's on the same TC as all the other 737 variants. There is no way it could be certificated as a new type under current rules.

The MAX and classic were certified on the same cert but pilots could not have a common rating on both, no matter how much Southwest tried with the FAA. My wording was poor in the original post, should have said "ratings" rather than "certs".

tdracer
10th Apr 2020, 21:25
The Max can only be certificated if it's on the same TC as all the other 737 variants. There is no way it could be certificated as a new type under current rules.

The 'grandfathered' portion of the cert basis had nothing to do with the MAX problems. Everything that has been identified as a shortcoming in the MAX has been associated with new (e.g. MCAS) or significantly modified/affected systems (e.g. cable separation for rotor burst) needed to be certified to the latest regulations per the Changed Product Rule.
It's not the cert basis of the MAX that is a problem, it was the execution of the cert.

BTW, I'd bet good money that if you went through any other aircraft cert (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) with the same fine tooth comb that is being applied to the MAX, you'd find plenty of issues. Cert is done by humans, humans make mistakes and bad assumptions. Certifying a new (or major derivative) aircraft is a big, big job. To do that job perfectly, with no mistakes, bad assumptions or oversights, is basically a statistical impossibility. Most of the time those cert errors don't have a significant effect on safety. Occasionally they do - and that happened big time on the MAX.
My biggest criticism of the FAA over the years has been a horrible tendency to focus on minutia at the expense of the big picture (e.g. "missing the forest for the trees") - and EASA is just as bad. On the MAX, I watched them do this with "Uncontrollable High Thrust" - UHT. Both the FAA and EASA didn't just look at UHT, they dissected it to the Nth degree - far more than they did even on the 787 - even though UHT has never resulted in a fatal accident. Boeing probably spent more time/resources addressing UHT on the MAX they they did on any other Propulsion related issue. Had the FAA spent 10% of the time looking at MCAS that they did UHT, it would never have been certified in that configuration but instead they spent all their time staring at the tree...

DaveReidUK
10th Apr 2020, 23:33
The 'grandfathered' portion of the cert basis had nothing to do with the MAX problems. Everything that has been identified as a shortcoming in the MAX has been associated with new (e.g. MCAS) or significantly modified/affected systems (e.g. cable separation for rotor burst) needed to be certified to the latest regulations per the Changed Product Rule.
It's not the cert basis of the MAX that is a problem, it was the execution of the cert.

BTW, I'd bet good money that if you went through any other aircraft cert (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) with the same fine tooth comb that is being applied to the MAX, you'd find plenty of issues. Cert is done by humans, humans make mistakes and bad assumptions. Certifying a new (or major derivative) aircraft is a big, big job. To do that job perfectly, with no mistakes, bad assumptions or oversights, is basically a statistical impossibility. Most of the time those cert errors don't have a significant effect on safety. Occasionally they do - and that happened big time on the MAX.
My biggest criticism of the FAA over the years has been a horrible tendency to focus on minutia at the expense of the big picture (e.g. "missing the forest for the trees") - and EASA is just as bad. On the MAX, I watched them do this with "Uncontrollable High Thrust" - UHT. Both the FAA and EASA didn't just look at UHT, they dissected it to the Nth degree - far more than they did even on the 787 - even though UHT has never resulted in a fatal accident. Boeing probably spent more time/resources addressing UHT on the MAX they they did on any other Propulsion related issue. Had the FAA spent 10% of the time looking at MCAS that they did UHT, it would never have been certified in that configuration but instead they spent all their time staring at the tree...

Are you suggesting that it would be possible for the Max to be certificated as a new, clean-sheet design, with no reference to its predecessors ?

Matt48
11th Apr 2020, 01:05
I was curious as to the current progress on the Max's return to the skies or is it doomed ?
What is the holdup, everybody knows where the off switch is.

tdracer
11th Apr 2020, 01:10
Are you suggesting that it would be possible for the Max to be certificated as a new, clean-sheet design, with no reference to its predecessors ?
Most of the grandfathered regs relate to aircraft structure, and perhaps HIRF/Lightning protections of some of the electronics - at the time of the NG, there wasn't a FAR for HIRF - that was all certified by special condition. The FAR that was eventually implemented isn't the same as the SC so electronics that are unchanged from the NG are not certified to the HIRF FAR - they'd need to be retested. They'd probably pass - according to the HIRF/Lightning experts the additional requirements in the FAR are not difficult to meet relative to what was in the SC - but it's not the sort of thing that can readily be shown by analysis.
It probably could be shown to meet without significant changes, but it would require repeating a number of structural test (e.g. wing to failure, fuselage pressurization, fatigue, that sort of thing). So it would be expensive.
On the 747-8, a big part of the grandfathered cert basis was that the wing structural design wasn't changing (although beefed up for the higher weights) - just the aerodynamic profiling of the wing - since a truly new wing would have meant repeating all the structural testing at considerable time and expense. I know something similar was done on the 737NG - wing changed aerodynamically but not structurally. I don't know how much of that carried over to the MAX but without the original structural basis all that would need to be re-done.

EDLB
13th Apr 2020, 09:39
On the 747-8, a big part of the grandfathered cert basis was that the wing structural design wasn't changing (although beefed up for the higher weights) - just the aerodynamic profiling of the wing - since a truly new wing would have meant repeating all the structural testing at considerable time and expense. I know something similar was done on the 737NG - wing changed aerodynamically but not structurally. I don't know how much of that carried over to the MAX but without the original structural basis all that would need to be re-done.
They have 400 planes currently expecting scraping or upgrades in some ways. Why not take one or two for destructive structural tests? Or does Boeing fears the result?

turbidus
16th Apr 2020, 01:01
BTW, I'd bet good money that if you went through any other aircraft cert (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) with the same fine tooth comb that is being applied to the MAX, you'd find plenty of issues.

Yes, I fear you may be correct, many of the issues found on the MAX may cause corrective actions to the NG as well..

Look at the manual trim wheel issue, redundancy in systems such as AoA and ADIRU,, and the FCC' protection as examples...

krismiler
16th Apr 2020, 01:34
Would the MAX be able to be certified against the latest requirements if it was treated as a stand alone, brand new aircraft type with no reference to previous generations of the B737 ?

If you were going to build a brand new aircraft, you wouldn't have built something like the MAX.

DaveReidUK
16th Apr 2020, 07:34
Would the MAX be able to be certified against the latest requirements if it was treated as a stand alone, brand new aircraft type with no reference to previous generations of the B737 ?

See tdracer's post, 3 above yours.

hec7or
16th Apr 2020, 09:33
The 'grandfathered' portion of the cert basis had nothing to do with the MAX problems. Everything that has been identified as a shortcoming in the MAX has been associated with new (e.g. MCAS) or significantly modified/affected systems (e.g. cable separation for rotor burst) needed to be certified to the latest regulations per the Changed Product Rule.
It's not the cert basis of the MAX that is a problem, it was the execution of the cert.

There are 2 issues, one is in the event of rotor burst, the Max has a lack of control cable run protection ahead of the wing similar to the NG which Boeing claim has not proved to be a problem with the CFM56, but the LEAP 1B is a different engine in a different location with presumably a different rotor burst path and therefore could hardly be compared accurately to the NG....
The other issue is the lack of power cable separation for the electric trim control system which was also an issue on the NG and did not meet the relevant FAR when the NG was certified, but was missed by the FAA.

tdracer
16th Apr 2020, 19:37
Would the MAX be able to be certified against the latest requirements if it was treated as a stand alone, brand new aircraft type with no reference to previous generations of the B737 ?

If you were going to build a brand new aircraft, you wouldn't have built something like the MAX.
As DR notes, I've already stated my belief that the MAX could have been certified to the current regs with minimal changes. Oh, it would take quite a bit of of time and money to redo every last part of the cert, but it could be done. There isn't much of the non-structural cert basis that is carried over from original 737 cert (and the structural regulations haven't changed much). Further, no one is claiming the 737 MAX design is structurally deficient (and before anybody launches on the NG pickle fork issue - every indication is that the problem with the pickle forks is due to the build process causing fatigue cracks, not the basic structural design).

Of course a brand new, from the ground up design wouldn't have a lot in common with the 737 - there has been a considerable amount of technological change and advancement in the last 50 years. Heck, there isn't a lot common between the 767 and the 787, and that was only ~25 years.
I repeat, the issues with the MAX have nothing to do with the cert basis, they have everything to do with the cert execution. As hec7or notes, even items like rotor burst and wire separation should have been addressed per the Changed Product Rule. But they weren't.
BTW, with all the bitching and moaning about 'grandfathered' 737 cert basis, remember that the 'modern' A320 cert basis is over 35 years old, and there were not that many changes to the regulations between when the 737 was launched and when the A320 was launched...

Phantom4
17th Apr 2020, 10:44
Boeing announce production line restart including MAX.
Certification only a matter of time.

esscee
17th Apr 2020, 11:48
Time waits for no man.

krismiler
17th Apr 2020, 15:58
Certification only a matter of time.

Boeing have been saying that since March last year. Expect a tentative date and then have it postponed a couple of times before it happens.

Pugilistic Animus
18th Apr 2020, 00:56
Maybe it's better if they, the pax, fly on a Boeing missile probably much better safety wise than their newest airframes. I mean I wouldn't want a Boeing missile after me :}

Big Pistons Forever
18th Apr 2020, 00:58
Q: What is the difference between the Corona Virus and the 737 Max

A: The Corona Virus is airborne !

hat, coat, roller bag, briefcase, emergency slide.....

Big Pistons Forever
18th Apr 2020, 01:01
I read somewhere that one article of the Max purchase agreement is that if Boeing has not delivered the airplane within one year the purchase can be cancelled without penalty. Is that true and if so why wouldn't airlines bleeding cash not walk away from having to pay for expensive new airplanes ?

giggitygiggity
18th Apr 2020, 01:03
Boeing have been saying that since March last year. Expect a tentative date and then have it postponed a couple of times before it happens.
Coronavirus is working out as a convenient reprieve for Boeing, allowing them to get their ducks in a row with the MCAS issues and beyond. Their distance behind Airbus is reducing as flights and airframes are grounded for one reason or another. If this all ends up in a grotesque shrinkage of the airliner market, then frankly, Boeing are are screwed (government help aside). But if it just ends up as a 12-18 month pause for aviation, then it couldnít have come at a more convenient time for the company.