http://www.xanga.com/russwinter

Gasoline demand is up 1.7% per year at 9.56 mbpd
Distillate demand (diesel) is up 3.3% per year at 4.12 mbpd
Total demand is down -1.6% to 20.82 mbpd
But gasoline + distillate demand = 13.68 mbpd
While Total demand = 20.82 mbpd or a 7.14 mbpd difference?

Without any sort of breakdown of where that demand destruction is coming from how does one evaluate whether it is real, a plug, temporary, price sensitive, structural change, or what?

I would say that manufacturing may be using less crude in its processes, but the strong gasoline & diesel demand is showing that transport fuels are still strong on the back of an expanding economy and lack of alternatives, even if natural gas, hydro electric and other alternatives may be taking some demand away on the stationary fuel side?

I just do not feel comfortable with the overall numbers to draw conclusions from them?

Year 2026 current worldwide commercial airplane fleet – 17,330 airframes

Should read

Year 2006

Perhaps this original source information will be of value in the future. This is the only production, delivery, and forecast data on Boeing that I include in communications.

MG

Boeing Commercial Airplane Orders and Deliveries

Current Year Deliveries by Airframe and Airline Customer

Net Orders by Airframe and Airline Customer

Annual Orders Summary by Year, Airframe, and Gross and Net Orders

Orders and Deliveries Search Tool – User Defined Requirements

Orders and Deliveries Search Tool – Time Period Reports

Boeing’s Market Outlook and Analysis

Current Market Outlook – Main Link

Market Value by Region thru Year 2025

Comparison of New Deliveries to Market Value thru Year 2025

World Air Cargo Forecast

Commercial Air Cargo Yield Trends

Commercial Freighter Fleet

Commercial Freighter Fleet Development thru Year 2025

Boeing’s Randy Baseler Journal

Boeing Commercial Airplanes – News Releases

Global Commercial Airplanes Forecast

Boeing Global Market Analysis thru Year 2025; and here

Boeing believes that “over the next 20 years air travel will grow an average of 4.9% a year, driven by an annual GDP growth rate of 3.1% – both up slightly from last year’s forecast. Air cargo will grow at an average of 6.1% per year.” Boeing also projects that future commercial air travel will involve “more nonstop, point-to-point flights, and more frequencies”.

Boeing believes that we will “see continued strong commercial airplane demand in the forecast period between now and 2025 – a $2.6 trillion market for new aircraft. That’s an increase of $500 billion over last year’s forecast. And our forecast is up by about 1,500, to a projected 27,200 new airplanes over the next 20 years – including passenger airplanes and freighters.”

Year 2026 current worldwide commercial airplane fleet – 17,330 airframes

Year 2025 projected additional global service sales – 17,630 airframes
Year 2025 projected airframe replacements – 9,580 airframes
Year 2025 projected total global sales – 27,210 airframes
Year 2025 projected retained fleet airframes – 8,760 airframes
Year 2025 projected total airframes – 35,950 airframes

“The freighter fleet will nearly double over the next 20 years, from 1,766 to 3,456 airplanes. Freighters as a share of the total airplane fleet will fall from 11% to 10%, owing to an increase in the size of the average freighter. Taking 1,260 retirements into account, 2,950 airplanes will be added to the freighter fleet by 2023.”

Projected future Boeing commercial airplane sales :

Single-aisle airframes (737) – 61% of new deliveries
Twin-aisle airframes (767, 777, 787) – 23% of new deliveries; 45% of new deliveries dollar value

The Asia-Pacific market will represent 36% of the value of the commercial airplanes market.

“Over the next 20 years, world air cargo will grow at 6.2% per year. Air freight will grow more rapidly than mail, averaging annual growth of 6.3% through 2023. Mail RTKs will show steady growth of 2.9% during the same period. Meanwhile, world traffic will more than triple during the next 20 years, increasing from 156.5 billion RTKs in 2003 to more than 518.7 billion RTKs in 2023.”

“The international market will outpace domestic growth, exceeding 83.7% of total RTKs by year-end 2023. U.S. carrier share of the world market, currently assessed at 29.8%, will decline to 23.4% by 2023. The greatest air freight market growth is expected in those markets linked to Asia.”

“The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill Wednesday… that would alter the regulatory landscape for all credit-rating agencies… If the bill also passes the Senate, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to designate credit rating agencies as NRSROs, or “nationally recognized rating agencies,” will be abolished. Instead, a credit rating company with three years of experience that meets certain standards would be allowed to register with the SEC as a “statistical ratings organization.” Of the more than 130 credit-rating agencies… Moody’s and S&P control 80 percent of the market…” http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7161566?f=blog

Moody’s (MCO) shareholders don’t seem to be terribly concerned. The stock traded down a bit more than the DJIA today, although MCO is now closer to it’s one year low than its high.

“…1) A household is considered to be food-based poor if its net per capita income is less than the amount of money necessary to cover basic food expenses. This category included 20 percent of Mexico’s population in 2002. (2) A household is in capabilities poverty if its members cannot afford to cover their basic expenses of food, health and education. This applies to 26.5 percent of the population. (3) A household is in assets-based poverty if its members cannot cover expenses of food, health, education, clothing, home and public transportation. About half of Mexico’s population fits into this category…” http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2006/swe0601c.html

Unfortunately, perhaps along with China, not sure how sustainable Russia’s policies may be in the long run (not that the following is a problem unique to Russia, although it may also add to upward pressures on world energy prices, assuming there is some truth in what he is saying):

“…A major source of inflation in Russia is corruption… every new law or regulation is designed to provide a source of illicit income… But there is the rub. You can’t seriously expect… bureaucrats and politicians to initiate reforms that will put them out of business…” http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/07/11/008.html

” US policies encourage over-consumption and under-production in the global economy, resulting in a low saving rate and stagnating wages for middle-class workers. China’s policies focus on rapid over-production, a massive surplus of goods, a high savings rate, as well as wage inflation of about 12% per year. Internet outsourcing in US non-tradable service sectors to developing nations, like China, has further displaced middle-income laborers in wealthy countries. Globalization is no longer the “win-win situation” for all parties and will quickly lose support from those who do not benefit the increasingly unequal global distributions of wealth. ”

- Stephen Roach

In recent weeks, as the word “stagflation” has made a few appearances on the national media stage, many bullish skeptics, such as CNBC’s Steve Liesman, have downplayed the current “mini” stagflation with contrasts to the “real” variety of the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Such confidence however fails to recognize that we now measure economic activity and inflation with very different yardsticks than we did when Disco Duck topped the charts and Jimmy Carter wore sweaters. In reality, changes in the methodologies mean that the statistics bear as much resemblance as an 8-track to an iPod, and only serve to obscure the genuine threat we now face. In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, “core CPI” included housing prices, and the basket was neither altered to reflect substitutions (in which stuff that had gone up in price is replaced by stuff that did not), nor were prices hedonically adjusted (a 5% increase transformed into a 3% decrease based on a subjective assessment of quality improvement).

Similarly, changes have hit GDP assessments. For instance, 25 years ago GDP was calculated using a more honest deflator; business fixed investment expenditures were not hedonically adjusted ($5 billion spent on computers recorded as $50 billion, as computing power increased by a factor of 10 over the benchmark year), and phantom payments were not included (imputed income on owner-occupied housing counted as rents, or free checking accounts recorded as interest payments). In addition, comparisons using “core” inflation numbers, which was the case in Liesman’s example, leave out energy prices, which have been particularly effected by the current round of inflation, and food, which in my opinion is about to follow in energy’s footsteps.

In fact, as I write this commentary, crude oil prices are up almost three dollars per barrel today alone, hitting a new record high just shy of $78 dollars a barrel. In the last five years, crude oil prices have risen more than four-fold, with no end to the rally anywhere in sight. Over the years, the government has managed to “solve” economic problems merely by changing the way they are measured. By re-jiggering the manner in which CPI and GDP are calculated, the government misrepresents the true health of the economy, making it easier for incumbents to be re-elected.

Despite the rosy numbers, today the typical American family pays for groceries with a Visa card, utilities with a home equity loan, has a six-year loan on their SUV, has no savings, and has both parents working just to keep the family one-step ahead of its creditors. With all this supposed non-inflationary economic growth, why do Americans borrow to pay for everyday necessities which used to be easily financed from incomes, and why has a nation of savers been transformed into one of debtors? From the government’s perspective, all the misrepresentations are part of a giant confidence game that is meant to keep all the marks, most of them foreign, from wising up. A fiat-based monetary system only functions as long as confidence is maintained. The minute it’s lost, the whole scheme implodes. Since confidence is the only thing holding up the U.S. dollar, and by extension the entire U.S. economy, maintaining that confidence is the government’s highest priority. If elected officials and central bankers have to obfuscate a bit to do it, so be it.

- Peter Schiff