Airbus in 2025 vs Boeing: Deliveries, Disruptions, and What It Means for 2026

2025 was a pivotal year for the commercial aerospace duopoly. After years of supply-chain turbulence, program delays, and evolving airline demand, both Airbus and Boeing made progress—but not at the same pace, and not with the same constraints.

In early January 2026, reporting indicated Airbus beat its revised 2025 delivery goal, landing at roughly 793 aircraft delivered versus a target of 790. That achievement matters because it signals industrial execution in a year where “just delivering” remained the hardest metric in aviation manufacturing. (Reuters)

The Scoreboard: Airbus Delivered (Again). Boeing Recovered (Still).

Airbus entered 2025 with strong backlog demand and a clear narrowbody advantage thanks to the A320neo family. Even after adjusting expectations, Airbus still closed the year slightly above its revised delivery plan. (Reuters)

Boeing, meanwhile, continued a multi-year climb back toward stable output. The narrative in 2025 wasn’t “Boeing is back” so much as “Boeing is improving, but the system is still fragile”—with delivery performance influenced by factory stability, program maturity, and regulatory scrutiny.

The core takeaway: Airbus won the year on deliveries, while Boeing’s story is best described as a recovery curve—one that looks more credible than it did a year earlier, but still constrained by execution realities.

Airbus in 2025: Strong Finish, Despite Supply-Chain Drag

Delivering aircraft is a “last-mile” game: everything must align—engines, avionics, cabins, interiors, paperwork, acceptance flights, customer readiness. When Airbus exceeded its revised target, it demonstrated an ability to coordinate that last mile at scale.

Why Airbus revised its goal

Airbus had to adjust its 2025 delivery ambition due to supply-chain issues, including disruptions tied to a key supplier impacting production flow. In a high-rate environment, even localized bottlenecks can cascade into delivery timing. (Reuters)

What Airbus did well

Protected narrowbody throughput: the A320neo family remains the “cash engine” of global aviation.
Prioritized deliverability: focusing not only on building planes, but handing them over cleanly.
Maintained backlog confidence: airlines plan fleets years ahead; reliability drives order resilience.

If you’re an airline CFO or fleet planner, Airbus’s 2025 result is reassuring: it’s not perfection, but it’s proof of execution at scale in a year where many industrial systems still struggle to normalize.

Boeing in 2025: Progress, But Program and Production Headwinds Persist

Boeing’s 2025 was marked by continued operational improvement, but with constraints that kept the company from matching Airbus’s delivery momentum. The underlying issue isn’t demand—airlines want airplanes—it’s execution capacity and the stability of the production system.

Recent issues shaping Boeing’s year

Production stability and quality focus: Boeing has operated under intensified oversight and internal quality recalibration, which tends to reduce short-term output while improving long-term reliability.
Program delays: large programs like the 777X have faced a prolonged certification and delivery timeline, which reshapes widebody competitiveness and delivery mix. (Boeing)

The strategic lens: Boeing’s 2025 performance reflects a company prioritizing structural fixes—important, necessary, and expensive—over pure volume acceleration.

Deliveries vs Orders: Two Different Competitive Battles

In aerospace, “winning” depends on which metric you’re using:

Deliveries = operational excellence, cash conversion, customer confidence.
Orders = future demand strength, product-market fit, long-term competitiveness.

Airbus’s 2025 delivery performance reinforces its reputation as the current industrial pace-setter—especially in narrowbodies, where airline schedules and profitability live or die on fleet availability.

Boeing’s continued recovery matters because the market is too large—and airline demand too persistent—for a single manufacturer to carry the entire load. A healthier Boeing is good for airline bargaining power, capacity growth, and long-term innovation.

What 2025 Signals for 2026

Airbus: execution with supply-chain risk still in the system

Airbus enters 2026 with momentum—proof it can hit a revised goal, strong demand for its core product families, and an industry that still needs more aircraft than the system is delivering.

Key watch items:

Supplier stability and ramp-up resilience
Engine availability and delivery cadence
Ability to scale without quality dilution

Boeing: recovery credibility depends on consistency

Boeing’s 2026 storyline hinges on whether improvements become repeatable. A stable production system—one that delivers predictably—will do more for Boeing’s competitiveness than any single quarter of “hero deliveries.”

Key watch items:

Quality metrics and rework rates
Certification timelines for delayed programs
Delivery predictability for airline planning cycles

Conclusion

Airbus’s ability to exceed its revised 2025 delivery goal underscores industrial execution in a year where supply chains still constrained outcomes. Boeing made meaningful progress, but remains in the middle of a longer recovery arc shaped by production stability and program maturity.

The commercial aviation market remains structurally strong—and both manufacturers are essential to meeting global demand. But in 2025, the operational edge clearly sat with Airbus, while the strategic question for 2026 is how quickly Boeing can turn “recovery” into “reliability.”

Read more on delestre.work — and if you’re an airline leader, investor, or aviation enthusiast: what do you think will be the defining constraint in 2026—engines, supply chain, certification, or workforce?

Luxury Retail in the U.S. at a Crossroads: Beyond the Saks Global Crisis

In early 2026, one of the most iconic names in American luxury retail—Saks Global Enterprises—faces not just leadership change, but the very real possibility of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. This moment is more than a headline; it crystallizes deeper structural shifts in luxury retail and what strategic approaches may help the sector navigate a very different competitive and economic reality.

In this article, we break down how the imminent crisis at Saks reflects broader trends in U.S. luxury retail, and then examine strategic responses that leaders must consider if they intend to sustain relevance and profitability in the years ahead.

The Current Situation: Saks Global Under Strain

Saks Global Enterprises—formed in 2024 through the acquisition of Neiman Marcus and the integration of several high-end retail brands including Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, and Saks OFF 5TH—was meant to consolidate luxury scale and optimize competitive positioning. Yet just two years later, the organization is reportedly preparing to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after missing a large interest payment tied to its acquisition debt.

In addition to this financial pressure, the company has undergone a leadership transition. CEO Marc Metrick—long a figure closely associated with Saks’ digital and strategic transformation—stepped down and was replaced by Executive Chairman Richard Baker as CEO, reflecting both the urgency of the situation and a desire to stabilize through experienced leadership continuity.

Beyond the debt issue, Saks Global has faced declining sales, inventory challenges, vendor payment disruptions, and a luxury market that has softened under inflationary pressures and cautious consumer spending.

The situation reverberates far beyond Saks itself. As an anchor in the luxury ecosystem, its struggles are a tangible signal to brands, suppliers, landlords, and even rival retailers that the U.S. luxury retail model must adapt—or risk repeating similar outcomes.

Underlying Trends in Luxury Retail

1. Shifting Consumer Behavior

High net-worth consumers have traditionally insulated luxury brands from broader economic cycles. However, recent data suggests that discretionary luxury spending has cooled as inflation persists and economic confidence wavers. Consumers are increasingly selective, favoring experiences, direct brand interactions, digital convenience, and curated ownership over traditional multi-brand department store formats.

2. The Debt Burden of Scale

The debt leveraged to finance mergers and acquisitions—such as the Neiman Marcus purchase—strains operational flexibility. When revenue growth fails to match debt servicing requirements, even well-established brands can find themselves in financial distress. Saks’ struggle with bond interest payments and refinancing illustrates how quickly leverage can shift from strategic tool to strategic vulnerability.

3. Multi-Brand vs. Single-Brand Dynamics

Single-brand retail models increasingly outperform multi-brand department stores because they can integrate inventory, digital marketing, customer data, and fulfillment under one unified strategy. The multi-brand department store model—once a hallmark of luxury retail—now faces persistent headwinds given changing expectations for personalization and brand direct engagement. Analysts have pointed to shifting consumer patterns where purchases migrate toward brand stores, online channels, and brand-owned digital ecosystems.

4. Vendor and Supply Chain Strains

Reported delays in vendor payments and strained supply chain relationships at Saks Global reflect a breakdown in the value chain that can sharply limit inventory availability and competitive positioning. Inventory shortages amplify consumer frustration, reduce foot traffic, and weaken operational performance—particularly in sectors where product freshness and selection breadth matter.

Strategic Approaches for U.S. Luxury Retail Leaders

The structural challenges outlined above require more than short-term fixes. They call for strategic repositioning, operational transformation, and leadership alignment across functions. Below are several approaches that organizations can adopt to navigate this era of increased uncertainty and complexity.

1. Reinforce the Operating Model Around Experience

Luxury retail must transcend the traditional inventory-led operating model and orient itself around the customer experience as an operating and financial driver. This means unifying digital and physical channels, reducing friction across touchpoints, and investing in human capital that understands high-touch service standards. Experience must become the organizing principle of operations—not a marketing overlay.

2. Build Financial Flexibility Early

Debt structures that compromise agility are a strategic risk. Leaders should explore alternative financing structures that reduce dependency on high-leverage models. Prioritizing cash flow discipline and flexibility can enable faster responses to market shifts. For legacy players, this may involve asset optimization, sale-leaseback arrangements, or selective divestitures designed to unlock capital without eroding brand equity.

3. Embrace Brand Direct Ecosystems

Luxury brands and retailers must deepen direct engagement with consumers through first-party data platforms, loyalty ecosystems, and bespoke services that extend beyond transactions. Integrating e-commerce, personalization, and fulfillment investments into a single ecosystem can create faster learning loops, higher lifetime value, and stronger defensibility in competitive markets.

4. Strategic Portfolio Rationalization

Not all segments or locations contribute equally to strategic objectives. Leaders should conduct rigorous portfolio profitability analyses and prioritize assets (stores, brands, channels) that align with long-term positioning. Rationalization may involve closing underperforming outlets or repositioning them into high-value experiential formats.

The Road Ahead

The prospect of Saks Global filing for Chapter 11 is not just the story of one company—but a signal that the U.S. luxury retail environment is entering a period of transformation. Leaders who recognize the structural shifts—shifting consumer behavior, operational model evolution, financial discipline, and direct brand engagement—will be better positioned to not only survive but thrive.

Luxury retail is far from dead. But its future will be defined by organizations willing to redesign their business models for relevance, resilience, and customer-centric growth in the decade ahead.

For executive perspectives on strategy, transformation, and the future of experience-driven industries, stay tuned to delestre.work.

2026: Strategy, Transformation, and the Challenge of Experience-Driven Growth

The beginning of a new year invites reflection. Not the superficial kind driven by resolutions, but the deeper work of clarifying where attention, energy, and intent should be focused.

After years working alongside executive teams on large-scale transformation initiatives, one observation has become increasingly clear: the hardest transformations are no longer technical. They are structural, cultural, and decisional.

Why Experience-Driven Industries Are Different

Hospitality, luxury, and specialized retail operate under a unique set of constraints. Brand promise, customer experience, operational excellence, and margin discipline must coexist—often in tension.

Growth cannot come at the expense of experience. Efficiency cannot undermine brand. Scale cannot dilute identity.

These industries therefore expose the limits of traditional transformation approaches. Strategy alone is insufficient. Technology alone is ineffective. Change programs alone are unsustainable.

Experience Is an Operating Model Outcome

Experience is not a department, a program, or a layer added on top of the organization. It is the natural outcome of how the organization is designed to operate.

Decision rights, governance, incentives, escalation paths, and execution cadence all shape the experience delivered to customers and guests—often far more than design or intent.

When experience deteriorates, the root cause is rarely a lack of ambition. It is misalignment between strategy and the operating model tasked with delivering it.

Transformation as Structural Redesign

Many transformation efforts fail not because the strategy was wrong, but because the organization was never structurally redesigned to support it.

Teams are asked to behave differently while incentives remain unchanged. Leaders are asked to move faster while governance grows heavier. Frontline employees are asked to deliver excellence while decision-making drifts further away from the point of action.

True transformation requires redesigning the system itself—not just mobilizing it.

Leadership, Governance, and Accountability

In experience-driven industries, leadership discipline matters more than momentum.

The most effective transformations are characterized by clarity: few priorities, explicit trade-offs, and unmistakable ownership. Governance exists to enable decisions, not to multiply forums.

Accountability is not shared—it is owned.

Looking Forward

In 2026, I intend to explore these themes more deliberately: strategy execution, operating model design, transformation governance, and leadership in experience-driven organizations.

Not as abstract concepts, but as practical challenges faced daily by executives navigating growth, complexity, and reinvention.

If there is a single conviction guiding this exploration, it is this: sustainable transformation happens when organizations are redesigned to deliver on their ambition—not simply encouraged to pursue it.