EADS, parent of Airbus, posted its financial results for 2008. The press release may be obtained here. EADS summaries of the results:
The analyst call may be obtained by clicking the top right webcast item on this page. The 20 page PDF earnings slide show may be obtained here.
CQ Politics reported late Monday night that the White House has told the Pentagon to delay procurement of the KC-X tanker. See the story here.
Update, March 10: DOD Buzz has this item speculating the suggestion to cut the tanker program is nothing more than a budgetary ploy.
A new analytic program enables users to calculate emissions, range, fuel burn, payload and other data on about 250 commercial, corporate, Western and Russian aircraft in a matter of minutes. The program, called Piano-X, is offered by Lissys Ltd. of the UK.
A free download with sample data for the Airbus A300-600, the Fokker 70 and the Boeing 787-8 is available through the websites.
Emissions regulations have been adopted in Europe and are under consideration in the US. The Obama Administration is also talking about imposing carbon taxes, though at this stage these seem to be for industry; it’s unclear if aviation will also be included in the potential legislation. Europe is already imposing taxes on airlines that fail to meet emissions standards. In calculating emissions, Piano-X can use the ICAO emissions data. Piano-X enables operators to quickly calculate emissions that will help them understand potential regulatory costs.
The User Guide details various assumptions and qualifications in calculating emissions.
Piano-X also has aircraft performance analysis on a wide variety of metrics. Airbus undertook its own analysis that concluded the initial 787s will fall significantly short of advertised ranges, capable of operating less than 7,000nm. Aeromexico last week told Flight International it expects the 787 it has ordered to fall short of range targets—also identifying 7,000nm. Boeing denied the Airbus conclusion and did not comment to Flight on the Aeromexico statement.
The Department of Defense’s JROC (a joint requirement group) met to consider what to do about the next round of the KC-X tanker competition, and US Sen. John McCain threw cold water on the idea promoted by US Rep. John Murtha about a split buy between Northrop Grumman and Boeing.
Boeing delivered its third KC-767J to Japan last week while EADS, partner of Northrop, promoted a milestone for its KC-30A Australian MRTT tanker.
Boeing has yet to deliver its first KC-767I to the Italians.
Update, Feb. 20: Flight Global has this report with a dire prediction from the IATA General Director that Airbus and Boeing won’t be able to deliver half of the aircraft scheduled this year because of the credit crunch.
And we’re told that many in the Airbus supply chain have already made plans for lower production rates than announced yesterday by Airbus.
Original Post:
Market Watch had this report today:
Airbus said it’s reducing the production rate on its A320 single-aisle family of aircraft to 34 a month from 36. Additionally, it now plans to hold work on the wide-body A330/A340s at 8.5 a month, instead of increasing it further as previously planned.
We think this is just the tip of the iceberg. See our report from February 13. For now Airbus reaffirms its delivery target for 2009, with the production adjustments scheduled to take place from October. But Airbus’ CEO said in a statement that “I do not exclude further production cuts if the need arises.”
Dow Jones filed this report about France’s Safran, the parent of Snecma, which is the joint venture partner of CFM international, supplier of engines to the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320:
The big question being asked by just about everyone with an interest in aviation these days is what are Airbus and Boeing planning for production rates this year and next.
Jobs are at stake in an economic environment where, in the USA, the number of jobs lost since the start of the current recession is equal to or more than the population of Chicago. European labor laws make it more difficult to simply chop jobs, but even so this is a concern.
Suppliers are worried that Airbus and Boeing will cut production rates, hurting their businesses (and leading to more job reductions).
Here’s an encapsulating review of what’s going on.
Just so readers don’t think Boeing is the only one with problems, Germany’s Der Spiegal reports things may be going far south with the Airbus A400M. Here’s their report, via Business Week.
Jon Ostrower has an interesting think piece about the prospect of Ryanair ordering up to 400 Airbus A320s or Boeing 737s powered by the new Pratt & Whitney GTF, or Geared Turbo Fan P1000G.
We first broke the story that Boeing is evaluating the prospect of 737 “re-generation” for an article we did for Aviation and the Environment magazine. P&W is developing the engine for Mitsubishi’s MRJ regional jet and Bombardier’s CSeries, but both airplanes are small. The MRJ seats 70-90 and the CSeries 110-149, but the MRJ has only one order in Japan and the CSeries continues (at this writing) to be stillborn. P&W has been developing the GTF for 20 years; without re-engining the A320 or 737, this investment is pretty much down the drain.
With Boeing and Airbus seemingly putting off a full replacement airplane for their prime jets until around 2020 or even later, airlines–notably Southwest–want a more fuel efficient airplane before then. The GTF would save 12%-15% on fuel burn. As we wrote for AE magazine, Boeing is on track to make some decisions for a 737RG this year with a prospect for an EIS in the 2013-15 period. This is a timeframe P&W can meet to provide the GTF to Boeing.
Airbus, of course, provided an A340-600 test bed for P&W to get some good data for the GTF. This information went to Airbus’ R&D department, where evaluation of a GTF A320 is almost a certainty.
Or not. James Wallace of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Airbus super-chief John Leahy says there aren’t any talks going on with Ryanair.
Seattle Times columnist Ron Judd got the real reason why Airbus parent EADS said no to bidding on Air Force One:
“Airbus backed out only after the US government failed to qualify for financing.”