Why Aircraft Are Late: Boeing 747-8, 787, Airbus A380, A400M, A350, Mitsubishi MRJ, Comac ARJ-21, Sukhoi Superjet and probably Comac C919, Bombardier CSeries and Irkut MS-21–all late. It’s the new normal. Ernie Arvai at AirInsight takes a look at why.
Catching Boeing: Airbus may well have trailed Boeing through the Farnborough Air Show in terms of orders, but it may also be on the way toward catching up. The big PAL order for 54 aircraft was announced this week. A 100-airplane order out of China is due to be announced shortly. Another 100 airplane order from AirAsia appears to be pending. Year-to-date, Boeing has 701 net orders and Airbus has 270 net orders. These three orders still leaves Airbus well short of Boeing, and Boeing has more 737 MAX commitments to convert this year. We expect Boeing to finish the year in first place. It will be interesting to see how close Airbus can come.
NEO firm order wrap: Aviation Week has this detailed recap of NEO firm orders. We expect some of the A320neos to be converted to A321neos as time goes on, just as we expect 737-8 MAX orders to be swapped with 737-9 MAX positions.
Posted on August 29, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
737 Challenges: The Puget Sound Business Journal has this long piece about the challenges facing the 737 from Airbus and others.
737 MAX and China: Meantime, China is, at long last, looking at the MAX for its airlines.
American Airlines: A merger with US Airways makes the most sense, says Aspire Aviation (we agree as long as US management is in control)
Posted on August 17, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
EADS, parent of Airbus, reported that there will be a three month delay for the A350 EIS due to wing drilling issues. We reported on July 6 we expected a delay of 5-6 months and earlier this week linked to an article suggesting one month. Here is an article synopsizing the information. The Wall Street Journal has this article.
This represents a 15 month delay for the A350 XWB-900 EIS. It’s unclear what, if any, cascading effect this will have on the A350-800 and the A350-1000.
Airbus said the program remains “challenging” and the linked news articles indicate this.
We’re skeptical of all new airplane programs given the recent history at Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier (CRJ1000) and, if you want to add it in, COMAC’s ARJ21 (though this one might be a bit unfair to include with the legacy OEMs). We would not be surprised if the A350 has additional delays between now and EIS.
But one thing we are seeing is that Airbus is coming forward sooner with delay acknowledgements than it did on the A380 and Boeing did on the 787. We have to give Airbus credit for being more forthcoming than in the past.
Posted on July 27, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has this story in which he has the following observation:
Wyse revealed that Boeing, through structural efficiencies, has also beefed up the allowed maximum take-off weights for the three MAX variants.
Each is 5,000 to 7,000 lbs heavier than the maximum take-off weights of the current 737s.
That means each 737 MAX model, even though heavier than the corresponding current model of the 737NG, can either carry a heavier payload or carry more fuel and so fly farther.
This is good. But we’re hearing from airlines that runway performance may be worse than the 737NG. The airplane is heavier but the wing is the same and the engine thrust is still somewhat of a mystery. CFM International, maker of the LEAP-1B that will power the MAX, lists thrust on its website of 20,000-28,000 lbs without identifying the sub-types and thrust to which the engines will be applied.
These thrust ratings are similar to those now on the NG, rather than being increased to compensate for the increased weight.
One airline tells us that runway performance for the -8 MAX and -9 MAX is longer than the -800 and -900. (The airline is not considering the -7 MAX and doesn’t have the -700.) This, the airline tells us, makes the airplanes problematic at some airports it serves.
This illustrates the dilemma Boeing and CFM have with the physically-constrained 737. CFM could build any engine it wants that would get the job done. It has, after all, two LEAP engines in development for the COMAC C919 and the Airbus A320neo. But the 737 presents special challenges and CFM is constrained unless Boeing lifts the entire airplane with new main gear. But this would mean a new wing box and associated structural changes, adding significantly to the cost. And Boeing won’t to this.
There’s still a lot about MAX we don’t know. And many customers are also waiting for the information.
Posted on July 10, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
The Farnborough Air Show isn’t just about orders, though these get all the sex and headlines.
While we weren’t at the show, we had a telephone interview with a company called Constellium, previously known as Alcan. Constellium spoke at the February conference of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance, with which we are involved. We were particularly interested in talking with Constellium because it is a major supplier of Aluminum-Lithium, an alternative material to standard aluminum and a competing material to composites.
Constellium’s Al-Li combines other processes, including a design for recycling, and is named AirWare. Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier are among their key customers, and it is Constellium that is providing the materials for the CSeries. It’s also a supplier on the Airbus A350 (internal components, not the fuselage).
As Airbus and Boeing looked at the A320neo and 737 MAX, and as Boeing is looking at the 777X, we asked them about the prospect of using Al-Li. This is lighter than standard aluminum, more durable, less susceptible to corrosion and enabled 12 years between major maintenance overhauls compared with the 6-8 years now.
But Al-Li is more difficult to work with than standard aluminum. Boeing’s Mike Bair told us in an interview that Boeing considered Al-Li back in the 1990s when designing the 777 but it was too difficult and costly to manufacture. Since then, he praised the producers for strides. There are mixed reports what material will be used for the 777X fuselage: standard metal or Al-Li. The Seattle Times reported the airplane will have Al-Li. We’ve been told it won’t. But with the airplane still months and perhaps a year from launch, there is plenty of time to decide.
Airbus, in an interview at the Paris Air Show last year, said it was evaluating Al-Li for the A320neo. The A320ceo is heavier than the competing Boeing 737 and the re-engine adds about 4,000 lbs. Using Al-Li would mitigate some of this weight. We haven’t heard if Airbus might go ahead with Al-Li, but we’re leaning toward concluding that it won’t.
Boeing told us it will not switch to Al-Li for the MAX because the manufacturing process is just enough different that it would add complexity and cost to the current tooling and procedures.
Al-Li vs composites is a competition that will likely be fierce when it comes time for Airbus and Boeing to design the next clean-sheet airplanes, presumed to be the New Small Airplane, or replacement for the current 737/A320 class. (Boeing may have a new clean-sheet for the 757 class; it has a New Airplane Study underway for this, but the market may be too narrow when one considers the 737-9 MAX and A321neo will do 95% of what a 757 can do.)
Composites, selected for the 787 and A350 XWB fuselages and wings, offer advantages over standard metal fuselages that have been well documented and need not be repeated here. But Airbus and Boeing question the efficiency and benefits of down-scaling composites to 737/A320 category airplanes. Boeing apparently became convinced: Jim Albaugh, former CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said the New Small Airplane would have been composite, but the ability to produce it at a rate of 60 per month remained a challenge. Boeing went with the MAX instead.
Vistagy, a composite manufacturer near Boston, told us nearly two years ago, that the down-scaling challenges were met and that production rates were the issue. Autoclaves are very costly and so is the manufacturing process. There is actually less industrial waste than traditional aluminum manufacturing, but the materials are generally more hazardous—though there have been strides on this score.
This is the background that intrigued us when we had the opportunity to speak with Constellium’s Simon Laddychuk, VP of Manufacturing Global Aerospace and Director of Technology. Read more
Posted on July 10, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Comac, Embraer, Irkut
737MAX, 777X, A320NEO, Boeing, Bombardier, Constellium, CSeries, Embraer, Irkut, Mitsubishi, MRJ, MS-21
Tweets from Saturday’s CFM press conference:
Bernie Baldwin @BernieBaldwin
#FARN12 #FIA12 @CFM_engines Part commonality between LEAP-1A and LEAP-1B very little.
CFM: 737 Max Leap-1B engine core has 10-stage 22:1 pressure ratio in the HPC. 1st 5 stages are blisks. Plans 5-stage LPT. #FIA12
Bernie Baldwin @BernieBaldwin
#FARN12 #FIA12 @CFM_engines doesn’t see a commercial use of open rotor technology in the thrust range where CFM sits now until about 2030.
Another shot from @CFM_engines: Each Leap-powered A320neo will have $3-$4M net present value advantage on 15yr term against A320neo w/PW1200
Bernie Baldwin @BernieBaldwin
#FARN12, #FIA12 @CFM_engines LEAP-1A/1C design freeze took place on 28 June 2012, drawings now being released. -1B freeze will be mid 2013.
Interesting: @CFM_engines predicts Leap-1A will beat PW1200 on MX by 50h/yr on A320neo. Also 4 fewer “fill-ups”. #FARN12 #FIA12
Looks like @CFM_engines expects CFM56 production to phase out completely by 2019, meaning no more A320neos & 737NGs. #FIA12 #FARN12
Here is a full story from The Wall Street Journal. Author Jon Ostrower also posted the following image on his Facebook account:
Posted on July 7, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
We learned about this months ago, but off the record, so we could never use it. This is why we weren’t exercised about the Shenyang connection on Bombardier’s CSeries. Aviation Week has the story and published it here. Having said that, we believe first flight by the end of this year is unlikely, as we reported previously.
Posted on July 6, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
CFM on LEAP-1B: Aviation Week has this snippet about progress being made on the LEAP-1B. Contained within is a small reference to Boeing advancing EIS of the 737 MAX, which Boeing said was its desire from the get-go. For those who may have forgotten, EIS is 4Q2017. We understand Boeing would like to bring this forward to 1Q or 2Q2017.
Bombardier on CSeries: the company has been urged to deeply discount the CSeries to boost sales. Ain’t gonna happen, the CEO says.
Helping COMAC win certification: Bombardier says it will help COMAC win certification for the C919 outside China. But we’re still waiting to see what BBD gets out of the deal.
Inerting Boeing 757F fuel tanks: Or not.
Posted on June 15, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Boeing, Bombardier, CFM, Comac, CSeries
737 MAX, Boeing, Boeing 757, Bomabrdier, C919, CFM, Comac, CSeries, Leap-1B
Price vs Price: More on the price war between Airbus and Boeing in the A320 v 737 contest. Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has this analysis of hot contest to win an order from India’s Jet Airways, hitherto an exclusive Boeing customer. He takes a larger look at the troubled Indian airline industry.
Finalizing Orders: Norwegian Air Shuttle finalized its order for 100 Airbus A320neos, breaking Boeing’s monopoly here. NAS was also a launch customer of the 737 MAX.
China threat: Maybe, maybe not. Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, cites China as the biggest emerging threat to Boeing and Airbus. Reuters, in Beijing for the IATA AGM, has this article saying, not so fast. The article takes a close look at the ARJ-21, China’s first effort at a modern jet. Although this is a regional jet and not competitive with Airbus or Boeing, it’s a “makee-learn” effort that leads the way to the Comac C919, which is directly competitive with the A320 and 737 class. Implications of the ARJ-21 are also discussed in the article.
LionAir and the 787: Confirming news reports this week, LionAir announced it has committed to the Boeing 787, agreeing to buy five. We’re told these are from the so-called “terrible teens,” those early 787s that required an enormous amount of rework and which were rejected by the original customers. Transaero and Rwanda Air are said to also be taking some of these early aircraft.
EADS Bank: More information on the reports EADS is considering getting a banking license.
Boeing economics and the 787: Jon Ostrower at The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece today talking about the milestone of 787 #66 and the implications for cost reduction. Unfortunately, the full article is available only for paid subscribers. Contained within the article is this key data:
The losses don’t show up on Boeing’s bottom line, because accounting rules let the company spread the Dreamliner’s costs over years—effectively booking earnings now from future Dreamliners that it expects to produce more profitably. With previous models, Boeing initially spread its costs over 400 planes, but with the Dreamliner it is distributing the costs over 1,100 planes—a number it says reflects unprecedented demand. Boeing already has 854 Dreamliner orders from 57 customers.
Boeing reported that first-quarter profit at its Commercial Airplanes division more than doubled to $1.08 billion from a year earlier. But the company acknowledges that accounting for the costs of each individual plane would have resulted in a first-quarter loss of $138 million—a drop UBS analyst David Strauss says is almost entirely attributable to the Dreamliner.
The Dreamliner’s drain on cash is balanced by strong sales of the profitable single-aisle 737 and long-range 777 models. And analysts estimate Boeing is reducing the losses per Dreamliner by about $10 million each quarter. But maintaining the pace of cost reduction gets harder as the simplest problems are solved. Meanwhile, Boeing aims to increase production of Dreamliners to 10 per month at the end of 2013, up from 3.5 per month today—meaning the losses per plane will be magnified, but will also be tempered by the decreasing cost of each jet.
Some analysts believe Boeing’s target for cost reduction on the Dreamliner could be too optimistic. Mr. Strauss of UBS says the company appears to be assuming it can reduce its cost 50% faster than it did with the 777. If instead the pace of cost reduction matches the 777, says one of UBS’s models, the estimated $20 billion hole could double.
Posted on June 8, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
China trojans: we’re not talking about condoms, either. This item from Defense Tech is pretty alarming. And while this piece is also pretty alarming, though it isn’t about China. Or maybe it is. The chips are made by the same company, sourcing them in China.
China is the biggest threat: So says Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Aviation Week has this article about an Albaugh appearance in the UK.
EADS ponders its own bank: This would give it access to low-cost funds and protect against the Euro, officials say. Here’s an article. Our first thought: since the WTO ruled Airbus launch aid was illegally structured because of below market rates (but did not rule the aid itself illegal), this returns EADS/Airbus to the low-cost funding access. Clever. Wonder what Boeing thinks about this?
Posted on June 1, 2012 by Scott Hamilton