Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
Odds and Ends: 787 software; Hazy on 777X; 787 reliability; A340 lemon; 777X won’t be built in WA: MO politician; Chinese war games
787 software: Aviation Week reports that continuing software issues bedevil the Boeing 787.
AvWeek also takes a closer look at Japan Airlines’ decision to take the 787 off certain routes due to the icing issues of the GEnx engines. Most incidents occurred on the 747-8 but one happened on the 787. The 747-8 also uses the GEnx engine.
Hazy on 777X: Steve Udvar-Hazy, CEO of Air Lease Corp and one of the most influential people in commercial aviation, offered his assessment of the 777X specifications in an interview with Aviation Week. He also commented on the future of the A350-800 and the prospect of an A350-1100.
787 reliability: Aviation Week also reports about Boeing’s efforts to improve the reliability of the 787.
A340 Lemon: Bloomberg News, tipped by our select e-newletter distribution yesterday, wrote this story about an Airbus summit to discuss the future of the A340 family in the secondary market. We’ll publish our e-newsletter for general readership with an expanded version next Monday in this column.
Boeing will nix WA for 777X: So says a Missouri politician. KOMO TV (ABC Seattle) ran a piece yesterday in which a Missouri politician said all indications they’ve had from Boeing is that the 777X won’t be built in Washington State. The clip is not on the KOMO website, however, but we saw it while watching the news.
Pacific War Games: “War is Boring,” a blog, ran a war game involving the current Chinese action declaring a defense identification zone in airspace between China and Japan. We’ve no clue over the quality of this blogger or the war game, but we were reminded that the Pentagon had war game scenarios that were important in the KC-X competition. This was one reason the Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-330 MRTT won the competition (later overturned)–because of the vast distances involved in the Pacific and the assumption that China may be successful in a conflict of what’s called Anti-Access, Access Denied (A2AD) that would have isolated US bases in Guam and Japan. The USAF concluded the EADS KC-330’s longer range vs Boeing’s KC-767, greater loiter time and greater refueling capacity was important to the selection.
Udvar-Hazy does not expect any quick decision on the matter and questions whether it would be absolutely necessary for Airbus to proceed with another stretch. “They have an acquisition price advantage,” he says, referring to the A350-1000 compared to the 777X. And while the -1000 may not have the same range, it would still be able to perform 90% of the flights possible with competing aircraft, Udvar-Hazy argues.
Isn’t the goal of a stretched A350-1100 to get closer to the 777-9 in capacity, rather than range?
As far as I know, the two customers that have commented on the 777-9X are Lufthansa who like the extra payload and range of the plane against the A350-1000 and Emirates who like the combination of greater capacity and payload. As the A350-1100 would presumably trade payload/range for capacity, that plane would be worse again for Lufthansa without addressing Emirates’ needs either.
A350-1100 could well be a good plane for other customers who are focused on economy of operation however. If you like the A350-1000, you will love the A350-1100…
“They (Airbus) have an acquisition price advantage,” he says, referring to the A350-1000 compared to the 777X.”
Do you think this could be one reason that Boeing might be moving out of Washington to assemble the 777x? Then of course the high wage demands by SPEEA and IAM 751 every contract not to mention the strike history. As I read all the postings of why Boeing shouldn’t move out, I never see mentioned the high cost of labor. Just a thought!
As I read all the postings of why Boeing shouldn’t move out, I never see mentioned the high cost of labor.
That’s because Boeing’s prime objective seems to be crushing IAM/SPEEA, not driving down labour costs.
Bear in mind as well that when you’re talking about the advanced materials and processes in aircraft manufacturing, labour cost is certainly a factor, but not the biggest one. Knowledge and expertise are much bigger factors – otherwise, you’d see Boeing and Airbus simply having their planes built in China and the Philippines, just like Japanese, Korean and American tech companies are doing with their cameras, smartphones, tablet computers, etc. these days.
Just look at how slow Charleston is to pick up speed and quality – and that’s a Boeing-owned plant that has support from a primary 787 line (in terms of people being available from the tried and tested site/workforce to support/mentor in Charleston).
“That’s because Boeing’s prime objective seems to be crushing IAM/SPEEA, not driving down labor costs.”
That is your and other union members OPINION. Labor costs and the history of strikes by the IAM/SPEEA are facts. As for building in China, Airbus is doing that. McDonnell Douglas tried and pulled out.
I don’t think anfromme is a US union member !?
Look at the common denominator.
Boeing and similar entities are unable to set up a civil working relationship in a saner environment. They appear to be not able to think beyond a cut throat environment.
That is your and other union members OPINION.
I’m not a union member, nor do I live/work in the US.
Although, as a matter of fact, I do work for a US company (not Boeing); my company treats its employees with a bit more respect than Boeing has shown their Everett workers time and again, though.
Labor costs and the history of strikes by the IAM/SPEEA are facts.
Yeah, they’re selected facts. But so are the accumulated wealth of experience and skills of the workers in Everett and the additional work they put in to help Boeing get out of the 787 pickle.
As for building in China, Airbus is doing that. McDonnell Douglas tried and pulled out.
I think everybody here is well aware of this.
And it was exactly my point – if labour cost was the prime driver behind locating work, Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, etc. would all be building their planes in China. There is still a marked difference in the level of skills/experience/know-how required to build a commercial plane compared to, say, a laptop or a tablet computer.
Check out how MDD pulled out of China, the Chinese Airbus plant took 4 years to deliver its 100th plane (Hamburg and Toulouse build the same number of planes in about three months), and how Boeing is, more than two years after opening the facility, still grappling with production and quality issues in Charleston, to the point that some customers insist on getting Everett-built 787s, as Scott reported earlier.
Goes to show that labour cost isn’t all.
I wouldn’t call the 346 a lemon… 345s died a quick death like the 77L because ultra longhaul died a quick death when fuel went up. The 343 has zilch resdiual value and the 342 is long dead. The 346 has decent people and cargo lift at acceptable range, so I doubt customers like LH/VS/etc are super unhappy.
Maybe they’re super happy if they are leasing them, or if Airbus makes good on its asset-value guarantee promise.
“…and Emirates who like the combination of greater capacity and payload.
Not sure I understand the difference between capacity and payload.
The wings and the structure of the plane can lift a maximum weight into the air. If you stretch the plane you have space for more passengers and cargo containers but can carry less payload weight, when you ideally want to carry more because you have more space for it. The 777-9X, I believe, can carry about 10 tonnes more payload than the A350-1000 and about 40 more passengers. Lufthansa was mainly interested in the extra tonnes (otherwise they would have gone for the cheaper A350-1000), while Emirates wanted both a bigger plane and one that can carry more payload (they have ordered the A350-1000 as well though).
If you don’t need the payload/range you are better off with the A350-1000 or, potentially, A350-1100. In my view the two planes absolutely do compete with each other. Which one you choose depends on your payload requirements.
I’m not sure how much LH paid for the 777-9X. Boeing had to make a statement after their biggest 777 customers UA, BA, CX, SQ, JAL and AF/KL defected. Similar to the LH 747-8 order years ago. LH said they will order A350-1000’s too. I think the 777X will not only carry more, it will also be much heavier, burn more and have bigger fuel tanks to make the range. Probably it will require 10 abreast 17 inch seats to be efficient on a per seat basis.
Leeham:
“Anti-Access, Access Denied (A2AD) that would have isolated US bases in Guam and Japan. The USAF concluded the EADS KC-330′s longer range vs Boeing’s KC-767, greater loiter time and greater refueling capacity was important to the selection.”
That would be the case if the KC-330 was the bigger tanker in the US Air force, but don’t they have the KC-10 to do that job. And judging by the fact that one tanker can still offload fuel to another tanker, could make that case mute as well.
Also, by looking at the specs, it says that the KC-330is able to hold 111 tonnes of fuel compare to the KC-46 96 tonnes (15 tonnes difference). So, if the KC-46 would consume a little bit less fuel (as it is lighter), how much longer would the KC-330 would be able to stay in the air before needing itself to be refueled?
That analysis was done, though at this late date we don’t remember. But range of the tanker was also a consideration, and the A330-200 has more range than the 767-200ER.
The KC10 has more tankage but being a (comparative) fuel hog will use a large percentage of available fuel to cover distance and/or providing loiter time.
I checked my old excel spreadsheet:
According to public available USAF documentations the B767 has a fuel burn rate of 10,500 lbs/h and the KC-10 17,750 lbs/h. This is a 70 % higher fuel consumption for KC10 compared to B767. KC-10’s offload capability at 1,000 nm was mentioned at 195,000 lbs compared to 110,000 lbs for KC-767. So a KC-10 could deliver 77 % more fuel or a KC-10 could stay for 11 hours there and a KC-767 for 10.5 hours.
Due to an analysis by Conklin & de Decker in 2007 sponsored by Boeing an A330-200 consumes about 24% more fuel than a Boeing 767-200ER. Even with this figures an A330 MRTT with 143,000 lbs offload available at the same distance could stay for 11 hours. At any time KC-10 or A330 could provide more fuel than a KC-46.
Btw. MTOW of a B767-2C/KC-46 is 20,000 lbs higher than for a B767-200ER and also the USAF data is for a mix of B767 versions. Therefore the 24 % used above are a worst case scenario. The 24 % from 2007 couldn’t consider any A330 PIP since then. A330-200 MTOW did raise by 8 t (18,000 lbs) since then.
I was ROYFLMAO reading how Airbus is trying to weasel out of paying asset-value guarantees to the airlines when they get rid of their almost worthless A-340s. Thai has been trying to get rid of the A-345 fleet (5 or 6 airplanes I believe) for years. SQ just sold their A-345s to Lan Chile, all 4 of them.
The A-330MRTT is a bigger airplane than the KC-46 or KC-135 is. But it only carries 15 tonnes more fuel than these two tankers. The A-330MRTT also has Boom problems the KC-135 or KC-10 Booms do not (a modified version of the KC-10 Boom is going on the KC-46).
If the USAF were wanting bigger tankers, it would have bought the KC-777, and kept the KC-10 in service (a decision to retire the type will be made soon). The KC-330 only brings a very small fuel offload advantage over the KC-46 (up to 30,000 lbs.), but at a much higher cost. The other problem with the A-330 is its size. It takes some 50% more ramp footage to park it compared to the KC-46, or KC-10, and some 60% more than a KC-135. That means fewer fighters and bombers can be parked at the same base as the tankers.
The small difference is a 36,000 lbs higher fuel offload capability at 1,000 nm. My opinion is a 30 % higher fuel offload is not small. The next problem for KC-46 is lift capability on 7,000-foot runways. The Airbus was able to take off with 20 % higher fuel load. About twice as much airports are available for A330 to take off with 200,000 lbs of fuel. So much about the parking space argument. Also capacity is 32 to just 18 for pallets. With a mixed palletised seating and permanent seating more than 300 passengers can be carried on one A330 MRTT. KC-46 just offers 190 (EADS just offered 226 due to penalties for offering more).
The KC-46 did win on fuel consumption.The fuel consumption was calculated with more than 7 (seven) touch & go maneuvers on each mission profile. It was neglected that with one KC-45 about twice the amount of passengers or cargo could have been moved.
Btw. KC, did the 2C already passed flutter tests with wing pods? Is there an overweight issue? How many refueling missions does the all new electric Boeing boom have? How many engineers who designed the last operational Boeing boom are still alive?
The A-330 does not have a 30% greater offload capability then the KC-46 has. It is more like 10% to 15% DEPENDING ON MISSION LENGHT. The USAF has plenty of assets and charters to move troops and cargo. For tankers, cargo movement is a secondary mission, it will spend most mission time on refueling missions. Fuel consumption for the USAF is less important than it is for the airlines. The most factor for the USAF is getting the mission done.
BTW, the KC-767A already passed the wing refueling pod flutter test. The KC-46A uses a slightly different wing, the B-767-300ERF wing, as opposed to the B-767-200ER wing. But that should not cause a problem with the refueling pods.
To bring you up to date, the KC-46 has not begun flight testing yet. FF will be next year as a B-767-2C.
The Boom on the KC-46 is a modified version of the original MDD Boom for the KC-10, and many of those engineers from the 1980s are still alive. But Boeing created a new Boom for the Italian and Japanese KC-767A/Js. It was based on the KC-135 Boom. Boeing built some 100+ new KC-135 Booms in the 1980s for USAF spares and the new Booms for the IDF KC-707s and RSAF KE-3s. That updated Boom was based on the 1970s version that went on Iranian KC-707s and KC-747s, which was based on the 1950s and 1960s Booms.
The only decade Boeing did not build new Booms was the 1990s when KC-135As began to retire making their Booms available as spares.
There is no sense fighting the KC-X program all over again. That horse has left the stables.
KC, you mentioned several things that contradict the RFP of the KC-X especially that “USAF has plenty of assets and charters to move troops and cargo”. The problem with KC-135 is that this aircraft is hardly a cargo and troop mover. The airframe is used on rare occasions for refueling and that left so many cycles in the airframe. It is not very economic to buy an aircraft and then charter other aircraft. That also reduces flying time/experience/training for USAF crews. The USAF uses C-17 to move palletized cargo with aerial refueling due to insufficient range. That is very uneconomic and also reduces airframe cycles for dedicated missions with outsized cargo.
The USAF was well aware of this problem and therefore wanted an aircraft that is also a cargo and troop mover.
“That horse has left the stables”? Maybe but it is still a far way to the racetrack. I specified my numbers about fuel offload capability. Dare to show your profiles for “more like 10% to 15% DEPENDING ON MISSION LENGTH”? Dare to compare commercial payload/range diagrams of B767 to A330-200?
“There is no sense fighting the KC-X program all over again.” KC, it makes also no sense to repeat your unsupported claims again.
Btw. KC, do you think Republic of Korea Air Force will order some B767 tanker while Korean Airlines has no B767 in its fleet but about 25 A330?
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/11/116_146953.html
How much are you an expert on tankers and the air refueling mission? The longer a mission is in length, the less fuel is available for offload because the tanker must burn fuel to get that far.
I have no idea which tanker the ROKAF will select, I have not seen the RFP. But the mission described is more refueling and less cargo centered. For all I know right now they may want to buy some USAF KC-135Rs or KC-10As. According to your link the ROK has, or will budget $942M for 4 tankers, or an average of $235.5M each. That is not a lot considering the costs include acquisition, spares, training, possibly a maintenance package, and airfield infrastructure.
Yes, KE has never operated the B-767, but they did fly the DC-10-30 and MD-11 for a while. This is not the same airline/Air Force relationship between LY and the IDF. In Israel LY does some work for the Israeli Air Force. KE and the ROKAF do not work as closely, but KE does do some heavy maintenance for the Korean Air Force, as well as other airlines that do or did fly the B-767.
Dear KC, an argument from authority may look right but it is a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Just like your next statement is no argument at all: “The longer a mission is in length, the less fuel is available for offload because the tanker must burn fuel to get that far.” That is true for both aircraft. A B767 burns about 10,500 lbs/h. We know from official USAF competition data that at a range of 1,000 nm the KC-45 did have a offload capability of 153,000 lbs and the then proposed 767 117,000 lbs of fuel. From a mathematical point of view (just basic math skills and no expert knowledge required) a B767 tanker could only deliver more fuel at longer ranges in case A330’s fuel burn rate would be more than 30 % higher compared to 767. E.g. with a fictive 25 % higher fuel burn and additional 7 hours of flight an A330 could provide about 40 % more fuel. With just a 10 % higher fuel burn rate difference it will raise to 70 % more fuel…
An according to “the costs include acquisition, spares, training, possibly a maintenance package, and airfield infrastructure” for ROKAF an A330 solution is better off. I guess some of the 25 crews on Korean Airline A330 are already ROKAF pilots.
I think most people have a pretty clear picture of what happened in the first, second and third round of the tanker competition.
I prefer an A340 over a 777 over the Arctic any day. But that’s personal (noise, middle seats, 4 engines).
I think 4 haulers provide good cargo and hot high capability. I think the A340 line didn’t suffer too much after just 400 build, the slots were/are filled by the A330s.
I prefer an A340 over a 777 over the Arctic any day. But that’s personal (noise, middle seats, 4 engines).
Isn’t the noise, middle seat, and number of engines, the same whether you’re flying over the Arctic or not?
I guess you won’t like flying on an A350.
Indeed give me an A340 seat north of Beringstrait any day.
I was ROYFLMAO reading how Airbus is trying to weasel out of paying asset-value guarantees to the airlines when they get rid of their almost worthless A-340s.
No surprise there.
Thai has been trying to get rid of the A-345 fleet (5 or 6 airplanes I believe)
They have only four, not 5 or 6.
They do have six A346, but they’re not trying to get rid of those.
They received a highest bid of $23m for an A345, which they turned down.
SQ just sold their A-345s to Lan Chile, all 4 of them.
No idea where you got that from.
Firstly, SQ have five, not four.
Secondly, there was only talk of SQ selling their A340-500 to Aerolineas Argentinas, not LAN Chile.
Thirdly, what would be the problem with SQ selling to Aerolineas or LAN?
Fourthly: The problem is that so far, there is no new user
The A-330MRTT is a bigger airplane than the KC-46 or KC-135 is. But it only carries 15 tonnes more fuel than these two tankers. The A-330MRTT also has Boom problems the KC-135 or KC-10 Booms do not (a modified version of the KC-10 Boom is going on the KC-46).
Modified version doesn’t mean it’s going to be flawless; just means that there is less risk.
Anyway, I know you like going on about the A330MRTT’s boom problems (of which there hasn’t been any news in the last four/five months) – possibly because it allows you to ignore one major point: The A330MRTT is already in the air and flying missions. The KC-46 is not. It will be another four or five years (depending on how optimistic you are about the schedule) before the first example is delivered. At that point we can have a look again, and I wouldn’t bet on Airbus still grappling with boom issues in 2017/18.
Anyway – that’s neither here or there as the USAF has made its decision, so they get to fly the KC-46.
The point is of course that the USAF did initially want the A330 tanker for all the reasons cited – and the ‘size issue’ being entered as a competition qualifier is precisely why the Airbus US associate withdrew. Quite apart from any other merits or demerits it is absurd – rather like saying that you cannot replace an F-16 with an F-15 because the latter uses up more ramp footage.
You are of course correct on the boom issue – fortunately for the air forces involved it will not matter until too much until aircraft designed to use that ungainly form or refuelling come into service!
Pfft.
Even the indefeatable US Air Force looses a boom or two every year
on its inimitable KC135 tanker platform. And they should have all the experience one could imagine ( 4 decades ?) leaving zero teething problems.
( going back in history here you’ll find a post from TB conceding this )
It seems Bombardier sacked its sales chief over the CSeries.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303670804579236183977887594
Hmm. War games.:
Chinese Boeing-737 Airborne Strategic Command Post Aircraft
http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/chinese-boeing-737-airborne-command-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GlobalMilitaryReview+%28Global+Military+Review%29
War Games. China: You owe us a trillion.
Yes. China sends the US consumer goods, TV’s smart phones, computers, etc.
We give them paper, in the form of low-yielding government bonds.
does it comfort?