Odds and Ends: CNBC reporter says Boeing’s McNerney among top 25 CEOs; 757 replacement; BBD earnings; Spirit Air

CNBC and Boeing’s McNerney: CNBC reporter Phil LeBeau, who covers aerospace and automobiles among other topics, thinks Boeing CEO Jim McNerney deserves a place in CNBC’s Top 25 CEO list. Here’s why. Aaron Karp at Air Transport World has his own take on Boeing’s position in the market today.

757 replacement: Airchive has an analysis on the need fora Boeing 757 replacement that is well worth reading. Our analysis was last October. Richard Aboulafia of The Teal Group said last week he also believes a 757 replacement is on its way (with a launch in 2018, as we previously suggested). Bloomberg has this article from the Singapore Air Show on the topic.

Bombardier earnings call: BBD reports its fourth quarter and year-end financial results Thursday. It will be interesting to hear of the impact of the latest CSERiesdelay, of 9-15 months. Here is a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail on what analysts thought in advance of the call.

Spirit Air CEO profile: The Associated Press has an entertaining profile of the CEO of Spirit Airlines, the notoriously unfriendly US airline that rivals Ireland’s Ryanair for fees and an apparent dedication for pissing passengers off.

23 Comments on “Odds and Ends: CNBC reporter says Boeing’s McNerney among top 25 CEOs; 757 replacement; BBD earnings; Spirit Air

  1. I will predict a twin aisle for the 757LR replacement will be a circular fuselage with no LD3 containers necessary. Three options 2-4-2 at 17′-10″ (5.4m) diam, 2-3-2 at 16′-2″ (4.9m), or 2-2-2 at 14′-6″ diam. Two models from 50m to 60m long with a 50m wing.

    • Your first option sounds like an A310reloaded. So there are two solutions for Airbus an A330 fuselage with new wings (and new engines of course) or an A350 fuselage with new wings. So maybe an A350-200 instead of -800? A real medium range aircraft instead of derating other types.

      I think the LD3 option is worth to have on longer routes compared to regular range of single aisle aircraft.

  2. 2-4-2 at 5.4m? I don’t think so given the 787 is already promoted with 3-3-3 at 5.49m diameter. More sardines will fit in Y with a 3-3-3 layout.

    But isn’t your proposal basically a 788 with a smaller wing?

  3. It think Boeing not specifying the LD3-45/pallet option on a new 200+ medium range aircraft are close to zero. Say it’s unimportant, until you have it yourself.

    Years ago I sketched a concept (the 757 replacements discussion is old..) 2-2-2 narrow seats with two aisles for short haul. 3-3 wide seats for longer e.g. transatlantic flights. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/greenliner-1.jpg

    Later I sketched flat 2-3-2 cross sections with 2-2-2 domestic First with a high wing. It seems Boeing is think in that direction too, they’ll avoid any ground clearance restrictions in the future.

    As predicted by Leahy the A321 is taking over Transcon and Boeing has no responds at this moment. The 737-9(00) lacks cargo capability, payload range, hot short runway performance, comfort and seat capacity. The NEO / Sharklets only widen the gap. The 10 inch bigger engine fans have the sfc effect you expect. Boeing cannot sit on its hands. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-points-sharklet-a321-at-757-replacement-market-341981/

    AA has 200 A321s on order and inherits another 110 from US; 300+. Delta broke their used aircraft policy and despite their large new NG fleet ordered them. As well as Spirit and Jetblue. IMO UA ordering A321s is a question of time, despite their recent 737 orders. In Asia it’s basicly the same story.

    Jetblue go around before delivery http://youtu.be/aAVy4Hj2nx4

    Issue is, if Boeing builds a 757 sized aircraft, a shrink will probably be a uneconomic SUV in the huge 150-180 seat <1500NM market..

    • Keesje- (I hate to do this), but………… I agree……….with you!!! man that hurt. but, here is the but, the A321 has been around awhile and it has gotten a new lease on life over the past 10-15 years. Engine improvement, weight reductions, have made it an attractive solution. Again, Airbus has been working to make their existing offer better for airline route management. The whole dual isle thing for short haul an issue that needs major work, from a weight and performance prospective. What is too long for fast gate offload against performance penalties for the short and stubby look.

    • I agree, there is no doubt that the A321 is the class in this space. I also wonder how they are going to shrink the 757 replacement into a 737 replacement while keeping it light. I can’t think of an aircraft that started big and worked smaller and exceedingly better. Unless it will be a separate class like the 757 was but that is expensive. Will be interesting to watch.

  4. Thanks Scott for the PNAA overviews!!! Helpful for context. Also, my recent comments about the different innovation paths of the big 2 seem to confirm why Airbus is being more conservative. Air india says performance is not meeting expectations and the whole learning curve thing is totally out of control. Not to mention Air India has not been making a profit, so maybe there are some institution issues going on as well. But be that as it may, Airbus might have doen the smart thing by simlply waiting for Boeing to faill on their face, and then come in and say “hey you tried the new, now try the low risk high reliability way”. We’ll have to see who the winner will be because the widebody world is a huge $ world.

  5. Undoubtly McNerney has been good for the stockholders and the stock markets. He has also mastered the desmise of the mechanist union and beautifully imposed new contracts.

    On the other hand I doubt that he will leave Boeing in a great position for the future. Yes there are developmental planes that will be out soon (787-9), apparently without major issues and on time (as we remembered the great Boeing, best example being the 777 execution, not McNerney’s legacy) and upgraded models (737 max & 777X) but this may fall short for sustainability (what about the product line in 10, 20 or 30 years?)

  6. For Boeing just to mention the 757 niche as a topic for fleet planners is a tactical error, a shot in Boeing’s own feet : it names an issue here and now which immediately converts into a PROBLEM here and now (@ Boeing) then diverts into a possible/unique solution here and now (@ Airbus !, with A321) … the old saying goes “don’t wake up a sleeping dog” !? With nothing at hand sine die, Boeing should better stay put …

  7. dumb question, but why not do a down-gauge of the 787? The 787-7. Avoids the niche problems, and improves commonality among the platforms.
    Frankly I don’t see the business case for a 200 to 220 seat aircraft. Up gauge a 737 or down gauge the 787, if you must have something in that capacity range.

    • why not do a down-gauge of the 787? The 787-7. Avoids the niche problems, and improves commonality among the platforms.

      That would be a very heavy solution to cover the few missions that an enhanced A321neo couldn’t cover. We all know what happened to the regional 787 variant proposed previously (the 787-3).

      Frankly I don’t see the business case for a 200 to 220 seat aircraft.

      I don’t see the business case, either. Not for a standalone plane, anyway.
      A large part of the replacement market is going to be covered by the A321neo, and – to a lesser extent – the 737-9 already. So the ~1000 757s in service won’t translate into a 1000-strong market for a 757-sized plane.
      Boeing and Airbus will tweak the A321 and 737-9 further, and maybe offer regional low-effort variants of the A330/787 to capture the top of the 757 market. But I cannot see them launch a new plane that covers the 757 primarly while also competing with the larger A320/737 series and the smaller A330/A350/787.

      When the A320/737 successor finally take shape, though, I’m sure we are going to see Boeing and Airbus address the 757 size category as well, probably as part of a general upward shift in size (compared to the 737-7/A319).

  8. A straight shrink of the long haul 787 would be very uncompetitive. The 767 is much lighter and maybe rightsized to replace 767s but dated.

    • The 767 is much lighter and maybe rightsized to replace 767s but dated.

      True – I was just about to suggest a 757MAX but then remembered that there was the little matter of the assembly line having been dismantled almost nine years ago.

      It’s ironically unfortunate that circumstances conspired to make a 757MAX an unviable option in 2005, while it would almost certainly find its takers today.

  9. A 200-260 seat single aisle (single class standard) would be a new category. I think it is a good idea. But risky, because it doesn’t really replace anything. A twin aisle would also make sense, but would suffer from higher cost that cannot be compensated by shorter boarding times for many operators.

    All on efficiency, CFRP wing, Alu-fuselage (CFRP doesn’t make sense here). Airbus would compete with a stretched A320 fuselage with new wing & engine (possibly the same as the Boeing product). Tough competitor.

    BTW … engine? A larger Geared Turbo-Fan (GTF) appears a natural choice.

  10. I love the part in the Aaron Karp article where McNerney does a 1984 and recitifies the malquote about how the decision for the MAX came about. Seems we were all wrong and it had nothing to do with American Airlines ordering single aisles from Airbus but rather Mr. McNerneys brilliant insight into the fact that they couldn’t repeat the mess they made with the 787.
    For another opinion on Mr. McNerney’s work, one could take a look at Richard Aboulafia’s January letter. (http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=395)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *