Farnborough Air Show, July 16: Orders Summary

Here are the orders we’ve seen for today (there could be more); this should pretty well do it for the show, though it does continue through Friday and there probably will be a few more deals:

  • Airbus: Air Mauritius, MOU for four A350-900s.
  • ATR: Myanma Airways, six ATR 72-600s with options for six.
  • Boeing: After saying he was in no hurry to finalize the 777X orders, U-Turn Al (Akbar Al-Baker) did just that–Qatar Airways signed the contract for the 50 announced at the Dubai Air Show last November, with 50 options; Qatar also orders and options eight (4+4) 777Fs; Hainan Airlines, MOU for 50 737-8s; MG Aviation Limited, two 787-9s; Air Algerie, two 737-700Cs.
  • Bombardier: Nok Air converted two previously held options to firm orders for the Q400; Unidentified commitment from an existing customer for five CSeries; Unidentified order for seven CS300s and added six options; now at 513 orders and commitments.
  • CFM: 80 LEAP-1A engines (for A320neo) from Mexico’s Interjet.

Items of interest:

  • Ready for a 12 hour flight in the Bombardier Q400 turbo-prop? It will soon be available. Marshall Aerospace sent us this press release:
    Auxiliary fuel tanks for Bombardier Q400: Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group and Bombardier Aerospace are developing an External Auxiliary Fuel System solution for the Bombardier Q400 turboprop aircraft.The solution, which will be available as an official Bombardier option, will provide up to an additional 10,000lb of fuel in two external pannier tanks allowing the aircraft to fulfill a whole range of missions requiring additional range and endurance, allowing this turboprop platform to be able to sustain operations of up to 12 hours.
  • Although Airbus CEO Farbice Bregier said “no” to an A380neo, reported in The Seattle Times and linked by us earlier, today Aviation Week quotes Airbus COO-Customers John Leahy as saying a decision on the A380neo will come next year–which supports our commentary that we didn’t believe the A380neo issue is dead. Airchive reports that A350 chief Didier Evard hasn’t ruled out an A350-1100, either, just as we also noted in our commentary.
  • GE wanted to be the sole source on the A330neo, reports Aviation Week, which also explains why Airbus chose Rolls-Royce.
  • Flight Global has this story explaining how Airbus plans to be “weight neutral” for the A330neo vs the A330ceo.

21 Comments on “Farnborough Air Show, July 16: Orders Summary

  1. The AviationWeek article about the A330NEO engine made no sense. First paragraph says there was a fierce competition. But the second paragraph says that GE had “little enthusiasm” for the project, and that is backed up by multiple statements over the last few months by David Joyce.

    • We reported long ago that GE was pushing Airbus to proceed with neo as an additional outlet for the GEnx that’s on the largely dormant 747-8 program. We think GE’s later statements more broadly reflect a market analysis by the engine OEMs that suggest a much smaller market potential than the 1100-1200 cited by Airbus and ALC. There was dissension within Airbus about the potential market, which we also reported. With a smaller potential (400-500), there certainly is no business case for dual engine sourcing, and we believe this is where GE ended up.

      • You, Scott, make sense. I have a hard time resolving the article. It makes it seem that the fierce competition went down to the wire, but, as you state, it probably wasn’t exactly that. Maybe it should have been written a little better or maybe I’m reading too much into it.

    • The “little enthusiasm” was specifically in the recent comments by GE. Maybe by that time they had realized they had lost out to RR, and were downplaying the opportunity. Maybe.

    • He wasn’t being clear on whether he was talking about single sourcing or dual sourcing, the latter being Airbus’s preference.

    • Note the different contexts – the “little enthusiasm” was in the context of developing a completely new engine, which GE did indeed have no interest in. Just re-read this:

      a whole new engine is a tough call to be honest on an A380 and an A330neo

      RR’s T7000 is also just a derivative, so it’s save to assume that RR’s and GE’s offerings were not miles apart from a technical perspective.

      • I think GE did not want to modify the -1B for the smaller shaft power take-off, but would rather sell the version where that had already been done (-2B). But the latter engine is not as good, with a little lower BPR and some shared components that are too heavy for the smaller thrust of the -2B (fan hub frame for example).

        RR perhaps offered a little more effort…? Using the T1000, but willing to go the extra mile to fetch TXWB tech and to modify power off-take.

        Just my 2¢…

  2. It is also being reported that Airbus are looking to take weight out of the A330 frame in order to compensate for the heavier engines. Could they use newer alloys for the skin or would that be a recertification complication? What has become of GLARE? We don’t seem to have heard much of it since the A380.

    • GLARE seems to have not yet succumbed to expected manufacturing cost deflation.
      i.e. it remains too expensive for its qualities in relation to other materials 🙁

    • I doubt that such primary structure materials are touched. More likely are optimisations that are possible when engine options are reduced and stuff that has proven to be “overengineered”. After having had a decent number of airframes passing an entire service life (first flight A340 was early 1990ies), some opportunities might arise. But I wouldn’t overestimate that.
      Further options may be isolated carbon fiber usage such as CFRP floor beams.

  3. Ok I get that the 330neo is probably too small a market to dual source the engines. But Scott your comment that “GE wanted to be the sole source on the A330neo, … ,which also explains why Airbus chose Rolls-Royce.” has me confused. How did GE’s desire for sole source drive a RR sole source decision?

    • ?Leahy?: GE gives us engines to design a plane for while RR gives us engines designed for our planes. 😉
      GE tried to foist a cheap GEnX-2b derivative onto Airbus. again.

      Mid term onwards I expect a stronger grouping division between american and european manufacturers. Boeing and GE on one side and Airbus and RR on the other.
      no idea how this will play out for P&W on the US side and Safran on the european side.
      both have strong ties into their respective “other” group.

      Expect a “Fortress America”.

    • We don’t know the behind-the-scenes, of course, but we suspect dropping the RR-powered A358 may have influenced giving RR the exclusive on the A330neo. But we’re just guessin’.

  4. Should Qatar’s new option for anther 50 777-9’s be concerning to Airbus with regard to the A350?

  5. Is Farbice Bregier hving problem with his colleagues as far as communication with the outside world is concerned or is there a major difference of opinion within Airbus concerning A380 NEO and A350-1100? Or is it some sort of strange way of keeping them guessing?

    • I guess Airbus is waiting for the Rolls-Royce “Advance” to offer a NEO for the A380. It is possible the “Advance” and the following “Ultra” may fit on the same pylon. That would offer years to go without mayor rework. The same could be even more true for the A350-1100.

      An A350-1100 “Advance” would be nice and maybe available before the 777X.

      Airbus can free A350-900 slots with the A330-900. So Airbus can resell these slots with A350-1000 or A350-1100A.

    • I talked to RR yesterday, they realistically don’t see the Advance before a decade. The carbon fan Trent1000 you see on pictures, I nocked on its blaeds and RR acknowledged its painted Ti. The weight saving of the carbon fan will be the cowling weight reduction. Its easier to stop a carbon fan blade seperation then a Ti blade.

Leave a Reply

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