Odds and Ends: Safran benefits from engine after-market; ExIm could back Airbus; Paine Field future

Engine After-market: Safran, which owns 50% of CFM International with GE Aviation owning the other half, is positioned in the “sweet spot” of the engine after-market, according to a recent  report by Bernstein Research.

The report further supports our own analysis posted August 25 and the growing importance of MRO support in winning engine orders.

According to Bernstein, Safran “has the best positioning in the aircraft engine after-market” in the investment bank’s coverage. This position is “driven by two engine families with strong growth ahead and low exposure to older engines that are at risk of early retirement.”

Bernstein notes that more than 95% of Safran’s after-market sales are derived from the CFM56, which powers 75% of the narrow-bodied aircraft, and the GE90, which powers the Boeing 777-200LR/LRF and 777-300ER.

Future programs include the CFM LEAP, GEnx and GP7200. Past programs, in decline, are the first generation CFM56 and the CF6 on earlier wide-bodies.

ExIm and Airbus: In a statement surely to inflame those opposed to renew ExIm Bank authority, the president of the bank said it’s possible it could back funding of the Airbus A320 family built in Mobile (AL).

Paine Field future: It’s a little parochial but The Everett Herald has an article looking at the future of Paine Field, where Boeing’s wide-body airplanes are assembled. The article necessarily looks at the future of the Boeing 747, 767 and 777 Classic production.

Congress is now talking about a nine month extension of ExIm.

 

 

 

15 Comments on “Odds and Ends: Safran benefits from engine after-market; ExIm could back Airbus; Paine Field future

  1. So Congress is going to do what they do best, in this case with the ExIm Bank……just kick the can down the road. Make a decision after the election by the next Congress. How courageous of the 113th Congress……

  2. If Airbus makes planes in the USA why not use ExIm? But, then some might say Mobile or even Alabama as a whole isn’t really in the USA, or their denizens might say they aren’t associated.

      • As now practiced in the USA, logic has nothing to do with business decisions either (or business has become all politics)

        I am beginning to wonder if logic has anything to do with logic either .

        • The logic probably is ok. Only actual motivation is not what is publicly professed or what is assumed by the public.

  3. Isn’t it what globalization is about?

    Air France buys some Alabama assembled A320s and Delta getting a bunch of Toulouse-made ones. An Airbus coup de maitre ! 🙂

  4. A note on 777 model designations: the freighter is a 777F, not a 777-200LRF.

    That said, now let us all take out our slide rules and crystal balls and start speculating on a future 777F-X. Existing fuselage size or something longer? How many pallets should it carry? Same cross section or maybe use the 747’s constant section to allow two adjacent 8×8 containers without shaved corners? Swing tail for straight-in loading of extra-long cargo?

    For extra credit let us also ponder a 767-NEO

    • Boeing has already stated that the 777XF wil be a 777-8F

      And not, there will be no fancy swinging anything other than a custom made and not likely even that.

      As for the 767NEO, of course its in the mix. Interesting balance to make it short enough range not to compete with 787 but long enough to be viable enough to cover enough routes so it sells. Beyond me.

      The Air Force would be happy to get more efficient engines as a result.

  5. Please no B767-NEO. It’s like asking if the austro-hungarian empire back then had had a future with a slightly less backward minded government.

    B777F-X: I would assume a fuselage in lieau of the -8 as the increased payload allows more volume. the size of the current F is given by the -200, and probably not the result of optimization: the -300 was to long, so they took the -200.

    According to current flightglobal overview, the enginemakers enjoy wonderful profit margings, close to 20%. Not Apple-like, but still surprising given the fact that most aircraft come along with competing engines (OK, except those where GE/Safran have most business: B737 and B777).

    • Why not a 767 NEO? That assumes the math works. The A300 has had more lives than a cat, 767 is newer than the A300.
      If it does the mission efficiently at a cost people buy and you can make money doing it, then it’s a slam dunk.

      What would it cost to make it viable (just NEO) or wing work (scimitar wing tips or whole new wing) vs sales you can get as well as cost to produce.

      And would it cannibalize 787 sales. that is not to be discounted as Japan uses them to shuttle people in the Islands with a dense pack 325 seat setup. Does anyone want to add a different type to complicate their fleet mix. Boeing certainly knows how to ask those question and get answers from their wide spectrum of customers.

      And last, how much courage does Boeing management have. You can’t run it like a shoe factory, aviation has always been that combination of vision, risk , engineering and finances. Bean counters have no vision or courage and don’t begin to understand engineering.

      Current management is only interested in keeping money going into their pockets and not the long term vitality of the company. Once they retire they do not care if the whole thing collapse behind them (assuming they have all their money)

      • Technology wise the 767 is older than the even the A300. It is a bog standard 1960ties plane. it superficially copied some aspects from the A300/A310. What on the A300/A310 were integrated electronics were just analog dials on a digital display in the Boeing design. 😉
        In a very strange way this is actually similar to the Motorola 68k versus Intel x86 design process.

        • Not being a structural engineer I can’t say, but I would think that the 767 was state of the art at the time and that would be newer than the A300.

          As Airbus did chose to upsize rather than compete in that segment, I am assuming the 767 was better (and sold far more).

          The electronics are not the issue, that can always be redone and integrated. KC46 gets the 787 cockpit, FedEx turned the DC10s into a two pilot MD10.

          If the structural potential is there then that’s one hurdle and then the rest as stated.

        • How much can an FBW centric cockpit achieve for an airframe that is fully conventional?
          Looks quite nice but under the hood it is still something that is moved by steelwires and pushrods. About as functional as that family car enhanced by two big exhaust pipes.

  6. The Everett Harold column was a strange mixed bag. Yes the 747 is on the way out sadly. Keep it going till 2024 for two aircraft? I don’;t think so. At worst Boeing simply makes enough white tails for the various 747 spec need (current). I think that’s 8.
    Or buy used 747s from Lufthansa and the other missions get a 777.

    I do not get the comments about the 777 classic.

    Renton has not made a 737-100/200 in how many years?

    777CEO is being replaced by the 777X. 767 goes on for foreseeable future.

    A lot was devoted to automation and the union which is a very different aspect. Article was unfocused in my view.

    • The AF1 requirement is for three aircraft. The Secret Service will never accept a twin for presidential missions, ETOPS be damned. Nor will it ever accept a used aircraft.

      Boeing’s only recourse wuld be to build three “green” [basic detail spec, no interior furnishings at all] 747-8I’s on speculation then very very securely store them somewhere until the USAF issues a RFP and formally accepts Boeing’s proposal [probably sole-source]. Then Congress must appropriate the money to buy them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.