Odds and Ends: JetBlue defers A320s; Delta’s A350 order; Another KC-46A delay?

JetBlue defers A320s: This US airline announced at its investors’ day that it is deferring Airbus A320s from this decade into next. JP Morgan had this commentary November 19:

JetBlue…announced a deferral of 18 A320-family aircraft from 2016-18 to 2022-23. While having a $900m positive impact on cap-ex through 2018, we believe the deferral should also limit near-term speculation on widebodies and Transatlantic expansion for several years. The reason? We believe the deferral was driven in large part by Airbus’ continued study of an ‘A321neoLR….’ Airbus continues to explore the development of a long-range version (3,900 nm) of its flagship narrowbody aircraft to serve as a fuel-efficient competitor to the Boeing 757-200W, with potential entry in to service by 2018-19. We believe such an aircraft would fit exceptionally well into JBLU’s longer-term expansion plans, though it does imply a Transatlantic future somewhere down the road, in our view.

JetBlue has expressed interest in entering long-haul, over-water routes, but it doesn’t have ETOPS qualification. If it were to do so sooner than later, it would have to either wetlease aircraft (as did WestJet of Canada) or lease the four-engine A340-300, a cheap lift with a modest capacity.

JetBlue also announced it plans to reduce seat pitch and add 15 seats to its A320s. This is 2 1/2 rows, so it sounds like it’s going the Space Flex route, with smaller galleys and lavs as well and smaller seat pitch. JetBlue has one of the most generous seat pitches in the US. Of course, one reason was that the standard A320s couldn’t make US trans-con Westbound in high wind conditions without a fuel stop and more than 150 passengers. Going to sharklets pretty much fixes this problem and the A320neo eliminates it entirely. JetBlue’s first neo, and A321, will be delivered from Airbus’ new Mobile (AL) plant.

Delta’s A350s: After we revealed in another global exclusive that Delta Air Lines chose Airbus A350-900s and A330-900s for its widebody re-fleeting, some of our readers speculated that cancellation in June by Emirates Airlines of 50 A350-900s might be where Airbus found the slots.

Not directly, at least. EK’s airplanes weren’t scheduled to begin delivery until 2019 and DL wants the airplanes beginning in 2017. However, it’s possible that Airbus found some early customers willing to swap their deliveries to a later date–but we have no idea if the EK slots are involved.

Another KC-46A delay? The Air Force Times reports there might be another delay for Boeing’s KC-46A tanker development.

42 Comments on “Odds and Ends: JetBlue defers A320s; Delta’s A350 order; Another KC-46A delay?

  1. Congratulations on breaking the Delta widebody competition winner! LNC is becoming an industry power player. Sustained effort is yielding dividends.

  2. Another delay for the KC-46 wouldn’t be a surprise.

    Despite their history (much touted when bidding for the contract), Boeing’s recent history on military projects and tankers specifically, is very poor.

    • 767 based tanker history with boeing is abysmal.
      Wedgetail was pretty awful, but that was primarily due to the Radar vendor.
      the P-8 though has been a model program…

      hard to believe Boeing could screw up so badly (and repeatedly) on the same basic thing (tankers) that made the company the powerhouse it once was.

      • I suggest that Boeing lease 18 Airbus tanker to finnaly respect their commitments at least for one year .. they can lease another batch to cover the next year USAF’s requirements … and so on !!! up to 179

          • “A kind of wet lease with Australia is already in place.
            RAAF KC-30A operating over Iraq.”

            Australia normally deploys tankers with it’s fighters.
            The RAAF fighters utilize both RAAF and USAF refueling assets, and the US does the same – normal operating procedure.

          • The funny part is that is quite the way Boeing finally did trump the winner of the Stratotanker contest: Lockheed.
            General Curtis E. LeMay didn’t like any delay. The KC-135 was an interim solution until Lockheed could deliver its tanker.

  3. Scott, is the A350 cancellation and rumored new negotiations for the type, by EK in any way related to pressuring Airbus to do a a380 re-engine?

    • @bob, not that we have heard of, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a connection. We’ll point out that EK wants a more capable A350-1000 and to do this a new engine would be required. But there isn’t a business case for this alone. There isn’t a business case alone for the A380neo. But if the same basic engine could be used for both–maybe there is a business case, then.

      • “We’ll point out that EK wants a more capable A350-1000”

        – Scott, can you elaborate on what more capable means here?

        I know Tim Clark previously said something about it being ideal for 10 hour missions. But isn’t he looking for something along those lines in the next RFP?

          • This puzzles me – it sounds as though he’s wanting Airbus to reinvent the 777X. Surely the amount of cargo space is limited by the volume of the fuselage, so is Tim Clark suggesting it be stretched? With metal already cut for the first example it seems a bit late for a redesign!

          • The -1000 has grown up by a bit ( while loosing a bit of efficiency ).
            Immediate further growth would imho hamper its growth potential
            in the future.
            During design the strucutre, real payload and fuel payload fractions get fixed to a large degree.
            The longstanding dominance of engine improvements demands that you design new planes into the lower segment rangewise to grow into the target center. Best example is the A330(/A340 combo to be precise).
            A frame that is designed for the final target range will be overranged from engine improvements and thus carry too much structure for the original task taking away potential from those engine improvements.

  4. After all, the EK A350 order cancellation is not such a big hurt for Airbus.
    With more available A350 delivery slots before the end of the decade and the multiple solutions (A330NEO, A330 regional, A350-900, A350-900 Regional and A350-1000 Airbus is now able to offer on the market, Emirates has more possibilities to fine-tune its fleet according to the specific needs of its huge network.

  5. Looks like JetBlue will revert to following the big 3 with 31″ pitch and a few rows of extra at 35″. This will cause more congestion and less happy passengers and crews, so I fail to see how this is a good move. Not to mention they don’t have a first class product like the big 3, so I think a better move would have been to try to poach some of those seats by offering wide seats at a cheaper price. Switch out two rows of six, for three rows of four and call it extra wide comfort or whatever.

  6. I also do not get the statement about leasing an A340-300 wide body with a modest capacity?

    A340 is a long range beast with a lot more seats than a 757 or an A321.

    I think this is just the first part of deferrals due to too much over ordering and the weaker operations are going to be the first to wobble.

    Apparently the New York financial institutions drive things not the company these days.

    I remember them saying the same thing about Costco, you pay your people too much, you need to whack and cut them and treat them like dirt to make money.

    Jet Blue does not satisfy them so they tell them what to do? If you don’t like the company don’t buy the stock! Now they are trying to turn it into just another LCC in a sea of LCC (or ULCC) and have them fly to Europe? wow.

    • “Modest capacity” meaning it’s 300 passengers, not 365 like the 777-300ER or a 747-400.

    • Lufthansa plans to use its A340-300 on routes between touristic destinations like Frankfurt – Las Vegas or Frankfurt – Mauritius. That is within range of an A330-300!

      Lufthansa is not so dependent on Wall Street just like all the other current A340 and A380 operators.

  7. There are more then 1000 orders and options for the A350. There have been cancellations, switches, upgrades. The order of slots is changing all the time.

  8. These words worry me about the KC-46A program, “leading the company to re-plan elements of its tanker work flow.” Is this a way of trying to say, or avoid saying, “out of sequence,” a la 787? Something which was supposed to be banned in newer smarter Boeing.

  9. In other news, Boeing says no plans for long range 737 MAX to compete with the A320neoLR.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-boeing-says-no-plans-long-range-737-231309283–finance.html

    I got a huge laugh out of this statement from old Randy :D:

    “We are very happy with where the MAX 9 sits and feel the competition is simply doing things to catch up with it,” Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in an interview.”

    One has really got to have their head stuck up where the sun don’t shine to say that.

    • A Boeing specialty these days. Tear down a system that works and replace is with PR BS. Works for a while, sooner or latter the due comes. Just a matter if you get your bonuses before the nasty odiferous stuff hits the prop

      Boeing’s new mottor “NOT BUILT FOR THE LONG HAUL”

  10. In regard to the Delta order we can now open up the discussion to all other aircraft again as Delta lied about what was on the table.

    Frankly that puts the 777-300Er right back in the mix as an option to replace 747-400s.

    The A350-900 does not do that and the 777 will have some great discounts come the drop off between the 777CEO and the 777x production start and ramp up.

    It also brings into question how Airbus can give Delta early delivery slots. On the A330-NEO they obviously lied and got into the que first (secret order and negotiations)

    the A350 orders are obviously shaky enough that people are willing to not buy it and trade away their slots.

    Funny to see them use Boeing that way to get good deals out of Airbus.

    • Somewhat judgemental – there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that Airbus was ‘lying’ – both parties had made it clear before even the launch of the 330neo that discussions were taking place.

      If Delta buys A350’s it is evidence that the plane and its orders are sound, not the opposite. As far as timing, we know that both Airbus and Boeing have shaky customers that would accept stretching out their slots while Airbus has a policy (or habit) of not filling in all year to end-year slots until some two years before completion, simply to have an edge in cases like this. Boeing would have done the same, but the sluggish and below expectation rate increase of the 787 would cripple their flexibility.

    • The comment was about comparing A350 to 787. That comment didn’t rule out any other aircraft for any other replacement.

      The A350 is the 747-400 replacement. The A350 will have about 60 seats less but far less fuel burn at the same range.

      Delta is not looking for an interim solution. Deltas’ 747 are more than 24 years old. Delta may use the new aircraft in the same way. The rather old 777Classic would not be a perfect fit for such use on the long run.

      • “The A350 is the 747-400 replacement. The A350 will have about 60 seats less but far less fuel burn at the same range.”

        The A350-900’s ordered will seat around 300 passengers in a typical J, M+, M class.
        http://www.finnair.com/go/Images/fleet/new/A350_seatmap.jpg

        The VLA 744 with similar seat / class numbers will have 100+ more seats and far more cargo too. A capacity cut of 25% passenegrs and more cargo in booming markets.

        If the A350s are for 744 replacement, the A350 contract is for -1000s too. Or more realistically for the next 20 years, something larger. Regardless of what DL says at this moment, again.

        • The A350 can replace the 744 according to range.

          Delta’s VLA 744 have 376 seats. Finnair’s A350-900 around 297 seats. The difference is about 80 passengers.

          By replacing 13 744 with 25 A350 Delta can offer about 2,500 more seats for long range flights. Cargo volume is 32 LD1 for a 744 (157 m³) and 36 LD3 for an A350-900 (155 m³). Due to less pax the A350 offers more remaining cargo volume than a 744. Delta can also avoid connection flights to the few 744 hubs and fly more connections directly (the 787 argument).

          That was for the A350-900. The -1000 may have 30 pax and 8 LD3 more.

          For booming pax markets a second hand A380 would be a nice idea.

          • – Delta can also avoid connection flights to the few 744 hubs
            Hmm that’s exactly what has made them so successful. Hubs mean frequencies.

            – Cargo volume is 32 LD1 …. (155 m³).
            Pacific fligh, specially twins are payload restricted, not volume.

            Take DL’s biggest pacific hubs, NRT&ATL: 5600NM straight line.
            Enter headwinds, reserves and volume doesn’t matter anymore, unless you moving Japanese lanterns 😉

            “By replacing 13 744 with 25 A350 Delta”
            That would be a good option in a world without slot restrictions, hard fought overfly rights, hub waves and airport gates. Most DL 744s do daily flights to Asian hubs, connecting from their own hubs.

            VLA’s are VLA’s with all their weak points and strong points.

          • Is there today any Delta hub with more than one connection per day to any Asia destination?

            “Hubs mean frequencies.” More aircraft means higher frequencies.

            ” NRT&ATL: 5600NM straight line.”
            That is about the full payload range for 747-400 and A350-900.
            With 50 kn headwind about 1.5 hours prolonged flight. Problem for the 747 is the fuel burn rate of about 12 t per hour vs. 5 t per hour for an A350. Therefore 18 t less payload for 747 vs. just 7.5 t for A350. The payload restriction is related to fuel burn.

            Today Delta uses a 777-200 on NRT-ATL.
            744 is used on Detroit – Tokyo with a leg to Manila.
            With a direct connection to Manila from the US Delta could free slots at NRT for other direct flights from the US.

          • What happens when you replace a daily 747 to any asian destination with something 25% smaller. Surrender marketshare, with all implications of that.

          • to kesjee
            “What happens when you replace a daily 747 to any asian destination with something 25% smaller. Surrender marketshare, with all implications of that ? ”

            I suggest increase frequencies …

          • That is correct … My mind is unconcienly following the reasons behind the 787 … remember the fights we had over this isuue when battle was high comparing pros and cons of 787 versus A380

    • In regard to the Delta order we can now open up the discussion to all other aircraft again as Delta lied about what was on the table.
      Repeating this claim doesn’t make it any more true, I’m afraid.

      the A350 orders are obviously shaky enough that people are willing to not buy it and trade away their slots.
      You mean this sort of slot-trading indicates the same weakness exposed by Air Berlin’s 787 cancellation that was thought to give Boeing an advantage in this RFP because it opened up early delivery slots?
      Sorry, but it seems a bit one-sided to me to suggest that Airbus being able to give DL some early delivery slots (on the back of a pretty healthy 750-strong order book of a plane that’s otherwise booked out through 2020 at least) somehow indicates a weakness of the A350 programme/customer base, while Boeing doing exactly the same thing for the 787 (which has a backlog of 850 orders and is also sold out through 2020 at least) doesn’t.

      Somewhat judgemental – there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that Airbus was ‘lying’ – both parties had made it clear before even the launch of the 330neo that discussions were taking place.
      Indeed.

      The comment was about comparing A350 to 787. That comment didn’t rule out any other aircraft for any other replacement.
      Indeed. Note how in that much-talked-about statement, RA didn’t mention the 777 either, even though it was clearly being considered as well.

Leave a Reply

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