Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Electric Flight and the Ugly Duckling June 25, 2025
- Engine makers tout “Plan A” but have “Plan B” backups in R&D June 23, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 27. June 20, 2025
- Pontifications: A Personal Note June 19, 2025
- Airbus books 142 firm orders as Boeing retracts from the Paris Air Show June 19, 2025
Airbus gearing toward 63 A320s per month; Boeing sure to follow
By Scott Hamilton
Oct. 5, 2015, © Leeham Co. Airbus appears to be closing in on a decision to boost the production rate of the A320 family to 63/mo by the end of the decade, a new report from Bernstein Research Group says.
Boeing is sure to follow with rate boosts for the 737, Bernstein writes in an Oct. 1 note.
Leeham Co. has been predicting these moves all year, and in LNC’s interview with Airbus Group CEO Tom Enders last month at the opening of the A320 Final Assembly Line (FAL) in Mobile (AL), Enders indicated the decision to boost rates would be made by the end of the year.
Evaluating airliner performance, Part 4
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Oct. 05 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In the final part of our series about comparing and evaluating economic and operational performance of airliners, we will combine the different Cash Operating Costs (COC) with the capital and insurance costs to form the Direct Operating Costs (DOC).
We will also look at typical values for the different costs that make up the DOC for a single aisle Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 aircraft and a typical dual aisle Boeing 787 or Airbus A330neo aircraft.
Summary:
- We describe the cost that form an aircraft’s capital costs and how these differ between an ownership or a lease model.
- When forming the Direct Operating Cost (DOC). The low fuel price of $1.50 per US Gallon has lowered the fuel’s part of DOC to around 20% for single aircraft and 30% for dual aisle aircraft on their typical mission types.
- This means that other costs types in the DOC gets a more dominant role. We show which are the costs to look out for.
- Finally we give the typical CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) values for single and dual aircraft in the market.
Bjorn’s Corner: Engine ratings
By Bjorn Fehrm
02 October 2015, ©. Leeham Co: After the article about the role of bypass ratio on a turbofan’s efficiency, we now look at other aspects of civil turbofan engines that are worth some light. It’s about how the engine OEMs create different versions of the same engine to cater for different aircraft variants.
The aircraft OEMs create different size variants from the same base model of aircraft by means of stretches. There is no better example of that than the Boeing 737. Over the years it has had more than 10 major versions. For the present in-service series, 737NG, there is three official variants, from the -700 to the -900ER. Originally it also had a smaller -600 variant.
These require engines from 20klbf to 27klbf. How this is achieved and what it means for engine characteristics and reliability is the focus of today’s Corner. We will also compare it to a typical long range engine, the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000/7000, which powers the Boeing 787 and Airbus A330neo.
Assessing the China market
Subscription required.
Introduction
Sept. 30, 2015, (c) Leeham Co.: The Boeing deals announced last week with China put the country into the spotlight about its commercial aviation ambitions.
For many, the various deals announced by Boeing raise alarm bells. For most, that fire horse already left the fire station. The smoke has been billowing out of China (or maybe that’s smog) for a long, long time.
Summary
- Boeing announces 300 orders and commitments for China, though the company was vague about the details. We try to dissect what’s real and what’s smoke.
- Additional deals announced by Boeing are driven by China’s pay-to-play approach to business.
- Other OEMs, suppliers also have to pay-to-play.
- China’s deals with Airbus and Boeing are only two elements of a national goal for commercial aerospace.
- IP theft and technology transfer big concerns.
Pontifications: Boeing moves in China only the beginning
By Scott Hamilton
Sept. 28, 2015, (c) Leeham Co.:The move by Boeing to establish a 737 Completion Center in China is only one step in a series of moves to increase its footprint there.
Boeing also said it will join with China’s National Development Reform Commission to develop:
- Industrial cooperation;
- A “world-class” aviation transportation system through deliveries to China of Boeing airplanes and services;
- Technologies to reduce aviation’s environmental impact and enhance sustainability;
- Leadership and training for the next generation of leaders in China’s aviation industry;
- Continued cooperation to support the safety, efficiency and capacity of China’s air transport system
- Further cooperation in biofuels.
“Boeing and Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC) will broaden their long-term collaboration to support Boeing’s commercial airplane programs,” the company announced last week in connection with the visit to Seattle by the president of China. “In a framework agreement, the companies said they intend to further advance AVIC’s manufacturing capabilities by adding major component and assembly work packages; strengthening leadership; and developing AVIC’s broad aviation infrastructure and business practices, including supply chain management.”
I believe this is only the beginning of a new push of Boeing’s expansion outside Washington State, elsewhere in the US and overseas.
Separately, last week it was also announced that a key supplier is done expanding in Washington State. Future expansion will be elsewhere.
Evaluating airliner performance, Part 2
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Sep. 24 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In the second part of our series about comparing and evaluating economic and operational performance of airliners, we look at the parts beyond fuel that make up the Cash Operating Costs (COC) for an airliner.
While fuel consumption, crew costs and aircraft maintenance costs can be evaluated in a way which closely resembles reality, other costs in the COC are too complex to model in their true form.
This is the case for underway or airway fees, landing fees and station fees. Here, just about every country/airport in the world has taken the liberty to invent its own charging principles and formulas. With several hundred different formulae for these charges, the way out is to use industry-accepted approximation for these costs.
Summary:
- We establish how crew cost are modeled for our evaluation missions, taking into account the complex world of work time regulations for pilots and cabin crew.
- We also describe how we handle airframe and engine maintenance costs and how these get allocated to our missions.
- Finally, we describe how the complex underway and landing/station costs are modeled with the accepted approximations these require.
Bjorn’s Corner: USAF Tanker program
By Bjorn Fehrm
25 September 2015, ©. Leeham Co: When Scott Hamilton asked me to give my view on his article “Pontifications: Duelling refuelling tankers” I accepted. I was not involved in the project and was only following it casually over the years.
I will also not give my view on what would have been the most suitable tanker for the US Air Force. I simply don’t have the relevant military competence for that, having never operated my fighters with aerial tanking nor been in an aerial tanker aircraft.
Where I have relevant competence is in writing military specifications for important aircraft procurements and the excerpts I have seen from the tanker RFQ on key specification points don’t impress. Let me explain.
Chinese 737 Completion Center makes tactical, strategic sense
Sept. 22, 2015, © Leeham Co. The expected announcement by Boeing and Chinese President Xi during
.jpg)
President Xi of China. Photo via Google images.
his state visit to Seattle this week that Boeing will develop a Completion Center for the 737 in China is a significant event that may one day lead to an assembly line there.
Boeing’s touch labor union, the IAM 751, was predictably critical. In a post on the 751 website last week, the union said, “In a previous meeting with Renton’s 737 leadership we saw a brief presentation outlining Boeing’s perceived market conditions regarding sales of single aisle aircraft and the company’s desire to collaborate with China. We have asked the Company for details of what is intended with “collaboration” and have not received ANY information on “collaboration” or confirming or disputing the media reports. While we don’t know specifics of any such proposal, ANY shift of aerospace jobs from our bargaining unit or Washington State causes grave concern.”
Pontifications: Dueling refueling tankers
By Scott Hamilton
Sept. 21, 2015, © Leeham Co.: This Friday, Sept. 25, is the date that at long last, Boeing and the US Air Force expect the first flight of the KC-46A that is equipped with the fueling system.
A “bare” KC-46A made its first flight last December. Then it spent the next six months or so on the ground. First flight of the second KC-46A, the one with the fueling system, has been delayed several times. All the program margin is gone and it’s going to be a challenge for Boeing to stay on schedule to deliver 18 combat-ready KC-46As to the USAF by 2017–two short years away. To try and stay on schedule, Boeing started production of the the airplane concurrent with the flight test aircraft, a risky proposition that could result in major rework or other difficulties if Murphy’s Law comes into play.
The KC-46A is the successor to the KC-767 International tanker program, which was an industrial disaster. Only eight airplanes were produced, four for Italy and four
Boeing KC-46A makes its first flight Sept. 25, 2015. Photo via Google images.
for Japan. It ran years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. There were flutter and design issues. These problems became part of the risk assessment by the USAF in the KC-X competition evaluation between Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS–and one of the reasons why the Air Force selected the Northrop KC-330 offering (later named the KC-30).
Boeing successfully challenged the contract award and won the next round with what became known as the KC-46A. Boeing claimed it benefited from lessons learned from the KC-767 International program.