Two news items popped up today on emerging aircraft.
MC-21 subsidy: Government subsidies for commercial aircraft development have been a sore point between the US and Europe (i.e., Boeing and Airbus) for decades. Although the US and Europe went through years of international disputes at the World Trade Organization on behalf of Boeing and Airbus, with adverse decisions now under appeal by both sides, and even though Canada and Brazil previously won cases over illegal subsidies to Embraer and Bombardier, nothing has come of the decisions–and nothing has been done about government subsidies by Japan and China to their aerospace industries. No complaints to the WTO have been filed against either country, which are members of the WTO.
This article updates some information about Russian aid to Irkut, which is developing a competitor to the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families. The MC-21 and China’s COMAC C919 are directly sized against the best-selling single-aisle airplanes. Russia is not a member of the WTO, so there is no legal basis (that we know of) to file a complaint.
Long-time readers know we disdain the entire WTO process anyway as more political than practical. The WTO has no enforcement powers and sanctions that might be authorized by the WTO against offenders don’t have to be implemented (as in the case of Canada and Brazil) or even applied against the offender’s products–another industry altogether may be sanctioned, a silly and unfair prospect.
C919 assessment: This article provides an assessment of the prospects for the COMAC C919. What’s especially interesting in this article is what we aviation geeks have known all along, and that is China uses Western technology to develop its airplanes (and trains, the article points out). Airbus and Boeing identify China as the next viable competitor in the airliner field, albeit perhaps a generation in the future. But the technology is coming from Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, the engine makers and the supply chain. They are creating their own future competitors.
While China’s industrial espionage contributes to its understanding and acquisition of Western technology, most of it comes from joint ventures between Chinese companies and the Western OEMs and suppliers.
ExIm countdown: The authorization for the US Export-Import Bank expires next month, and Boeing is pulling out all stops to get a recalcitrant Republican Party to agree to extend the life of the bank, reports The Hill, one of the specialty publications that covers the US Congress.
Killing ExIm will put Boeing at a disadvantage to Airbus, which uses and will continue to use European Credit Agencies (ECAs) to support sales of its aircraft. Boeing will have to fall back on its internal Boeing Capital Corp. or attempt to help customers find private financing if ExIm tanks.
Note: This has updated information from its distribution to our e-newsletter recipients a week ago.
Boeing is on a path to overtake Airbus in producing single-aisle aircraft by the end of this decade.
In the hotly contested single-aisle sector, which Airbus currently leads, both OEMs are essentially sold out through 2019. Few delivery slots can by found by either of the Big Two. Airbus already plans to boost production of the A320 family to 46/mo in 2016, when its new Mobile (AL) plant comes on line. It will initially produce 4/mo but has the capacity for 8/mo. It’s Tianjin, China, plant is producing at a rate of 4/mo and likewise has the capacity to go to 8/mo. The Toulouse and Hamburg plants are understood to be at capacity now, giving Airbus a total capacity of 59/mo: Hamburg can produce 25/mo and Toulouse 18/mo.
Following the Farnborough Air Show last month, media and some aerospace analysts once again began asking the question: is the order bubble done?
We retort by saying, “What order bubble?”
We have been hearing since 2008 if the order bubble was about to burst. We’ve been asked this question many, many times. The trouble in answering this question is that nobody truly defines what they mean by “order bubble” when they ask if the bubble is about to burst.
Do people mean:
Boeing discounting: Although Boeing alternately acknowledges it’s under price pressure from Airbus or it’s maintaining pricing on its aircraft, UBS aerospace analyst David Strauss concludes that discounting is increasing on the 737 and 777 but is somewhat better on the 787.
Strauss writes in an August 6 note that discounting on the 737 is around 59%. The 777 is now discounted at about 54% and the 787 trails at 46%. (He doesn’t bother with the 747-8.) These are for in-production models.
Strauss concludes that 737 discounting increased since the introduction of the MAX in 2011.
Current list pricing for the 737 is $78.3m for the -700, 93.3m for the -800 and $99m for the -900. The MAX list prices are $87.7m, $106.9m and $113.3m.
The list prices for the 777 are $269.5m for the -200ER, $305m for the -200LR, $330m for the -300ER and $309.7m for the -200LRF. The -8X comes in at $360.5m and the -9X at $388.7m.
The 787-8 lists for $218.3m, the -9 for $257.1m and the -10 for $297.5m.
We are hearing, however, of special cases in which the 787-9 runs for $135m or significantly less and the 787-8 for as low as $115m. We also hear of the 777-300ER being offered for as little as $128m in special circumstances. The calculated discounts UBS mentions for 737 fall within the pricing range that we hear in the market. Strauss writes that some discounts to list reached 65%, also within the range of what we have heard.
The discounting becomes increasingly important because Airbus says it can price the A330ceo and neo sharply below the 787, up to 25% less. Boeing has far less flexibility to discount the 787 than with the 737NG and 777 Classic. The former still isn’t making money while the latter have amortized production lines–just as the A330ceo line is fully paid for. Airbus has offered the A330ceo at steeper discounts to list than Boeing offers the 787, and the forthcoming neo will also see steeper discounts than the 787–unless Boeing becomes more aggressive in that pricing, which will only increase the time to profitability.
A380 analysis: Here is a good, detailed analysis about the Airbus A380 and its position in the marketplace.
A320neo LEAP: CFM’s LEAP-1A, for the Airbus A320neo, has entered production. Aviation Week has this article with the details.
There are overlooked possibilities for the Airbus A330-800 and A330-900 New Engine Options.
What, you may ask, are these?
The A330neo might give new life to the poor-selling A330-200F program and, perhaps more importantly better position Airbus to compete for the next round of the USAF Air Force Tanker competition, the KC-Y program.
The announcement last week that Hawaiian Airlines swapped its order for six Airbus A350-800s for the A330-800neo isn’t a particular surprise, although we thought HA might issue an RFP and open the competition for Boeing.
That it did not may speak as much as to lack of the Boeing 787’s availability as anything else. But Airbus had some advantages going into a replacement for the A358: HA already operates a fleet of A330-200(ceos), so there is commonality between the neo and the ceo, minimal integration costs and the likelihood of additional Airbus incentives to keep HA in the Airbus family.