Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Odds and Ends: Airbus’ frustration over A350 fallout–blame yourself; DC-10 grounding retrospective
Airbus’ frustration: Airbus says it has a Plan B for its lithium ion battery design and the CEO says he’s frustrated over the attention the A350 is getting as a result of the Boeing 787 issues.
Airbus has only itself to blame for any frustration: it’s stonewalling all questions about the design and fire protections of its lithium-ion batteries. The absence of answers from Airbus leads to the conclusions that it doesn’t have fire suppression as it’s commonly thought of.
Boeing remarked after the JAL fire that thermal runaway can’t be suppressed with in-flight fire fighting techniques. The presentation we detailed from Airbus makes it clear Airbus has the same conclusion. Although Halon can be used to suppress small fires, a thermal runaway can only be suppressed by water, and plenty of it. It took firefighters more than an hour to put out the blaze on the JAL airplane, according to the NTSB timeline.
The Airbus slides suggest there is Halon designed into the A350 and we are told the design has venting that the Boeing design does not. But Airbus won’t say what its design is. Does it take the containment approach The Seattle Times wrote about in connection with Cessna? Airbus won’t say. But we know from a well-placed source that venting overboard is part of the Airbus design.
See KING 5’s report below-Boeing is working on its own Plan B.
“We have a robust design,” Reuters quotes Airbus CEO Fabrice Bregier. “I’m not going to give any lessons to Boeing. At the same time, I don’t have to take any either, when I think we have done well and have a plan which allows me to have aircraft flying with batteries that don’t catch fire,” he said, according to Reuters.
We find this second statement to be a load of crap. Where safety begins, rivalry should end. For the good of the industry, Airbus ought to share its thoughts with Boeing. The rivalry perpetrated between the two companies is often childish (both sides are guilty of this) and unworthy of two world-class companies. We find the statement above to be appalling.
Airbus has told us its battery-from a different supplier than that of Boeing’s-meets FAA standards, something that weren’t in place when Boeing selected the lithium-ion batteries in 2007. The FAA issued Special Conditions for Boeing’s use of the new technology batteries.
Aviation writer Christine Negroni has a post that expresses a great deal of frustration with Boeing’s corporate attitude toward the lithium ion issue. Frustration seems to be catching. But Airbus has the opportunity here to take the high road for safety and share its approach with Boeing–and to assure the aviation world publicly that its airplane will be safe.
Bregier says his design is safe and there’s a Plan B if regulators say more is needed. Tell us what is safe about the design and tell us what Plan B is.
Meanwhile, KING 5 (NBC-Seattle) has further information on Boeing’s Plan B, which is to build a containment box around the battery (similar to the Cessna approach).
DC-10 Grounding: The last time the FAA grounded a commercial airliner was in 1979, when American Airlines lost a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 at Chicago O’Hare International Airport. Aviation Week linked its report at the time and we link this article here.
Space Shuttle: The Seattle Times has a story about the space shuttle Columbia, which broke apart 10 years ago. It’s interesting reading.
Airbus examines lithium battery safety, fire suppression
Note: The NTSB Sunday said it still doesn’t know what caused the lithium ion battery to catch fire on the JAL Boeing 787.
Japan has shifted focus to a monitoring system, not the battery. The battery charger has been cleared by the NTSB.
Japan eased safety standards ahead of service, according to a news report.
********************************************************************
Airbus officials are trying to keep a low profile during the focus on Boeing’s 787 lithium ion battery problems, but since the A350 XWB will also have this battery type, Airbus gets pulled into the story whether it wants to or not.
Airbus officials are concerned whatever the US Federal Aviation Administration decides is ultimately necessary for Boeing to fix the lithium ion problems and restore the 787 to service, it might have a knock-on effect to certifying the A350.
There are several issues: fire prevention; fire suppression; battery safety; risks and so on.
Although Airbus responded to some questions at its annual press conference, and has selectively talked about the Boeing situation since, it’s declined useful comment on some specific questions, notably about fire suppression.
Odds and Ends: NTSB on 787 Certification; SPEEA countdown
NTSB on 787 Certification: There were a number of small but important news items to come out of the press briefing Thursday from the National Transportation Safety Board were several references to examining the certification involving the batteries of the Boeing 787.
The Federal Aviation Administration previously announced a full 787 program review about the design, production and systems.We’ve already opined about whether the FAA, Boeing and the suppliers can objectively review their own work.
Congress has already said it will hold hearings, a move for which we hold general disdain.
In our coverage yesterday, we had this paraphrased statement by the NTSB chairman:
We are looking at certification standards, whether they were adhered to and whether they were appropriate. What we have seen in these two events do not comport with any design to protect against the battery events. Those systems did not work as intended. We need to understand why.
But we welcome the NTSB certification review. The independent NTSB, staffed by professional investigators, is far more able to assess the work of the FAA and Boeing than is Congress.
There have been many articles that suggest the entire 787 process was a “rush.” Certainly the original time frame–four years from launch to supposed EIS–was unrealistic. But with nearly four years of delays, we’d be hard-pressed to say the program was “rushed.”
There are those who say Boeing believes the grounding was unwarranted. Gordon Bethune, a former Boeing executive and former CEO of Continental Airlines, was blunt in his view that the FAA over-reacted.
We disagree.
NTSB briefing on 787 today
The National Transportation Board will have a briefing today at 2:30 ET. In advance of the briefing, NTSB issued this terse statement:
The following factual information has been developed about the battery: It consists of eight cells of 3.7 volts each. All eight cells had varying degrees of thermal damage. Six of eight cells have been CT scanned and have been disassembled to expose their electrodes. All electrode windings in the battery are in the process of being photo-documented and are undergoing microscopic examination. In the coming days, the remaining two cells will undergo the same examination. Additional information will be provided tomorrow.
Meanwhile, The Seattle Times has this story about the battery system.
The Wall Street Journal has this story about Boeing’s innovation for the 787.
Reflections of a whirl-wind week in the news cycle
This is one of those moments where jet-lag induced sleep patterns give us a moment to catch our breath.
What a week it’s been in the news cycle. We came to Europe on routine business and from the moment we stepped off the plane in Amsterdam for a connecting flight, our Blackberry was filled with emails about the ANA 787 incident. Less than 24 hours later, the 787s were grounded, the SPEEA contract negotiations were reaching a climax and Airbus was holding its annual review press conference.
And our trip is only half over.
787 Updates
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article focusing on the battery approval by the FAA and its reliance on Boeing in granting approval. Subscription is required. The article speaks to the very point we made in our previous post about the FAA’s reliance on OEMs and suppliers generally and for the 787 specifically. Unaddressed in The Journal article is our point about the FAA review of the entire 787 program and the continued reliance on Boeing and suppliers for research. This remains an unanswered question.
The Seattle Times has this article that reports some of the same ground as The Journal, outlining Boeing’s fevered effort to get the airplanes in the air soon. The Times reports the grounding extends even to the 787s awaiting test flights in advance of deliveries.
The International Herald Tribune has this story about the lithium battery and this detailed story about the grounding, including discussion of the fire control of the 787 electronics bay. Finally, IHT has this technical discussion of lithium ion batteries.
Our own inquiry suggests Boeing hopes to have the airplanes airborne within days.There is a definitive proposal before the FAA.
Boeing designed triple and quadruple redundancy to prevent conditions that would cause a fire or leakage, we are told. The systems themselves are believed to have not failed, but the investigation is incomplete. This suggests that the fault may well be with the batteries themselves, as The Seattle Times and Bloomberg News have now reported. It remains unclear if there are simply defective battery issues or if there is a systemic battery production issue or there are other issues.
Reuters has this story with quotes from the battery maker. Noteworthy is the company response that the battery is but part of a system. The person says the probe involves the entire system, not just the battery. The article also has the cost per day to ANA for the grounding.
At Airbus, the mood was stoic. Sensitive to perceptions over the intense, often bitter rivalry with Boeing and the knowledge that what happens to Boeing could in similar form happen to Airbus (see A380 problems), nobody at Airbus was anything but empathetic. CEO Fabrice Breigier expressed sincere hope for Boeing’s plight and efforts to return the 787 to service, and this reflected universal sentiment.
Reporters naturally asked about the use of lithium batteries on the A350 and reaction to their use on the 787.
Airbus officials, without any hint of criticism over Boeing’s choice of an all-electric airplane, simply explained the differing philosophies that led to Airbus’ conclusion to retain more tradition methods of powering the A350: hydraulics and pneumatics. The benefits of all-electric didn’t offset the risks and costs enough to go this route, officials said. The result is that the A350 actually draws less power from batteries than the A330 because of design efficiencies, they said. Further, the Auxiliary Power Unit on the A350 is started by two batteries splitting the load versus one battery on the 787 carrying all the load.
SPEEA-Boeing
See our post on this topic. Not a lot more to add.
The Everett Herald has this story.
Airbus annual press conference
Setting aside the drama of the 787, this was pretty routine stuff. Airbus trailed Boeing last year in deliveries and orders, as expected, but it still bested its own forecast for orders by 50%. Had 2011 not been boosted by the plethora of A320neo orders, booking 900 gross orders last year would have been viewed favorably by anyone. But the year-over-year comparison showed a 43% decline and the ever-eubillent John Leahy was driven crazy by media headlines pointing out this YOY decline. In an after-conference press gaggle, he ribbed Reuters’ Tim Hepher in a good natured manner over the Reuters focus on YOY stats, but his frustration was evident for all to see.
Boeing’s 2012 orders were boosted by its comeback with the 737 MAX. Now that the surge of orders for both companies is over, it will be interesting to see how a normalized year shapes up. Airbus has a sales goal of 700. Boeing will likely be asked about its sales goal during the year-end earnings call at the end of this month.
Totally off topic
The new American Airlines logo is creative. The tail treatment sucks. Maybe US Airway will fix that. Leave it to AA management to screw up the rebrand.
In the What-is-he-thinking category, Lance Armstrong shudda kept his mouth shut.
Airbus annual press conference: Passed 12,000 orders since inception, more than 9,000 single-aisle
We’re at the Airbus Annual Press Conference for the 2012 results, the first of several stops on our Europe trip. Participants are:
Fabrice Breigier, CEO (FB)
Gunter Butschek, COO (GB)
John Leahy, COO-Customers (JL)
Tom Williams, EVP Programs (TW)
Domingo Urena-Raso, Head of Airbus Military (DUR)
FB:
- We have passed 12,000 orders, including 9,000 single-aisle. 17 new customers in 2012, of 89 served last year.
- 739 A320 family orders in 2012. 58 A330s, 27 A350, 9 A380.
- North America now 10% of backlog, Europe 14%, Middle East 9%, Asia-Pacific 35%, Africa 2%, Latin America 8%, lessors 20%.
- 305 A320 CEOs orders in 2012. 687 since neo launch.
- A320 sharklets above expectations at 4% vs 3.5% advertised.
- A330 can do 95% of all 787 missions. Sold 800 since 787 launch.
- A380 wing issue now behind us. New wing progressively incorporated in 2014. 97 aircraft in operation.
- A350 program remains very challenging, focused on next big challenge is first flight.
- Airbus Military: 32 orders (28 C295, 4 CN235).
- A330 MRTT delivered to Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK; selected by India, France. Won every major procurement outside US since USAF selection.
- First A400M delivery 2Q2013, will deliver four this year. 13 A400s in production.
- Focus on speed, agility, flexibility, innovation. Our future depends on capacity to be innovative.
It’s official: Boeing regains lead as No. 1 aircraft producer, sales king, but victory overshadowed by 787 crisis
On a day when Boeing would normally be celebrating its return as the world’s number one aircraft producer and retaking the order crown, the 787 crisis over shadow’s the Airbus 2012 Results review in which the European OEM concedes the lead for the first time in a decade.
Airbus today (European time) announced it delivered a record 588 aircraft to 89 customers in a single year, and took in 914 gross orders (833 net), achieving a 41% market share on the order contest. Boeing delivered slightly more than 600 aircraft last year and received just over 1,200 orders, driven by the 737 MAX.
Going into 2012, Airbus COO-Customers John Leahy conceded the turn-about. But he noted then that for 2011-2012 Airbus would likely retain the lead, and today he revealed that it did, reporting a two-year market share of 53%.
The A320neo retains a lop-sided market share of 62% at the end of 2012. Boeing edges Airbus in A320ceo v 737NG backlog with 51.5%. Other categories:
Odds and Ends: Split winglets for 737NG Retro; A380 wing fix
Split winglets for 737 Retro: Boeing bypassed Aviation Partners Boeing for its split winglet on the 737 MAX, but APB just launched its own order with United Airlines to retrofit the 737NG.
A380 Wing Fix: While Boeing is getting beat up for every glitch in the 787 A380, let’s remember the Airbus A380 went through its own set of glitches. One of them, cracks in wing rib braces, while not a safety issue was nonetheless high profile. The fix is about to be certified by EASA.
A380 has, A350 will have lithium-ion batteries
Focus on the Boeing 787’s mishap last Monday comes, naturally, on the fire involving the lithium-ion battery. The battery, or Li-ion for short, is considered hazardous in many applications and in air cargo shipping.
Two Boeing 747-400 cargo planes were carrying a large shipment of Li-ions. One for sure–UPS in Doha–crashed after these batteries caught fire. Another, a Korean Air Cargo flight, was carrying a large shipment. The airplane crashed into the ocean and if the cause was traced to these, we haven’t seen it–but the suspicious arose early.
While the 787’s use of Li-ion has attracted headlines, the use in airplane applications is more common than has been recognized.
The Airbus A380 uses lithium batteries to power its emergency lighting system. The US FAA set special conditions when certifying the aircraft. Airbus says “the batteries are small, limited, and are not in a frequently-active charging/discharging function.”
The Airbus A350 will have Lit-ion batteries. Airbus touts this plan on its A350XWB website:
Airbus also has looked at new ways to generate electricity aboard the aircraft itself. The A350 XWB features a new lithium-ion battery that marks a significant improvement on the Cd-Ni unit used in other models.
The battery contains less hazardous material, which makes it safer to handle. Adding to the benefits, it has a higher power and energy density, and low maintenance requirements, all while lasting up to three times longer than the Cd-Ni.
Aviation International News looked at issues surrounding Lit-Ion batteries last October. Acting upon the recommendation of Cessna, the FAA ordered removal of Lit-ion batteries from the CJ4 corporate jet. A couple of other corporate jets have these batteries.
AIN had this story about stricter rules transporting Li-ion batteries, in which the hazards are discussed.
One of our regular readers and commenters notes that “the A350 architecture… has four 28v Li-ion batteries, meaning there are 28 Li-ion cells on-board…, compared with only 14 on the 787…. Clearly a huge cause for concern… unless Airbus designs the A350 to properly manage this known failure mode, which I am sure they have done.”
The famed Airbus “5th Quarter”–huge LionAir buy reported
We talked about this a month of more ago: the prospect LionAir would order 100 Airbus A320 family aircraft. Today (or was it yesterday, in Asia?) comes this report that LionAir signed an order in December for as many as 220 A320neos (with PW GTF engines, we understand).
Through November Airbus recorded a net of 585 orders, compared with Boeing’s year-end total of 1,200. Reuters believes Airbus will end 2012 with around 900 orders.
LionAir has been exclusively a Boeing customer.
Update, Jan. 10: Avolon (a lessor) announced today it signed an order for 20 additional A320s in December.