Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Special ‘task force’ studied lithium-ion batteries long before JAL 787 incident
A special task force was studying issues relating to the use of lithium-ion batteries in airliners long before the January 2013 Japan Air Lines fire. The effort began in 2008 and it met in December 2012, one month before the JAL fire.
Boeing, the FAA, Embraer, Airbus, GS Yuasa, American Airlines and ALPA are just a few who participated in these meetings, according to documents.
Randy Tinseth, VP Marketing for Boeing, referred to the group when he discussed the FAA approval to proceed with the Boeing plan to fix the 787 battery issues in his blog, here.
Tinseth writes:
The certification plan calls for a series of tests that show how the improved battery system will perform in normal and abnormal conditions. The test plans were written based on the FAA’s standards as well as applicable guidelines published by the Radio Technical Commission on Aeronautics (RTCA), an advisory committee that provides recommendations on ways to meet regulatory requirements. The RTCA guidelines were not available when the original 787 battery certification plan was developed.
We asked Boeing what the document was that Tinseth referred to above: it is a document numbered DO-311. There are a number of documents at RTCA containing the reference to DO-311.
DO-311 is described by RTCA as:
Odds and Ends: Tanker-like redux; Ryanair’s 200 737s; new use for Winglet
Tanker-like Redux: As you read this story, it sounds a lot like Boeing vs EADS, right down to the build-it-in-the-USA element.
Ryanair’s 200 737s: News emerged that Ryanair will firm up an order soon for 200 Boeing 737s. This has been hanging “out there” for some time. We learned of this likelihood a couple of months ago. It was all hush-hush while Ryanair took another run at Aer Lingus.
Pan Am landmark: For those filled with nostalgia, this news is sad: the famed Pan Am Worldport faces the wrecking ball.
New Winglet use: This is pretty cool. Via Steve Trimble of Flight Global.
Odds and Ends: 777X ATO next month, says AvWeek; 787 and the FAA; A318
777X ATO: Aviation Week reports that Boeing’s Board will grant Authority to Offer the 777X at the next meeting, in April.
Emirates Airlines has previously said it will order 100 or more of the X to begin replacing its 777-300ERs. Lufthansa and Air Lease Corp are likely co-launch customers.
Update: The Wall Street Journal now has an article identifying British Airways and Japan Air Lines as possible launch customers.
787 and the FAA: The FAA is expected to green light this week going forward with Boeing’s proposed fixes for the battery issues in the 787, but this doesn’t mean the challenges are over for Boeing. Extensive lab and flight testing will be required, meaning it still will be some time before the grounding is lifted.
A318 Done: Bloomberg has a story about the Airbus A318 and its dried-up sales. It was never a good seller.
Fallout continues from 787 grounding
LOT wants $$, Norwegian Leases A340s: The fall-out gets worse over the 787 grounding. LOT Airlines says it wants compensation by the end of June. TUI is rebooking passengers on Boeing 767s and will refund a price differential for those paying a premium to fly the 787. Norwegian Air is wet-leasing Airbus A340s to fill in for the 787s it was supposed to get.
Aeroturbopower has an interesting analysis of the Norwegian lease cost of the A343 v 788, including some admittedly speculative costs to Boeing.
In other news:
- Richard Aboulafia, noted aviation consultant for The Teal Group and an occasional consultant to Boeing (last job five years ago), predicts it could be 4-9 months before the 787 is back in revenue service. This is from the start of the grounding, not additional time. The prediction is in this article by Reuters.
- Aspire Aviation analyses the Australian aviation market.
Odds and Ends: Refusing to fly 787; 787 AD was wrong; KC-46A cost analysis; Battery fix certification?
Refusing to fly 787: This is a stunning survey by the website Travel Insider: 32% of frequent fliers will refuse to fly the 787 even after it is fixed for the first year or two and another third would prefer to avoid the 787. The numbers are huge. We knew there would be some who refused to fly the plane–the same thing happened to the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 after it was grounded in 1979–but the numbers are stunning.
We also recognize that we’re still at the height of the press coverage of the still-grounded aircraft. Once it returns to service, it will be interesting to see results if the survey were re-run.
There was no doubt Boeing received a black eye over the grounding. It now appears both eyes are blackened.
FAA 787 AD was wrong: The FAA should have pulled the 787 type certificate, argues a former member of the National Transportation Board.
KC-46A Costs: The Blog by Javier (Irastorza Mediavilla) has a detailed analysis of the contract price performance so far of the Boeing KC-46A. although the blog is mostly about his personal activities, Javier works for Airbus Military on the A400M program. (Note: he does not speak for nor represent Airbus through his blog). This might make some of his aerospace analysis suspect in the minds of some, but we have found his commentaries and analysis to be well researched and thought out. And he has a good sense of humor.
FAA reliance on OEMs: Reuters has a detailed piece about the Federal Aviation Administration’s reliance on OEMs (and specifically Boeing) in aircraft development, all triggered of course by the 787 issues. We wrote about this relationship shortly after the now-infamous joint press conference by the FAA and Boeing in which the FAA, Boeing and the Department of Transportation said the 787 was safe.
Re-certifying the battery fix: We keep getting told whatever Boeing does to fix the battery issue will require re-certification of the battery and/or system–that it will be more than simply complying with the Airworthiness Directive. This, of course, would add time to getting the 787 back into revenue service. Does anyone have some insight on this?
“Of all time:” Airbus Tweeted last Friday (referring to its website): The A320 (soon to be made in Mobile) is undisputed best selling aircraft product line of all time.” (Emphasis added.)
We don’t think so. “Of all time”? “Aircraft product line”? 737 All Series 10,501. A320 family: 9,142. DC-3/C-47/Others under license: 16,079.
We know what Airbus was trying to say: It’s A320 family vs the equivalent technology Boeing 737NG and 737 MAX, for which through January sold 7,369. But the claim, as worded, just isn’t so.
Furthermore, the A320 first entered service in 1988 and the 737NG in 1994. A true comparison needs to knock six years of sales off the A320.
To quote the controversy of a recent Washington (DC) tempest in a teapot, “[We] know [Airbus] may not believe this, but as a friend, [we] think [Airbus] will regret staking out that claim.”
US Airways’ 757 problem
Notation: Lan Chile has canceled Boeing 787 flights through June.
US Airways has a large fleet of aging Boeing 757s it needs to replace. The problem is, a carrier official says, neither the Airbus A321neo nor the Boeing 737-9 MAX can do what needs to be done: Phoenix-Hawaii non-stop in both directions with maximum payload under all conditions.
The distance is 2,910 miles, well within the advertised range of 4,200 miles for the A321neo and 4,137 for the 9 MAX. But Derek Kerr, executive vice president and chief financial officer says fleet planners have yet to be convinced either plane can replace the 757W, which is uniquely able to handle the hot, summer conditions at Phoenix, where temperatures often soar to 110F degrees or more.
US Airways is one of only two legacy airlines in the US that has yet to order the MAX or the NEO (Delta Air Lines is the other). A year ago, US Airways CEO Doug Parker told us that the value proposition of ordering the neo still was unconvincing given the price premium sought by Airbus. Kerr told us last week that the large, outstanding order for the current generation A320 family as replacements for the oldest jets–and the lack of a true replacement for the 757–meant the airline wasn’t in a hurry to place an order for re-engined aircraft.
Odds and Ends: A350 production boost; 787 ‘Super Box’ and political influence; Boeing’s JAL monopoly
A350 production boost: Airbus wants to boost production of the A350.
787 ‘Super Box‘: In the harshest assessment we’ve seen so far of the Boeing 787 situation, BB&T Capital Markets analyst Carter Leake characterizes the proposed containment box for the lithium ion battery as a “super box” and Boeing’s entire proposed solution as a Rube Goldberg approach.
Leake writes:
We view Boeing’s “Super Box” proposal as a reverse Rube Goldberg contraption that attempts to solve a very complex problem with an overly simple solution. We believe there is no doubt that Boeing’s proposal is the fastest way to get the 787 flying again, but if the NTSB plays the safety card in its upcoming interim report (which we think they will), the Super Box strategy will be a hard sell for weak-kneed politicians who will care less about the arcane rules of aircraft certification, and more about the open-ended political exposure of supporting a rush job. Worse, we believe the very powerful, but instantly credible, pilot unions will soon weigh in against any solution that contemplates a “contained fire” of any kind. This issue has unfortunately become very political, and we believe the 787 crisis is far from being resolved.
Boeing doubled down on its Lithium Ion battery system by proposing modifications that purportedly address the risk of thermal runaway and the more critical issue of smoke and fire containment. Using a “Super Box” concept (our term), Boeing hopes to divert attention from how the previous system performed—or did not— and instead focus on a fortress approach that can deal with worst-case battery fires, regardless of their cause. Congressional sources cited in media reports state that Boeing is adamant that this is a permanent fix and no alternative solution is being pursued. Given the original battery system is being modified, even if for the better, some degree of re-certification will be required.
Kudos to Boeing engineers for constructing this kludge in short order, but we view the Super Box as a reverse Rube Goldberg contraption that attempts to solve a very complex problem with an overly simple solution. We believe there is no doubt that Boeing’s proposal is the fastest way to get the 787 flying again, but if the NTSB plays the safety card in its upcoming interim report (which we think they will), the Super Box strategy will be a hard sell for weak-kneed politicians who will care less about the arcane rules of aircraft certification, and more about the open-ended political exposure of supporting a rush job. Worse, we believe the very powerful, but instantly credible, pilot unions will soon weigh in against any solution that contemplates a “contained fire” of any kind.
All we can say is, “wow.”
Sole sourcing not preferable, says JAL: The grounding of the 787 may provide an opportunity for Airbus in Japan, where it has had decades of poor sales, if this article is any indicator.