Taking airplanes in on trade: Much is being made of Boeing taking five Airbus A340-600s in on trade to secure an order for 20 777-300ERs from China Eastern. While trade-ins are not common, neither are they unknown. Boeing has done this before, including what was then a particularly controversial deal: taking brand-new A340s off the hands of Singapore Airlines even before they had been delivered as part of a 777 deal. Those A340-300s went straight to Boeing from Airbus, much to the consternation of John Leahy at the time.
The OEMs don’t like to take airplanes in on trade; after all, they are in the business of selling new airplanes, not used ones, but Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier all have active used airplane units to remarket aircraft they have in their own portfolios–usually originating from their customer financing.
Bombardier wins Q400 deal: WestJet of Canada will order 20 Q400s and option 25 more in what was a hotly contested deal between ATR and Bombardier. Although many believe this was a slam-dunk for Bombardier, the competition was intense; WestJet sent the parties back to re-price the deal late in the game.
This order gives BBD 28 firm and 45 options for the Q400 so far this year, compared with a mere seven in 2011.
The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming! Boeing imports Russian engineers to work in the Seattle area, much to the consternation of SPEAA, Boeing’s engineer’s union. Now the practice has caught the attention of a US Senator.
Outsourcing is a sore point for Boeing’s unions. While Boeing says it does so to reduce costs and to offset work in exchange for sales, there is a larger issue: the US simply doesn’t produce enough engineers to meet demand, and 50% of Boeing’s engineers reach retirement age in the next five years or so. We don’t like Boeing using Russian or Chinese help to produce airplanes–after all, these two countries are developing competitors to Boeing aircraft and it strikes us as pretty silly to help your competitor (why not hire French or German engineers, for Pete’s sake?). But the USA’s failure to place a high priority on developing engineers is a national disgrace and Boeing has to find the help where it can get it.
Posted on May 1, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Airbus, ATR, Boeing, Bombardier
777, A340, Airbus, ATR, ATR-72, Boeing, Bombardier, China Eastern, Q400, Russia, Singapore Airlines
Boeing has, at long last, revealed some details about the 737 MAX, most of which have long been talked about in various media. Boeing is further testing new wingtip designs–with or without winglets? And while readers cite this articlein our previous post linking AirInsight about winglets in an effort to discredit the conclusions, the last paragraph is noteworthy:
For the forward-fit market, LaMoria sees a “very healthy” business for Boeing 737s for the “next 5-6 years”, but there is no guarantee the company will select APB blended winglets for the GE Leap-1B-powered 737 Max, set for entry into service 2017. “We have a lot of long-lead future-oriented plans in place in hopes of working with Boeing for many years to come,” says LaMoria. “But Max is still an open question.”
Separately, see this Aeroturbopower article.
Posted on April 11, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
ExIm Bank: The fight between Delta Air Lines and the ExIm Bank continues.
As readers know, Delta is behind the move to block ExIm Bank financings of wide-body airplanes to international customers. We’ve a link to a Wall Street Journal article that gives another take on the controversy, so we won’t repeat the details here (which we’ve written about on several occasions).
Then last week, ExIm approved a guarantee with the Brazilian airline GOL for CFM 56 engines on Boeing 737NGs, with a proviso that GOL send the engines to Delta TechOps (a subsidiary of DAL) for maintenance. This caused quite the kerfuffle, as noted in the Politico article (also linked below).
Finally (actually not, but it is for today’s post), there is an editorial in the Washington Post that Delta really likes and sent on to us. That link is also below.
Readers know that we think the effort to block the ExIm Bank is stupid. Delta takes pains to say it is not against the Bank, only against funding international wide-body sales that compete with US international air carriers (and most specifically, Delta).
We understand Delta’s position but largely disagree with it. Delta does have a point when healthy carriers like Emirates Airlines use below-market rate ExIm funding. But Delta is off the mark when it comes to objecting to the concept that ExIm supports funding to foreign companies that are financially unable to commercial lending without the government guarantee. This is precisely why ExIm was created in 1934–to boost US sales to these companies.
Nearly $12bn in Boeing airplane sales (most equipped with GE Engines) were backed by ExIm guarantees last year and it will probably be a similar number this year. It’s anybody’s guess how many of these sales would not have happened had ExIm not stepped up.
We fully concur that it makes little sense for carriers like Emirates to qualify for ExIm. And international parties agreed last year to set market rates for ExIm services (replacing below-market rates), beginning January 2013. Delta remains skeptical that this solves the problem and that it will take years to see the results. It’s correct on the latter point and cynical on the former.
Posted on April 10, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Boeing 777X: The 777-8X, said to be a replacement for the 777-200, is really sized closer to the 777-300 and the 777-9X is a new class of airplane. See this story for details.
A330neo: It’s a story that won’t die: talk of re-engining the A330. But does it make sense? AirInsight completed a short report in which economics of the A330, the A330neo, the A350, the 787 and the 777 are evaluated. The results indicate that while the A330neo will have a major gain in fuel performance, and in fact will be almost equal to the 787-8 with substantially more seats for revenue opportunities, it still falls short of the 787-9 and the A350.
The A330neo, suggested by AirAsia, would mimic the minimum-change A320neo and thus be different in scope than the original A350 proposal, which was a re-engined, new-wing, new system version of the A330 (much as the 777X will be compared with the 777). Airbus says it’s not interested in the A330neo “for now” but consultant Michel Merluzeau predicted at a conference organized by the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance that Airbus will eventually proceed with the airplane.
But are the gains good enough to make sense to proceed with the project? The report is offered for sale for a modest $99.
WTO, Airbus and Boeing: It’s another story that won’t die (and do we wish it would): The US vs the EU on the illegal subsidies to Airbus. The US has stepped up its pressure to have the EU decide that the assertions by the EU that it has complied with the WTO findings are inadequate. The US wants to impose $7bn-$10bn in sanctions annually. The EU says the US is full of it.
MAX v NEO: Guy Norris at Aviation Week did his own analysis of the fluff Airbus and Boeing put out about the MAX and NEO fuel efficiency. Just goes to show you can’t believe either party. That’s why we like to rely on the analysis of the customer. Lufthansa has analyzed the MAX and NEO and told us last year (and again at ISTAT last month) it concludes there is only a two percent difference (in Boeing’s favor) between MAX and NEO, which LH said both times simply retains today’s status quo between the two OEMs. (This also throws cold water on Boeing’s claim that the NG is 8% more efficient than today’s A320.)
The final panel at the ISTAT meeting is the much-anticipated lessors’ panel consisting of:
Jeff Knittle, president of CIT Aerospace, moderator;
Henri Courpron, Chairman of ILFC;
Ray Sisson, CEO of AWAS;
Norman Liu, CEO of GECAS; and
Steve Udvar-Hazy, CEO of Air Lease Corp.
Paraphrasing:
Posted on March 20, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
787 Ramp-Up: UBS Securities issued a research note Monday in which it reports that the 787 rate ramp-up to 10 per month–a goal Boeing’s to be by the end of 2013–has slipped to the first quarter of 2014.
ISTAT: We’re at the annual ISTAT AGM in Phoenix and we’ll be reporting throughout the event odds and ends (adding to this post initially, separate posts later on). So come back often.
From ISTAT:
From Twitter, via Phil LeBeau of CNBC: @Boeing says it has NOT changed its goal of building 10 Dreamliners per month by end of 2013.
Back to ISTAT:
Side trip to Ex-Im:
Take a read of this column on the Ex-Im Bank financing controversy.
Back to ISTAT:
Boeing….
Posted on March 19, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
The CEO of Republic Airways Holdings seems to be vying to be America’s version of U-Turn Al, Akbar Al-Baker, the CEO of Qatar Airways.
Bedford appears to be engaged in a campaign to raise questions about the Bombardier CSeries, for which he has orders and options for 80 CS300s, much the same way U-Turn Al alternatively praises then complains about the Airbus A350, Boeing 747-8F (ordered by Cargolux, in which Qatar owns a third) and the Boeing 787. U-Turn Al has also alternative praised, condemned then praised the Airbus A320neo, Bombardier CSeries and the Pratt & Whitney GTF.
Keeping up with U-Turn Al’s about-faces has been a dizzying prospect.
Bedford praised the CSeries when ordering it but has become increasingly skeptical of the program once he ordered the A319neo (with CFM LEAP engines) in what was a financial bailout of his ailing company being dragged down by Frontier Airlines. The Airbus order raised questions whether Bedford would cancel the CSeries since the A319neo competes with the CS300. Bedford initially said the order would stand. More recently, he appears to be doing everything to cast a shadow over the program.
Posted on March 15, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, CFM, CSeries, Embraer, Pratt & Whitney
737-700, 747-8F, 787, A319, A319neo, A320NEO, A350, Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Bryan Bedford, Cargolux, CFM, CSeries, E-190, E-195, Embraer, GTF, LEAP, Pratt & Whitney, Qatar Airways, Republic Airways, U-Turn Al
As long-time readers of this column know, we have utter disdain for the World Trade Organization and its review of international competitive practices, such as the cases of Airbus and Boeing subsidies.
Here is another example of why we have disdain. As noted in this example, the WTO found China to be in violation of WTO rules on raw materials export rules but China did not remove the restrictions.
We’ve previously noted that the WTO found Brazil and Canada to be in violation of export support for Embraer and Bombardier airplanes–and nothing happened.
We’ve previously noted that the WTO has no power to enforce its own decisions and that the trade rules allow the winning country to impose tariffs on industries not involved in the original dispute. Thus, with respect to the Airbus and Boeing cases, the US could impose tariffs on French wine and the European Union could impose tariffs on Washington State wine or apples–or any other industries.
We find this completely ridiculous.
While the US has asked the WTO authority to impose tariffs with respect to the Airbus case, we would be shocked if it followed through (assuming, of course, the WTO authorized action) and tax Airbus imports into the US. The EU would retaliate by placing tariffs on Boeing. Nobody would win.
Posted on March 13, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
The report is now public and to no surprise, Airbus and Boeing (and the surrogates, the EU and US Trade Representatives) each claim victory.
This excerpt from a Bloomberg report neatly paints the picture.
World Trade Organization appellate judges sided with the U.S. over illegal government subsidies to Boeing Co., the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office said. Airbus SAS called the ruling a “sweeping loss” for Boeing.
AirInsight published the press releases of Airbus and Boeing.
The news services on the Internet haven’t yet posted a full range of reports (as of 0910PDT Monday). We’re not going to bother posting the statements of the warring parties, reflecting our disdain of the entire process in the first place. Readers may search Google News, Yahoo News, et al. and comment–but a reminder to be mindful of our Comment Rules.
Posted on March 12, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Word is leaking out in advance of Monday’s public release of the appeal of a WTO finding that Boeing benefited from illegal subsidies that the appeals panel upheld the findings.
Additional reports: Here and here.
Boeing has previously said on several occasions that if the WTO found it received illegal subsidies, it would write a check. We’ll see what spin occurs next week on this point.
The European Union claims Airbus has now conformed with the WTO findings against it, a claim rejected by the US Trade Representative and Boeing.
Posted on March 10, 2012 by Scott Hamilton