Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Odds and Ends: Airbus wants to advance NEO EIS by six months; name that tanker
1. Airbus wants to advance NEO EIS six months
Airbus wants to advance the entry-into-service of the A320neo by six months, to October 2015, we have learned. Airbus plans to introduce the neo in six month increments (A320neo followed by A321neo followed by A319neo). Airbus has more than 300 orders and commitments for the 320/321 and none for the 319. With Boeing increasingly talking about a new airplane in 2019, any advance Airbus can get for EIS on the neo will be beneficial.
Pratt & Whitney can probably meet this requirement. It will have versions of the GTF in service with Bombardier in 2013 and with Mitsubishi in 2014. Testing on the Irkut MS-21, a competitor to the A320/321, is to begin in 2014 with an EIS planned for 2016 (though we believe the MS-21 will likely be later than 2016).
Whether CFM can have the LEAP-X ready for a NEO 2015 EIS is unknown. CFM has yet to be selected for a NEO order (this is only a matter of time, though). The LEAP-X is in development for the COMAC C919, also a competitor to the 320/321. Flight testing is planned for 2014 and EIS for 2016 but we think the C919 will run years late, just as did the ARJ-21. Can CFM shave six months off its flight testing to meet an advanced NEO EIS when it is disadvantaged to PW’s CSeries and MRJ operating experience? We don’t know.
Over at Boeing, Aspire Aviation has this think-piece about the “737X.”
2. Airbus ponders slight larger A350-1000
The A350-1000 is aimed directly at the Boeing 777-300ER, but it is slightly smaller at 350 passengers vs 365 in typical three-class. Boeing, and others, question whether Rolls-Royce’s Trent XWB engine is big enough for the -1000 (Airbus, not surprisingly, said that it is). But we learned that Airbus is considering a 380 passenger -1000 and 50 miles more range to make it sure to do Dubai-Los Angeles non-stop. For this, the Trent XWB needs 5,000 lbs more thrust, and Rolls has been asked to figure this out.
In our view, this is the airplane Airbus needs to take on the -300ER.
Rolls-Royce, PW may be feuding but extend IAE to 2045
The feud between Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney over patent infringements is nasty and in court, and the Rolls-Royce view that it doesn’t think much of the PW Geared Turbo Fan technology is well known, but speculation that this would lead to the dissolution of International Aero Engines in which both are partners can now be put to rest.
What next for EADS, Airbus in US?
With plans to assemble the KC-45 in Mobile (AL) in shreds, what’s next for EADS and Airbus in the US?
EADS and Airbus said creating a final assembly line (FAL) for the KC-X would lead to assembling A330-200Fs there as well. Without the tanker, the business case for the freighter FAL in Mobile didn’t exist, said officials.
The tanker contract is gone and Airbus now has a backlog of only some 50 A330-200Fs.
Odds and Ends: Boeing to compete production site for new 737-class airplane
Odds and Ends begins below the photo.
We’re not big on photos but every once in a while we find one that we’ve very impressed with–like this (via Airliners.net) at LAX:
EADS KC-X briefing: No protest
Here is a three page PDF of the slides from the Press Conference: EADS-NA Press Briefing Slides 3-04-11.
EADS today confirmed widely reported stories that it will not protest the USAF contract award of the KC-X tanker to Boeing.
Ralph Crosby, Chairman, and Sean O’Keefe, CEO of EADS North America present.
The following are all paraphrased quotations, not word-for-word direct quotes.
Tanker updates: More financial analysis, 2020 market share
As interested parties and aviation geeks wait for EADS to make (likely not) and announce its decision (as soon as March 4) on whether to protest the USAF contract to Boeing on the KC-X aerial tanker, more updates have come in.
First is a new market share forecast by G2 Solutions of Kirkland (WA). Next is a new updated from one of our readers, who goes by the screen name OV-099. He previously provided a detailed analysis of where he thinks EADS and Boeing came out on pricing. He updates this with more Net Present Value analysis and other economic data.
Both new items are below the jump.
Concern grows over mum Air Force, but EADS won’t protest, says Reuters
Update, 10:30 PST: Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, who has come in for our share of criticism for his unabashed bashing of Airbus and subsidies as it relates to the KC-X competition, has this very good essay on why Boeing won.
Here is a link to Richard Aboulafia’s commentary.
Original Post:
We are hearing from a variety of sources a growing concern that the Air Force hasn’t been as forthcoming as it should be in its debriefs with EADS.
But Reuters moved a story a short time ago that EADS won’t protest.
The Mobile Press-Register, in a rare front-page editorial, and the Alabama Congressional delegation are complaining that the Air Force has been as forthcoming as they believe it should about why Boeing won the tanker contract. Publicly, the Department of Defense said Boeing was the “clear” winner in what had become a price shoot out. DOD, EADS and Boeing will not reveal the pricing.
Pricing the KC-X: $163m estimate for Boeing, $169m for EADS
One of our readers, with the screen name OV-099, provided a comment on our Dewey Defeats Truman post calculating the possible prices on the KC-45 and the KC-767.
OV-099 has been a long-time poster and when the occasion arises, does in-depth analyses on financial terms. We’ve cross-checked his work with others and found his numbers-crunching to be pretty spot-on.
With that in mind, we asked OV-099 to take a final look at his original posting with the thought of elevating it to a primary post. He has slightly revised his numbers. What follows is his analysis of how much EADS and Boeing priced their KC-45 and KC-767 in the bids to the USAF. His analysis is below the jump.
Update, 1-:30 am: OV-099 has further refined his analysis; the update is below.