Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Airbus has its challenges, too
While headlines have understandably been focused on Boeing this week, Airbus has its problems, too. The Qantas A380 Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine uncontained failure continues to generate news stories. The QF 32 flight details still are emerging, and one–in an email we received today–gives a good example of “cascading failures” that can happen in an emergency.
Recall that the 787 ZA002 had a series of cascading failures following the fire in the electronics bay, the details of which have yet to be learned beyond some generalities. Here’s what we learned about the cascading failures associated with QF 32:
Another KC-X deadline passes
Today was supposed to be the day the KC-X contract was to get its go-ahead, but as has so often been the case, another deadline has come and gone.
The USAF suggests it will be done this fall, which is through December 20. We’ve previously written we believe the award will slip to the first quarter.
Meantime, here is an interesting story on the KC-X saga. Hat-tip to Flightglobal’s Steve Trimble for spotting this one.
BOC Aviation orders A320s, touts ‘investment value’
Here is a story we did last week for Commercial Aviation Online:
BOC Aviation and Airbus announced 3 November an order for 30 A320s, with the companies touting the “investment value” and residual value in a press release detailing the orders.
“The announcement from BOC Aviation is another vote of confidence in the long-term appeal of the A320 Family. It works well for the financial community based on its wide operator base, proven operating economics and strong residual values,” said John Leahy, Chief Operating Officer Customers, Airbus, is the press release.
“A320 Family aircraft are a good fit as they have proven economics and meet both our investment targets and our customers’ operating goals,” said BOC Aviation CEO Robert Martin in the press release.
The residual value of the A320 family has come under doubts from lessors, appraisers, airlines and financiers in response to the possibility that Airbus will proceed with the New Engine Option for the A320. Some lessors, notably AerCap and Aviation Capital Group, have publicly expressed concerns about the residual value impact of the A320 NEO on the A320 current generation (A320CG); AerCap early this year said it would not order more A320s until Airbus made a decision on NEO. AerCap has been an exclusive Airbus customer when it comes to new airplane orders.
Elections results and the KC-X
The election results could have a major affect on the KC-X tanker competition.
The headlines are:
- The Republican takeover of the House means Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA) loses is chairmanship of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, a position from which he could conceivably block any funding of a USAF award of the contract to EADS;
- Todd Tiahrt (R-Boeing/KS) lost his primary bid to move over to the US Senate, so he’s out of Congress altogether. This is a key Boeing ally.
- Patty Murray (D-Boeing/WA) widened her razor-thin lead in Washington State over Dino Rossi (R). Although Rossi fumbled a key question about the tanker competition during the race, there really was never any doubt that Rossi would support Boeing’s bid. But if Murray wins her fourth term, and the Democrats retain control of the Senate, both of which now appear likely, Boeing retains a powerful voice in the Senate to block any EADS contract; Read more
Boeing Sky Interior delivery today
Boeing is delivering its first 737 “Boeing Sky Interior” today to FlyDubai. The interior is inspired by the 787, which was also adapted to the 747-8.
Here is a link to a feature story prepared by Boeing’s Corp Com specialist Bernard Choi that was dated last July.
New delay likely in tanker competition
We have been told by two sources, including one that is very close to the competition, that the Air Force is likely to announce a new delay soon in evaluation and award of a contract in the long-running KC-X tanker competition.
One source says the delay will be until the first quarter; the other didn’t have a new timeline but said the USAF was preparing to notify the competitors any time now.
New study on KC-X, and other news
There is a new report on the KC-X tanker situation, in this 16-page PDF. A hat-tip to Addison Schonland and IAG.
Airbus and Boeing aren’t rushing to re-bid on India’s tanker program after the country previously canceled a deal, according to Aviation Week.
Aviation Week also has this article: Additional fuel may pay off in tanker competition. Not good news for Boeing. This quote the 16 page report, above.
National Defense Magazine has this item: Northrop Grumman has no regrets walking from the competition.
DOD Buzz has this take on the above-mentioned 16-page report. DOD Buzz reports that the authors of the study have no connection to EADS or Boeing.
Air Force chief ambiguous on tanker selection timing
The Hill, a specialty publication reporting on matters of “the Hill,” aka Congress, reports today that the chief of the US Air Force won’t confirm selection of the winner for the KC-X program will be selected this year.
Heidi Wood, the aerospace analyst at Morgan Stanley, concluded some time ago that the selection would slip to 2011. There have been previous hints at this.
Also while we were on holiday: the Government Accountability Office rejected that final elements of the protest by US Aerospace for its late filing of a bid. We don’t think this silly proposal wouldn’t have gained traction even if the filing had been on time. This leaves Boeing and EADS as the only bidders for the KC-X.
Here is a link to a piece we did for Armed Forces Journal magazine’s October issue.
EADS reveals its analysis of tanker fuel use; says KC-45 is more efficient than KC-767
- EADS reveals its study–countering two Boeing-commissioned reports–about fuel usage of the KC-45 vs the KC-767;
- EADS says it delivers more bang for the buck than Boeing;
- Flight Global has a good story detailing some of Boeing’s KC-767’s technical specifications;
- Boeing is prepared to deliver its first two KC-767s to Italy by year-end, at long last, five years late.
After two years and two studies commissioned by Boeing promoting the KC-767 as less costly to taxpayers over a 40-year period, EADS has provided its analysis to us of the operating costs of the EADS/Airbus KC-45 tanker vs. the Boeing KC-767. The EADS analysis rebuts the two studies commissioned by Boeing in support of its tanker bid.
EADS and before it went solo, Northrop Grumman, has largely ignored the Boeing studies other than to generally dismiss the veracity of them. In doing so, both said the USAF would run its own analysis and determine the KC-45 delivered more bang for the buck, which is what happened in the 2008 competition won by Northrop. The KC-45 achieved an IFARA (efficiency) score of 1.9 vs. 1.71 for the KC-767.
But EADS and Northrop missed the point of the Boeing studies, and that was to influence Congress, not the Air Force. EADS finally got it, and released the following data.
EADS’ internal study, based on requirements and criteria in the USAF Request for Proposals, says the KC-45 will use 3% less fuel per gallon of fuel delivered on refueling missions than the KC-767 on 500nm trips and 31% less on 2,500nm trips. Thus, using USAF criteria, EADS says on a 2,500nm mission with 250 sorties, the KC-45 will save about $25.8m in one day alone, based on assumed fuel-per-gallon pricing disclosed by the Department of Defense.
Using USAF Net Present Value criteria in the RFP; 500nm increments for missions, and other factors, EADS ran several different scenarios with variable factors based on RFP criteria and concluded that mission-driven factors—and not solely training scenarios on which Boeing studies are essentially based—means the KC-45 $1.37bn to $16.5bn on an NPV basis over the 40 year life cycle.
This compares with Boeing’s AeroStrategy study that concludes the KC-767 saves taxpayers $11bn-$36bn over the same period, but not on an NPV basis.
EADS uses USAF criteria and the cost to deliver a gallon a fuel as the basis for its study compared with the Boeing approach, using commercial airline fuel consumption data filed with the US government.
The distinction compared with Boeing’s methodology is important, as we will explain. Read more