Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Fuel prices up sharply, but not sustained at record levels–yet
Subscription Required
Now open to all readers
By Scott Hamilton and Karl Sinclair
March 28, 2026, © Leeham News: Oil prices skyrocketed this month with the beginning of the 2026 Iran War.
Yet, as sharply as prices spiked, they are not yet a record relative to inflation-adjusted prices since the 1973-1974 OPEC-inspired oil embargo and other regional or global events, an analysis by LNA shows.
West Texas Intermediate Crude oil prices topped $100/bbl. Brent crude briefly hit $197/bbl on March 20. On March 27, Brent topped $100.
Some airlines worldwide hedged fuel against dramatic price hikes. Our detailed analysis is below.
There are dire predictions that the prices could reach $170 or even $200/bbl if the Iran War continues. Bombing of Iran by the United States and Israel began on Feb. 26. Shortly after, tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz all but ceased. Twenty percent of the world’s oil transits through this bottleneck. Some countries, such as Japan and China, obtain more than 90% of their oil via the Strait.
More than 300 tankers are trapped. Some were attacked by Iran. Hundreds of ships of all kinds are blocked on both sides of the 35-mile-wide Strait.
Figure 1. Source: About 750 ships were trapped at the peak. Iran is allowing limited traffic through. Seatrade-Maritime magazine.
The price of oil is being whipsawed as President Donald Trump mixes messages about the war’s progress, sometimes within minutes. Sometimes the war is “won,” but more troops and ships are being sent to the region. Trump threatened to increase bombing, attack Iran’s power stations, invade an island, and then take it back. Allies are needed to reopen the Strait, and then they are not.
Rolls-Royce 2026 Outlook: It’s back in large engines; can it get back into the Single Aisle as well?
Subscription Required
By Bjorn Fehrm
January 29, 2026, © Leeham News: Rolls-Royce has posted a string of increasing profits over the last few years after a tough period that 
started in 2017, when its Trent 1000 engines on ANA’s Boeing 787s developed a turbine-corrosion problem, cutting time on wing to a fraction of what it should be. These turbine problems escalated into a global issue, affecting all Trent 1000-equipped 787s.
The Trent 1000 on Boeing’s 787 has since experienced a series of problems, beginning with the need to replace turbine blades, followed by compressor vibration that required replacing blades on the intermediate compressor. Engines must be removed from the wing to remove the turbine and compressor blades during engine overhaul, resulting in Rolls-Royce Trent-equipped 787s being grounded for periods.
The result has been a dwindling market share for the 787, with the competing engine OEM, GE, now claiming an 78% market share for its GEnx-1B engine, and charges to the business for the cost to fix the problems for the airlines.
The drama surrounding the 787 was not expected. The Rolls-Royce RB211-535 had been the best engine on the Boeing 757 (versus Pratt & Whitney’s PW2040), and on the Airbus A330, the Trent 700 has a dominant market share versus GE’s CF6 and Pratt & Whitney’s PW4000, as it offers solid performance and maturity.
To add to injury, a former management had decided that the Single Aisle market was too small a fish for Rolls-Royce and exited the cooperation with Pratt & Whitney for the A320/A321 V2500 in 2011. The aftermarket income from spares for the V2500 began to decline as the Trent 1000 kept 787s on the ground and COVID-19 hit. When COVID hit in 2020, Rolls-Royce struggled with losses because of these engine problems and strategic mistakes.
Boeing sees no new single aisle plane until 2040
Subscription Required
By Scott Hamilton
Oct. 27, 2025, © Leeham News: Recent reports that Boeing is working on a new single-aisle aircraft to replace the 737 MAX and a New Midmarket Airplane (NMA), or a version of it, are fundamentally true but vastly overhyped. At a conference in Prague earlier this month, Boeing’s Darren Hulst put a damper on this speculation, but said only that Boeing was “not close” to launching a new airplane.
Concept of the Boeing New Midmarket Aircraft. Credit: Leeham News.
Boeing hasn’t publicly put any dates on entries into service of its new airplanes, whatever these may be. But internally, Boeing is of the belief that its 737 replacement won’t enter service before 2040.
This doesn’t mean that Boeing’s Product Development unit isn’t working on new airplanes in the background. The company must be ready to respond in case some other OEM introduces a new airplane before then.
Airbus’ CEO Guillaume Faury publicly said several times that it will introduce a replacement for the A320neo in 2038. But there are some within Airbus who dispute this, concluding that new technology needed to justify a new airplane won’t be ready until the 2040 decade.
The driving factor is, of course, new engines. But as LNA’s 13-part series about new airplane technology and 7-part series about new production technologies demonstrate, engines aren’t the only technology needed. However, without significant advances in engine technology, none of the others is sufficient to justify a new airplane.
Heart Aerospace’s revised ES-30, Part 3. UPDATED
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
October 24, 2024, © Leeham News: We analyze Heart Aerospace’s latest evolution of the hybrid ES-30. The latest version, presented in spring 2024, is a parallel hybrid, putting gas turbine turboprop engines outside the electric motor engines.
After examining what such a parallel hybrid system means for aircraft dimensions and masses, we now fly the aircraft on a typical US short-haul route through our Aircraft Performance and Cost Model (APCM) to assess its operational performance.
Does the ES-30 make operational sense for an airline that needs a short-haul feeder?
Summary:
- The parallel hybrid architecture gives the ES-30 certain operational flexibility to fly routes over 100nm, making it possible to replace present 30 seaters on such short routes.
- However, the operational costs are considerably higher than today’s 30-seaters. As always, the problem is the battery costs.
- UPDATE: Heart Aerospace contacted us after the article was published. The article has been complemented with their information.
Heart Aerospace’s revised ES-30, Part 2
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
October 17, 2024, © Leeham News: We analyze Heart Aerospace’s latest evolution of the hybrid ES-30 (bottom aircraft in the picture), which replaces the original battery-based 19-seater (top aircraft) and the original ES-30 (mid aircraft).
The latest version, presented in spring 2024, is a parallel hybrid, putting gas turbine turboprop engines outside the electric motors. What are the advantages of the parallel hybrid version, and will it make the Heart ES-30 project more likely to succeed?
We use our Aircraft Performance and Cost Model (APCM) to understand the design choices and the costs involved.
Summary:
- The latest revision of the Heart Aerospace hybrid electric aircraft, the ES-30, takes the hybrid architecture from a serial to a parallel system. It simplifies the architecture.
- Does the revised ES-30 make airline operational sense? We analyze this using our Aircraft Performance and Cost Model.
The all-important cabin. Part 4
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
June 20, 2024, © Leeham News: We do an article series about the all-important cabin for an airliner. We have looked at different airliners and their cabins and how the seating differs widely depending on what market and customer segments the aircraft addresses.
If an aircraft is configured for the domestic market the seating increases by almost 50% compared with an international long-range aircraft.
We now look at what cabins to use for aircraft economic evaluations. These are not necessarily the same cabins that an airline would later use after selecting an airliner type.
Summary:
- The evaluation cabin must not be the same as the cabins the airline plans to use.
- Evaluation cabins are designed to minimize the skew that OEMs can introduce by making cabin rules fit “their” candidate especially well.
Airbus’ A350-1000 or Boeing’s 777-9?
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
April 4, 2024, © Leeham News: Korean Air confirmed an order for 33 Airbus A350 in the week, 27 of which are the larger A350-1000. The order is significant on two accounts:
First, 27 A350-1000 and only 6 A350-900, where analysts have for years asked why the -1000 isn’t selling.
Secondly, for a carrier that has a rather 50-50 fleet of Airbus and Boeing planes, its large widebody was the Boeing 777-300ER, whereof it has 27 out of 37 Boeing 777 in total. Korean Air now chooses the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300ER. Why not the 777-9?
Was this a question of availability (the 777-9 should have been delivered in 2020 but has had several delays; the present plan says 2025), or was there a technical-economic reason for Korean Air’s decision? We examine the characteristics of the two planes to find the answers.
Summary:
- The Boeing 777-300ER was an exceptionally successful stretch of the original 777-200. The 777-9 is the sequel to the 777-300ER.
- The market did not like the original A350-1000. Therefore, the present -1000 is a reconfigured aircraft compared to the original variant.
When does a larger airliner pay off? Part 3
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
March 21, 2024, © Leeham News: We are doing an article series about what drove the cross-over from Airbus A319 to A320 and then to A321. We started with the ceo range last week. We could see why the A320 was a better choice than an A319, with only a few more passengers per departure required to close the operating cost difference for a route, whereas the A321, being a larger jump in capacity, did not have the same per seat mile economics until traffic increased substantially.
Now we study the change to the neo generation and try to understand why the A319, a popular model as a ceo variant, did not sell at all as a neo.
Summary:
- The A319ceo had a suitable capacity for routes before 2015. It also had a passenger mile cost advantage over the A320 for thinner routes.
- After 2016, when the A320neo entered the market, the A319neo didn’t sell at all, despite the continued existence of thin routes. We explain why.
When does a larger airliner pay off? Part 2
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
March 14, 2024, © Leeham News: We are doing an article series about what drove the cross-over from Airbus A319 to A320 and then to A321. We start with the ceo range to understand at what passenger numbers did a route support the A319 versus the A320 and A321.
The same change in airliner size happened for the Boeing 737, but we will limit the investigation to the Airbus range as the modern variants, 737 MAX 7 and 10, are not yet in service.
We will use our Airliner Performance and Cost Model (APCM) to model typical sectors and see at what load factors the economics favor a switch.
Figure 1. The Airbus A320ceo with it’s characteristic wing fences. Source: Airbus.
Summary:
- We develop the Passenger Mile Costs for the different A320ceo variants, A319, A320 and A321.
- Then, we gradually lower the number of passengers transported on the A320 and A321 until we have the same Passenger Mile Costs for all variants. This shows how many more passengers a route must support to motivate a switch to a larger model.
Bjorn’ s Corner: New aircraft technologies. Part 45. Continued Airworthiness
By Bjorn Fehrm
January 12, 2024, ©. Leeham News: We are discussing the different phases of a new airliner program. After covering the Design and Production, we now look at the Operational phase of a new airliner family.
For the operational phase, the airplane must pass scrutiny for Continued Airworthiness. Today, we discuss the different means available to the Regulator, such as Airworthiness Directives ( ADs) and System Bulletins (SBs) to the OEM to make sure any detected issues get noticed and corrected.
Figure 1. The Boeing MAX 9 Door Plug Emergency AD issued last week. Source: FAA.