Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- RTX Q1 2025 Earnings: GTF Talk Takes A Back Seat To Tariffs April 22, 2025
- Tariffs Tumult Takes Over GE Aerospace Q1 2025 Earnings Call April 22, 2025
- Boeing reports mixed results of latest employee survey, but middle management and officers remain key obstacles April 22, 2025
- Hopes for 1Q financial progress turns into bumpy ride for Boeing April 21, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 18. April 18, 2025
Pontifications: Alaska Air vs Sea-Tac Airport
By Scott Hamilton
Alaska Air vs Sea-Tac Airport: As if Alaska Airlines doesn’t have enough to do fending off Delta Air Lines, the Port of Seattle, owner of the Sea-Tac International Airport, wants to build a new International Arrival Facility (IAF) for more than $600m.
There certainly is a need. The current IAF is in the South Satellite Terminal. It’s old and it’s small. With Delta making Seattle its West Coast hub, and additional service added by a number of airlines (including, from Delta’s view, that dastardly Emirates Airline), it’s clear a new IAF is needed.
But therein lies the rub. The IAF, by definition, will be used by international flights–not by domestic flights. Yet under the Port’s financing proposal, all carriers at Sea-Tac will have to pay for the thing. Alaska, which operates more than 50% of the flights at Sea-Tac, has no international routes from Seattle save Canada. Alaska officials are understandably unhappy with the proposed funding source. Not only would Alaska be paying for a facility it won’t use, it would be subsidizing Delta’s operations.
Redefining the 757 replacement: Requirement for the 225/5000 Sector, Part 6.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
18 March 2015, c. Leeham Co: In Part 1 of of this series we investigated the market sector 225/5000, which is our name for the market segment beyond the capacity of single aisles A320 and 737 aircraft. Boeing calls this Middle Of the Market, MOM, and is studying which aircraft type would best cover this segment.
In Part 5 of the series we concluded that beyond 220 seats a dual aisle aircraft can be competitive as it can increase utilization due to shorter ground turn-around time. We now conclude the investigation by looking at what Airbus response can be based on a further developed A320 and how it would stack up against optimized seven abreast dual aisle alternatives from Boeing’s MOM study, one of these using Boeing’s patented elliptical fuselage, Figure 1.
Figure 1. Compared cross sections for MOM market. Source: Leeham Co.
Summary
- The rational further stretch of Airbus A321LR is a re-winged/re-engined A322 with 30-40 more passengers, or five to seven additional rows.
- We compare this development with optimized models from our MOM studies and the A321LR.
- For the comparison we focus on efficiency in weight, drag and fuel for the different alternatives. How competitive will a stretched A321 be and how close in weight and drag comes an elliptical MOM model?
Pontifications: USA to the World: “We want to fly everywhere. Period.”
By Scott Hamilton
- Two of the Big 3 Middle Eastern carriers launched a PR counter offensive in Washington DC today. Below are my thoughts.
I haven’t weighed in on the current battle between the Big 3 US airlines and the Big 3 Middle Eastern carriers because it’s largely beyond the scope of LNC. But I like commercial aviation history, so I thought I’d bring up a little.
In the era immediately post-World War II, when third, fourth and fifth freedom rights were being negotiated between the US and the Rest of the World, there was a member of Congress, Claire Luce Booth of Connecticut, summed it up nicely: “American postwar aviation policy is simple. We want to fly everywhere. Period.”
Boeing showing 737-8ERX concept in response to A321LR
By Scott Hamilton and Bjorn Fehrm
March 12, 2015: Boeing is showing some airlines a concept it calls the 737-8ERX, a long range version of the 737-8 MAX, in response to the Airbus A321LR, Leeham News and Comment has learned. Sources within Boeing confirmed the concept but Boeing Corporate Communications did not make someone available for an interview. A spokesman said in an email, “Boeing studies many advanced concepts, innovations and technology. However, just because Boeing studies a particular concept or technology does not necessarily mean that we will be introducing that airplane or concept in the near future. Boeing makes decisions based on market and customer demand.”
Figure 1. The Boeing 737-8ERX concept. Boeing photo, modified by Leeham Co., based on information from Market Intelligence. Click on image to enlarge.
In our article series around A321LR we concluded that Boeings 737 MAX 9 was not a good base from which to launch a long range 737, it could not be stretched in take off weight due to rotation limitations. Better would be to upgrade the take-off weight of MAX 8 for longer range, it can carry the extra fuel tanks needed and is not rotation limited in the same way.
As happened with the A321neoLR (we pointed to the possibility of the concept and Airbus was indeed working on it) Boeing now shows selected airlines a higher gross weight 737 MAX 8, Figure 1. In contrast to Airbus, which beefed up the A321neo to form the A321LR, Boeing is apparently using a concept they developed for the Navy 737 derivative, P8 Poseidon. They grab in their LEGO box of 737 components to form the 737-8ERX with minimal additional development.
Redefining the 757 replacement: Requirement for the 225/5000 Sector, Part 5.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
11 March 2015, c. Leeham Co: After having analyzed the different alternatives which would be available to Boeing for its Middle Of the Market, MOM, studies and having singled out the most competitive configurations, we will now add revenue to the equation. In the work to establish Cash and Direct Operating Costs for the aircraft, we saw which variant had the best cost for a certain capacity and utilization. We could not see which aircraft would be the most profitable however; this requires that we bring in the revenue side.
Revenue management analysis of different aircraft types on an airlines network is a science in it selves. Sophisticated fare class strategies with connected marketing activities makes such studies elaborate and beyond the scope of our analysis. Our primary goal is to understand the difference in operational efficiency of a single versus dual aisle aircraft with the same seating capacity. For this, a simpler average margin concept will work that shows us the effects of single versus dual aisle for aircraft margins in the MOM segment.
Summary
- We select based on Cash and Direct Operating Costs the best aircraft for the different market segments.
- To understand the revenue earning capability of the different alternatives we introduce a revenue model which takes into account aircraft utilization.
- With the costs and the revenue side represented we can develop a good understanding for the cross over between single and dual aisle for MOM.
- We will use this knowledge as we subsequently look into Airbus response to what Boeing would bring to the market.
Redefining the 757 replacement: Requirement for the 225/5000 Sector, Part 3.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
04 March 2015, c. Leeham Co: In the first and second part of the article series around the need for a more capable solution for 180-240 seats and 5000 nautical miles, which we have labeled the 225/5000 Sector, we went through the derivatives we have analyzed as competitors to Airbus A321LR and showed why none of them are effective as a Boeing solution.
We also looked at the wetted area and weight for our common single and dual aisle aircraft. These parameters are the principal components that determine an aircraft’s efficiency given a certain engine efficiency. We also developed the market picture, outlining a substantial market by the time of entry into service of a clean sheet design by 2025, given that certain market requirements could be fulfilled.
We will now project different solutions to the requirements, thereby utilizing the preliminary design part of our proprietary aircraft model. We will look at three different cabin configurations in four different size classes between 180 to 240 seats and calculate size and weights and the resulting efficiency of the different variants. Against the key data for these different aircraft and their operational efficiency we will be able to postulate what will be the next move from Boeing and Airbus in this segment.
Summary
The findings in this our third article include:
- Aircraft capacity and size for 12 different possible aircraft, named NAS6, NLT6 and NLT7 each in the variants 180, 200, 220 and 240 passengers.
- With this collection of characteristics it will be possible to compare the efficiency and costs for the different sizes and to see how competitive a wider dual aisle aircraft will be in this segment compared to a single aisle.
- In a subsequent article will be compare the operational characteristics of these aircraft thereby also covering the increased revenue potential with a dual aisle aircraft compared to a single aisle.
Odds and Ends: Tax breaks and job guarantees; New airline analysis blog
Feb. 17, 2015: Tax breaks and job guarantees: Boeing’s two largest unions in Washington State appear to be making headway this legislative session to get a bill on the floor for a vote that would retroactively tie 2013 tax breaks to a guarantee of jobs.
It’s less likely that the legislation will include a minimum wage component.
The tax breaks, hastily approved by the Legislature in November 2013, provided for $8.7bn in tax breaks to 2040 in return for Boeing locating the 777X assembly line and wing production in Everett (WA). The tax breaks are not only for Boeing, but available across the supply chain.
But there were no job guarantees, SPEEA and the IAM 751 warned legislators, and without them in the bill, they predicted Boeing would move jobs out of state.
That’s exactly what happened.
Boeing 757 MAX: why its operating economics does not work
By Bjorn Fehrm
Introduction
Feb 12, 2015: In a series of articles during the autumn we covered the replacement scenarios for Boeing’s 757-200 when used for long haul passenger operations. The series also included an interview with Boeing’s head of new airplane studies, Kourosh Hadi, director of product development at Boeing where he outlined what Boeing studied and why.
This week The Wall Street Journal published an article portraying that Boeing seriously considered launching a re-engined 757 as a response to Airbus A321LR. Boeing has since vehemently denied the story and we have given the reasons why it does not make sense for Boeing.
As a complement we show the operational economical analysis that we did at the time of our 757 articles, now updated to the exact modifications suggested by The WSJ, a new engine and new winglets paired with modern avionics.
Redefining the 757 replacement: Requirement for the 225/5000 Sector
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
25 Feb 2015: Speculation continues to ramp up during the last weeks and months about what Boeing is up to in the 180 to 250 seat sector and what might be Airbus’ response on top of the A321LR. The segment is not well covered today within production aircraft where 737-900ER and the forthcoming MAX 9 cover up to 210 seats and A321-200 and A321neo up to 220 seats. Both fly their passengers up to a realistic mission of 3000nm, i.e. transcontinental USA.
The next in production aircraft are 787-8 and A330-200 at 240 to 280 seats. These are long range dual aisle aircraft with empty weights more than double of the former pair. The 787-8 and A330-200 per seat economics on shorter missions are therefore in another ball game.
The only aircraft that currently bridges this gap is the out-of-production Boeing 757 and there has been much debate how this shall be replaced. We have covered this question in a number or articles focusing on in turn:
We also covered the study work underway at Boeing to cover this segment. We will now dig deeper into this corner after Boeing has unequivocally stated it does not see a re-engine 757 covering this segment and any aircraft that the airlines want should be a bit larger than the 757.
Summary:
Over a series of articles we will cover:
Read more
Leave a Comment
Posted on February 25, 2015 by Bjorn Fehrm
Airbus, Airlines, American Airlines, Boeing, GE Aviation, Leeham News and Comment, Premium
737 MAX, 747-8, 757, 787, Airbus, Boeing, KC-767