Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Embraer downplays tariff impact on 2025 results May 6, 2025
- JetZero readies effort for private equity fund raising May 5, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 20. May 2, 2025
- Supplier Howmet exceeds expectations despite tariffs May 1, 2025
- Airbus 1Q2025 results: So far, so good, but US tariffs make future results unpredictable May 1, 2025
NTSB 787 preliminary report due this week
The preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board is due this week, probably Thursday, on its investigation of the Boeing 787 JAL battery fire.
A lot of information has already been made public by the NTSB in two press conferences. We suspect the root cause of the fire may not be revealed. Recall that the NTSB said evidence had been destroyed in the fire.
We asked Greg Feith, a former lead investigator for the NTSB, what he expects. His response:
“The NTSB will probably issue some Safety recommendations that will put a higher level of scrutiny on the FAA and the certification process, thus the FAA won’t take any chances in prematurely returning the aircraft to service. I think you will see that the FAA will extend their review of Boeing’s proposed fixes and ‘study’ their proposal rather than act on it – and I am willing to bet that it will be June before the 787 is airborne [in revenue service] again.”
Feith’s forecast of the re-entry into service is more optimistic than our readers, a plurality of whom see from August as the earliest EIS. Nearly 47% of the readers say they would wait a year or two before flying the 787 after the fix, but about the same number say they will fly the airplane right away, confident in the fix. (Results are as of 6:30am PST March 5 and may change after this writing as more readers vote.) The poll isn’t scientific but it is a snapshot of the challenges facing Boeing and the operators in restoring confidence in the 787 after re-EIS.
The NTSB preliminary report’s anticipated findings and potential recommendations don’t carry the force of law. The recommendations are just that, and the FAA may accept, reject or accept with modification any, some, all or none of the recommendations.
But given the likelihood that the NTSB findings will also comment on the certification process of the FAA-Boeing procedures (remember that the NTSB said it was looking at this), and that the FAA itself said it would examine its own role and the certification of the battery; and the entire production and design of the 787, we don’t see the FAA leaping in haste to approve the Boeing proposal for the battery fix. We see the FAA moving forward with deliberate speed (a nebulous term to be sure).
- Meggitt, which makes the battery charger through a subsidiary, says regulators cleared its system of any cause to the battery incidents.
Boeing’s Ray Conner speaks to JP Morgan conference
Ray Conner, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, appeared today at the JP Morgan aerospace conference.
Here is a running synopsis:
Ray Conner (RC)
Joe Nadol (JN) of JP Morgan:
RC: It’s important to recognize that batteries are not used in flight. They are back-up to start the APU and for the systems. After events, put together 200 engineers. Have done 200,000 hours of analysis. Have come up with comprehensive solution and presented to FAA on Feb. 22 and last week to Japan.
- This is not just a Boeing-type of solution. We’ve worked with a number of people outside Boeing to ID causal factors and run by them and did the same with potential solutions.
- That’s what we presented to FAA.
- We’ve provided different layers of protection for fixes.
- Hope to see approval of certification plans and then move into certification testing.
- We would not go forward unless we thought we had it nailed.
Would you fly the 787? When will it return to service? Take a poll
Yesterday we published a link to a survey conducted Feb. 14 by Travel Insider in which a large number of people will avoid or prefer to avoid the Boeing 787 once it returns to service. We were stunned by the depth of the result. We fully expected a portion of fliers will avoid the airplane. Travel Insider’s survey found 32% of frequent fliers (airlines’ bread-and-butter) will avoid the plane and another 35% would prefer to avoid it.
While neither Travel Insider nor this poll are scientific, the results may indicate the depth of the brand damage done by the grounding and battery issues.
What will you do? We’ll hide the answers for the time being.
.
When do you thing the 787 will return to revenue service?
Odds and Ends: Refusing to fly 787; 787 AD was wrong; KC-46A cost analysis; Battery fix certification?
Refusing to fly 787: This is a stunning survey by the website Travel Insider: 32% of frequent fliers will refuse to fly the 787 even after it is fixed for the first year or two and another third would prefer to avoid the 787. The numbers are huge. We knew there would be some who refused to fly the plane–the same thing happened to the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 after it was grounded in 1979–but the numbers are stunning.
We also recognize that we’re still at the height of the press coverage of the still-grounded aircraft. Once it returns to service, it will be interesting to see results if the survey were re-run.
There was no doubt Boeing received a black eye over the grounding. It now appears both eyes are blackened.
FAA 787 AD was wrong: The FAA should have pulled the 787 type certificate, argues a former member of the National Transportation Board.
KC-46A Costs: The Blog by Javier (Irastorza Mediavilla) has a detailed analysis of the contract price performance so far of the Boeing KC-46A. although the blog is mostly about his personal activities, Javier works for Airbus Military on the A400M program. (Note: he does not speak for nor represent Airbus through his blog). This might make some of his aerospace analysis suspect in the minds of some, but we have found his commentaries and analysis to be well researched and thought out. And he has a good sense of humor.
FAA reliance on OEMs: Reuters has a detailed piece about the Federal Aviation Administration’s reliance on OEMs (and specifically Boeing) in aircraft development, all triggered of course by the 787 issues. We wrote about this relationship shortly after the now-infamous joint press conference by the FAA and Boeing in which the FAA, Boeing and the Department of Transportation said the 787 was safe.
Re-certifying the battery fix: We keep getting told whatever Boeing does to fix the battery issue will require re-certification of the battery and/or system–that it will be more than simply complying with the Airworthiness Directive. This, of course, would add time to getting the 787 back into revenue service. Does anyone have some insight on this?
“Of all time:” Airbus Tweeted last Friday (referring to its website): The A320 (soon to be made in Mobile) is undisputed best selling aircraft product line of all time.” (Emphasis added.)
We don’t think so. “Of all time”? “Aircraft product line”? 737 All Series 10,501. A320 family: 9,142. DC-3/C-47/Others under license: 16,079.
We know what Airbus was trying to say: It’s A320 family vs the equivalent technology Boeing 737NG and 737 MAX, for which through January sold 7,369. But the claim, as worded, just isn’t so.
Furthermore, the A320 first entered service in 1988 and the 737NG in 1994. A true comparison needs to knock six years of sales off the A320.
To quote the controversy of a recent Washington (DC) tempest in a teapot, “[We] know [Airbus] may not believe this, but as a friend, [we] think [Airbus] will regret staking out that claim.”
Odds and Ends: Cathay cancels 8 777Fs, takes up 3 747-8Fs; soft cargo market a concern
Cathay cancels 777F order: Cathay Pacific Airways canceled an order for eight Boeing 777Fs. CX will instead acquire three 747-8Fs, trading in four 747-400Fs to Boeing. The cargo market remains soft and Boeing is struggling to sell 747-8Fs. One person close to the program says Boeing is faced with building several white tails this year and a recent aerial photo of Paine Field at Everett did show at least two 747-8Fs with no airline markings on the flight line.
We’re concerned about the continuing soft cargo market–it’s usually a leading indicator about the direction of the passenger market. Boeing forecasts recovery in 2014 but we’re not so sure.
Speaking of 777s, Air Lease Corp picked up an order for 10 777-300ERs.
787 update: Aviation Week has an updated report on the Boeing plans to begin flight tests for the 787. There seems to be a consensus building that the earliest the aircraft might return to revenue service is late April or in May–the latter a day we forecast earlier.
Odds and Ends: To fly the 787 or not-conflicting reports; 787 schedule cancellations
To fly or not to fly: Yesterday there were several reports that the FAA was ready to allow Boeing begin test flights of the 787, only to be followed within hours that the FAA denied the reports.
The contradictions underscore the uncertainty surrounding the 787 grounding. Today the Wall Street Journal has this report further outlining the challenges of the investigation: the authorities don’t have the experts they need. The New York Times has this report detailing the FAA’s current position.
One expert we consulted doesn’t believe the FAA will approve test flights before April. A key paragraph from the New York Times article is this:
Boeing is conducting laboratory tests on its proposed fixes for the lithium-ion batteries on its new 787 jets, and federal regulators said Tuesday that they would need to see the results before deciding whether to allow flight tests.
This suggests to us that the April timeline may be reasonable as suggested by the consultant we checked with. Note, too, that the NTSB preliminary findings have yet to be issued and we don’t see the FAA making any decisions before this report is issued, expected sometime in the first half of March.
Meantime….
787 Schedule Cancellations: Some airlines have announced their cancellation schedules for the Boeing 787, while we had to go into Orbitz, Expedia or the airline websites to determine the schedules of the other operators with 787s. Here’s what we found:
Canceled through:
| ANA | 31-May |
| Air India | 31-Mar |
| Ethiopian | 30-Apr |
| JAL | 31-Mar |
| Lan | 29-Jun |
| LOT |
30-Sep |
| Qatar | 30-Apr |
| United | 5-Jun |
US Airways’ 757 problem
Notation: Lan Chile has canceled Boeing 787 flights through June.
US Airways has a large fleet of aging Boeing 757s it needs to replace. The problem is, a carrier official says, neither the Airbus A321neo nor the Boeing 737-9 MAX can do what needs to be done: Phoenix-Hawaii non-stop in both directions with maximum payload under all conditions.
The distance is 2,910 miles, well within the advertised range of 4,200 miles for the A321neo and 4,137 for the 9 MAX. But Derek Kerr, executive vice president and chief financial officer says fleet planners have yet to be convinced either plane can replace the 757W, which is uniquely able to handle the hot, summer conditions at Phoenix, where temperatures often soar to 110F degrees or more.
US Airways is one of only two legacy airlines in the US that has yet to order the MAX or the NEO (Delta Air Lines is the other). A year ago, US Airways CEO Doug Parker told us that the value proposition of ordering the neo still was unconvincing given the price premium sought by Airbus. Kerr told us last week that the large, outstanding order for the current generation A320 family as replacements for the oldest jets–and the lack of a true replacement for the 757–meant the airline wasn’t in a hurry to place an order for re-engined aircraft.
Odds and Ends: A350 production boost; 787 ‘Super Box’ and political influence; Boeing’s JAL monopoly
A350 production boost: Airbus wants to boost production of the A350.
787 ‘Super Box‘: In the harshest assessment we’ve seen so far of the Boeing 787 situation, BB&T Capital Markets analyst Carter Leake characterizes the proposed containment box for the lithium ion battery as a “super box” and Boeing’s entire proposed solution as a Rube Goldberg approach.
Leake writes:
We view Boeing’s “Super Box” proposal as a reverse Rube Goldberg contraption that attempts to solve a very complex problem with an overly simple solution. We believe there is no doubt that Boeing’s proposal is the fastest way to get the 787 flying again, but if the NTSB plays the safety card in its upcoming interim report (which we think they will), the Super Box strategy will be a hard sell for weak-kneed politicians who will care less about the arcane rules of aircraft certification, and more about the open-ended political exposure of supporting a rush job. Worse, we believe the very powerful, but instantly credible, pilot unions will soon weigh in against any solution that contemplates a “contained fire” of any kind. This issue has unfortunately become very political, and we believe the 787 crisis is far from being resolved.
Boeing doubled down on its Lithium Ion battery system by proposing modifications that purportedly address the risk of thermal runaway and the more critical issue of smoke and fire containment. Using a “Super Box” concept (our term), Boeing hopes to divert attention from how the previous system performed—or did not— and instead focus on a fortress approach that can deal with worst-case battery fires, regardless of their cause. Congressional sources cited in media reports state that Boeing is adamant that this is a permanent fix and no alternative solution is being pursued. Given the original battery system is being modified, even if for the better, some degree of re-certification will be required.
Kudos to Boeing engineers for constructing this kludge in short order, but we view the Super Box as a reverse Rube Goldberg contraption that attempts to solve a very complex problem with an overly simple solution. We believe there is no doubt that Boeing’s proposal is the fastest way to get the 787 flying again, but if the NTSB plays the safety card in its upcoming interim report (which we think they will), the Super Box strategy will be a hard sell for weak-kneed politicians who will care less about the arcane rules of aircraft certification, and more about the open-ended political exposure of supporting a rush job. Worse, we believe the very powerful, but instantly credible, pilot unions will soon weigh in against any solution that contemplates a “contained fire” of any kind.
All we can say is, “wow.”
Sole sourcing not preferable, says JAL: The grounding of the 787 may provide an opportunity for Airbus in Japan, where it has had decades of poor sales, if this article is any indicator.
Clues emerge on 787 service from FAA meeting
Clues emerged from a variety of news reports following the meeting Friday between Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration that point to when the 787 will be able to reenter service.
The most tantalizing: Boeing will need up to eight weeks from the FAA green light before the 787 will return to service.
Since we don’t expect the FAA to approve proposed remedies any time soon (a relative term, to be sure), we think it could easily be May or June before the 787 returns to service. The preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board isn’t likely until the first half of March. We believe the FAA will want to see and digest this report before drawing is own conclusions. It’s anybody’s guess how long it will take the FAA to review the NTSB findings and Boeing’s proposal.
Assuming the FAA concurs with the Boeing recommendations–which may or may not be a safe assumption–what kind of testing will the FAA require, both in the lab and in the air, and how long will this take? Only after all this would the FAA green light the fixes and the “up to eight weeks” timeline kick in.
Here are the key news articles and some key excerpts:
Washington State air facilities that could close with sequestration
The FAA has released a list of air traffic control facilities that could close with Sequestration, which is due to take effect March 1.
The following facilities in Washington State are on the list:
ALW Walla Walla Regional Walla Walla WA
MWH Grant County International Moses Lake WA
OLM Olympia Regional Olympia WA
PAE Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) Everett WA
RNT Renton Municipal Renton WA
SFF Felts Field Spokane WA
TIW Tacoma Narrows Tacoma WA
YKM Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Yakima WA
Additionally, the over night shifts in the following control towers are at risk:
BFI Boeing Tower Seattle WA
GEG Spokane Tower Spokane WA
The FAA warns that passengers at TSA lines could be up to three hours and tarmac delays at major hub airports could be up to 90 minutes.