Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
NTSB releases preliminary report on JAL 787 incident
The factual findings are here. 48 PDF pages. The NTSB preamble to the Interim Report:
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) notes that the information discussed in this interim factual report is based on initial findings from the investigation of this incident. Because the investigation is continuing , no conclusions or recommendations are being made at this time. Readers are encouraged to access the public docket for this incident (DCA13IA037) for further details about the information presented in this report.
In addition, readers are advised that the information presented in this report could change if new evidence becomes available.
The Seattle Times reports the NTSB plans public hearings on lithium-ion battery safety.
Reuters reports that the NTSB has not found the root cause of the Japan Air Lines incident.
EADS CEO Tom Enders weighs in.
Fallout continues from 787 grounding
LOT wants $$, Norwegian Leases A340s: The fall-out gets worse over the 787 grounding. LOT Airlines says it wants compensation by the end of June. TUI is rebooking passengers on Boeing 767s and will refund a price differential for those paying a premium to fly the 787. Norwegian Air is wet-leasing Airbus A340s to fill in for the 787s it was supposed to get.
Aeroturbopower has an interesting analysis of the Norwegian lease cost of the A343 v 788, including some admittedly speculative costs to Boeing.
In other news:
- Richard Aboulafia, noted aviation consultant for The Teal Group and an occasional consultant to Boeing (last job five years ago), predicts it could be 4-9 months before the 787 is back in revenue service. This is from the start of the grounding, not additional time. The prediction is in this article by Reuters.
- Aspire Aviation analyses the Australian aviation market.
787 “super box” mimics Cessna
We’ve been reading a lot of comments from our own readers and some from more qualified analysts or experts who are constantly criticizing the Boeing proposal to have a containment box for the lithium ion battery on the 787. The gist of the criticism is that this “super box” is a bad idea that doesn’t solve the problem.
While we’ve joked that the box is a fire place, we feel compelled to point out that the Boeing solution is similar to that adopted by Cessna. Readers forget The Seattle Times published this article January 29 describing the Cessna solution, which is pictured here.
This approach, according to The Times article, is well advanced through FAA review.
The aviation industry doesn’t work in a vacuum and clearly Boeing is aware of this approach.
For those enthusiasts and more qualified critics of the super box, keep the Cessna approach in mind.
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.”