A350 Launch Aid: The US Trade Rep says it has the documents outlining $4.5bn in launch aid for the Airbus A350, according to a Reuters story. Predictably, Boeing and the USTR have gone in to overdrive. The A350 was excluded by the WTO from the long-running trade dispute because it wasn’t included in the original complaint filed in 2004–which is kind of obvious since the program didn’t surface until 2006. But Airbus contends that launch aid wasn’t ruled illegal in the WTO findings, just how it was implemented. Airbus contends that any launch aid for the A350 is structured in compliance with the WTO rulings of the 2004 case. The US contends launch aid itself is illegal. Whether it is or it isn’t, we don’t like launch aid or any other form of corporate welfare (see Boeing 787) and we don’t think a solvent company like Airbus (or Boeing) should be getting any.
Bombardier strike at Lear Jet unit: Machinists voted to strike at Bombardier’s Lear Jet unit. BBD hardly needs this. With cash flow demands peaking as the CSeries development enters the final stretch, and with demand for regional airliners off, this is an unneeded headache.
Embraer Demand: Wall Street analysts were pretty unhappy following the Embraer investors day last week. EMB gave no signs of willingness to cut production next year. There are 100 slots and only about 75 orders, with few in sight. Backlog is shrinking. EMB is hoping to land big orders from either Delta Air Lines or American Airlines for the E-Jet, but we’re not aware of any Delta campaign (and in any event, the airline favored the CSeries in the aborted campaign of a year ago). American is in such disarray there is no telling when, or if, it will pursue an order.
EADS-BAE: Bernstein Research doesn’t think this merger should happen. The excerpt from a note issued today:
We believe that it would be best for both companies if this proposed merger does not happen. But, we see the merger as worse for EADS than for BAE. Both companies describe scale as an advantage (e.g. better leverage of R&D), but we have never seen scale in itself as an advantage. Specific issues are:
– Shareholder interests. EADS shareholders typically own the stock as a play on commercial aircraft OE growth through Airbus. Increasing the scale of defense assets, with some in particularly challenging markets, is likely to take some investors out of the stock. We find BAE Systems shareholders as generally focusing on the high dividend. The combination with EADS, which does not pay a high dividend, places the current BAE Systems dividend level at risk in 2014. The disclosure of merger discussions also raises questions about the sustainability of cash flow and the divided, as we have found investors questioning why BAE would accept the EADS offer if its cash outlook were robust. BAE Systems CEO Ian King has countered this by stating (with EADS CEO Tom Enders) that this deal is “borne out of opportunity, not necessity”.
– Synergy potential. We view the potential synergies between EADS and BAE Systems as low given very little overlap between their businesses and restrictions in technology transfer from US programs. From an EADS standpoint, we expect that this combination would result in a stronger international marketing organization, provide some limited cost savings in indirect personnel and sourcing, and provide some improvement for the defense electronics portion of EADS’ Cassidian business (only about 2 billion euros in revenue). But, given the limitations in capturing these synergies and their relatively small size, we do not see them as justifying a merger of this scale. For EADS, this is particularly true, since it would pay a premium for BAE shares and be buying into some particularly difficult market exposure (e.g. US Army equipment, defense IT/services). In addition, we see disruption as inevitable in a deal of this size, as it could lead to a loss of some key personnel, changes in government relationships, and problematic integration steps (e.g. IT Systems), even though the overlap is relatively small.
Posted on October 8, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
The Seattle Times has this story about the latest developments in the contract negotiations between SPEEA and Boeing. The Everett Herald has this story. Note the discussion of moving jobs in The Times story and note what we said in The Herald story.
It strikes us that Boeing may not have learned anything from the outsourcing dispute in the IAM NLRB dispute. We told a Boeing communications person during the discussions about where to put 787 Line 2 that all the focus on the union and strikes was a bad idea and that a good reason to locate a line elsewhere was to diversify from the natural disaster risk. The response to us then was “that wouldn’t be true.”
Now Boeing is openly saying once again it will move jobs if it doesn’t get the labor contract it wants. What is it thinking??? You can move jobs because Washington State can’t fill them and there’s nothing that anyone can argue with about that.
This is another head-shaking moment of bewilderment in Boeing management strategy.
Update: Boeing’s Doug Alder sent us this statement:
“Boeing has made no threats to move work. We have simply noted our ability to use the full resources of the company in order to stay competitive. We’re confident we can reach an agreement with SPEEA that benefits the company and our workforce.”
Posted on October 5, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
GOL Orders the MAX: Boeing and the Brazilian airline GOL announced an order for 60 737 MAXes. The press release did not specify sub-type but GOL tells us the order is for the MAX 8.
Qatar’s 787s: Qatar’s CEO says the shaft issues on the GEnx engines are what’s behind the airline refusing to take delivery of its Boeing 787s.
SPEEA Deal: Boeing CEO Jim McNerney says he expects a deal with SPEEA within a few weeks, according to this article.
Posted on October 2, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
SPEEA, the engineers union for The Boeing Co., rejected the company’s proposed contract Monday by a 96% vote margin. The Seattle Times has this story.
Boeing issued this statement:
The SPEEA negotiations team notified Boeing that SPEEA’s membership rejected Boeing’s initial contract proposal. Our focus now is on resuming discussions on October 2 with your negotiations team.
In the spirit of good faith, we will continue to listen closely to your negotiations team. We want to understand your viewpoints and objections, which is what the bargaining process is all about. As was true when we made our initial proposal – we are committed to continuing discussions, answering questions and considering any proposals or counter-proposals from your negotiations team.
While Oct. 6 is the expiration date of the contract, it remains in effect until Nov. 25, 2012. On Nov. 25, the contract will terminate as a result of SPEEA filing a 60-day termination notice per Article 23 of the contract. No strike can take place until after Nov. 25.
We will continue to provide updates on the progress of negotiations and encourage you to check the negotiations website on a regular basis.
We expect the negotiations, which commence at 1pm today, to be difficult. Boeing is determined to reduce health care and pension costs; SPEEA is determined to prevent higher cost sharing on heath care premiums and shifting new employees from a defined pension plan to a 401(K) plan. Boeing offered raises of 2.5% to 3% and the union wants 5%. But, as The Times story notes, the big sticking point right now seems to be the union’s assertion that Boeing has language in the proposed contract that will allow the company to unilaterally change terms and conditions at a later date, particularly for current retirees on health care. Boeing says it has “no plans” to do so, which SPEEA labeled weasel words.
Boeing threatens to move engineering jobs out of Puget Sound (30% of engineering is already outside of the Seattle area), but SPEEA claims Boeing’s defense unit is already doing so.
Although there are no sanctioned job actions by members, there have been reports of work slow-downs. We expect these actions to increase.
The last time SPEEA struck, in 2000 for 40 days, Boeing’s deliveries dropped by 50 aircraft.
Posted on October 2, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
It’s 10pm Monday PDT and SPEEA is voting down the Boeing contract. New talks are scheduled for Tuesday.
Posted on October 1, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Boeing 787-9 progress: Aviation Week has this article detailing progress in the 787-9 program.
Qatar blasts Boeing: In what should come as absolutely no surprise, Qatar’s vocal CEO took his displeasure with Boeing public, blasting the company for late deliveries of the 787-8. Qatar’s first 787 was supposed to be handed over in August but has not for undisclosed reasons. Flight Global has this interview with Al-Baker, which dates from about a year ago.
Boosting the take-off: Airbus is looking at assist for take-offs to allow for shorter runways. This is not a new concept. This Google images page show lots of variations in Jet Assisted Take Off, many dating to piston days. We remember seeing a photo elsewhere of a Braniff Airways DC-4 or DC-6 using JATO for La Paz, Bolivia’s, high altitude airport but couldn’t fine one on Google.
EADS-BAE merger trouble: Government interference could tank the merger, Reuters reports.
Posted on October 1, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
The contract offer vote count begins today at SPEEA headquarters at 5pm, with results anticipated by around 10 or 11 pm PDT.
The offer by Boeing is considered by the SPEEA leadership to be so bad that it was sent directly to the members for a vote rather than engaging in bargaining after Boeing laid the offer on the table.
Boeing calls the offer industry-leading but which reduces health care and pension costs.
A rejection by a wide margin is expected, but a vote on authorizing a strike is not on the table at this time. Once the contract is rejected, SPEEA and Boeing are expected to go to the bargaining table and negotiate a second contract offer.
Posted on October 1, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Boeing’s Board is expected to be asked very soon, perhaps at its meeting in October, to grant Authority to Offer the 787-10 to customers, according to two sources.
A Boeing spokeswoman said that ATO for the 787-10 is expected to occur before the ATO for the 777X, since the -10 is a more straight-forward project than the X, but could not confirm the October timeline.
The straight-forward stretch of the 787-9 will have less range (about 6,900nm) than either the -8 or -9 models, which comfortably top 8,000 nm but it is expected to carry around 323 passengers, putting it squarely in the class of the 777-200ER and the A350-900.
At 6,900nm, the airplane will cover most missions required by airlines. By foregoing a new wing and added fuel tankage, the operating weight of the airplane is expected to be roughly equal to the 787-9. A slightly higher-thrust engine will be required. Rolls-Royce announced a higher thrust version of the Trent 1000 now powering the 787 at the Farnborough Air Show, and insiders said this engine is specifically intended for the 787-10.
The 787-10 is billed by Boeing as the airplane that will “kill” the Airbus A330-300, but the 787 was also billed as the airplane that would kill the A330-200. The delays in the 787 program have given Airbus time to enhance the A330 family and the rival announced gross weight, range and engine Performance Improvement Packages to the 300 (and which are anticipated for the 200) at the Farnborough Air Show.
Airbus is also selling the A330 family at discounts to the 787 family today and this will continue in the future. The lower capital costs, Airbus believes, allows the A330 to remain competitive. Airbus COO-Customers John Leahy told us that Airbus expects to sell the A330 beyond 2020.
The 787-10 would replace the 777-200ER, which has largely been killed by the A350-900.
Posted on September 28, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
The quest to upgrade the Boeing 777 line, with particular focus on the 777-300ER, is heating up.
The Wall Street Journal has this detailed story. We found it on Google News, so it should be available to all readers but it may turn out to be a subscriber-only story.
Jon Ostrower’s WSJ piece indeed details similar information that we have been told. Flight Global has this story in which Steve Udvar-Hazy, CEO of Air Lease Corp., says Boeing is “gun-shy” about the new program because of the problems with the 787.
There’s more to it than that.
Here’s what we can add from a well-placed source familiar with Boeing’s recent thinking and events.
We need to emphasize that what may be true today may change tomorrow. The point is that the development of the 777X is fluid. With an extended timeline for the A350-1000, Boeing is in no hurry to make an early decision. The factors reported by the Wall Street Journal and FlightGlobal also are important.
Boeing continues to study whether to proceed with a major makeover of the aircraft–the 777X–or a less dramatic 777+ set of enhancements.
“Just like all other airplane development efforts, it’s an iterative process. We let the data from our studies and the input from our customers drive the best airplane design as we continue our work on this airplane that would enter the market later this decade,” Boeing tells us.
“As we’ve said for the last several months, when we are satisfied with the risks, costs and schedule, we intend to present a plan for offering the airplane to customers that would enter the market late this decade. Teams continue to study the many elements of a complex development process, and we continue to work with customers on their requirements. We are committed to this segment of the market and when we are confident in a plan we can deliver to our customers, we would formally launch the program following additional development work.”
Although Tim Clarke, president of Emirates Airlines, has been vocal in pushing Boeing toward the X model with range that will provide unrestricted non-stop service from Dubai to Los Anglese, this capability is needed for only about 5% of the world’s routes. Boeing (and Airbus) have been open in their reticence to build an airplane for only 5% of the market, considering the return on investment not worth the cost, the weight penalties or engine requirements for so few customers. It remains to be seen, however, what the outcome of the process will be.
Posted on September 26, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Our AirInsight affiliate has published a short report in its e-newsletter (subscription only) about a new battle emerging among LCCs in Asia.
An excerpt:
A new head-to-head battle appears to be shaping up in Asia.
Indonesia’s LionAir announced plans to create a new LCC, Malindo, which will be based in Malaysia and take on AirAsia.
AirAsia previously announced plans to acquire Indonesia’s Batavia Air—a deal that’s under regulator review and which may or may not consummate—in a bid to further penetrate the Indonesian market against LionAir.
AirAsia and LionAir are the two behemoths in the region, excluding flag carriers. AirAsia operates 100 Airbus A320s and has 272 more on order. It is poised to place an order for up to 100 more any day now. AirAsia was a launch customer for the A320neo and has been urging Airbus to proceed with a re-engining of the A330 to produce an A330neo—a move Airbus has so far resisted.
LionAir operates about 70 Boeing 737NGs and has an astounding 337 on order. It is the launch customer for the 737-9 MAX and was the first customer to sign a firm contract for the airplane. LionAir is poised to order 100 Airbus A320/A321 neos, presumably for the new venture.
Posted on September 24, 2012 by Scott Hamilton