Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Wells Fargo estimates Southwest paid base price $34.7m for MAX
In a new research note issued today, Wells Fargo estimates that Southwest Airlines paid a based price of $34.7m each for the Boeing 737-8 MAX.
The investment bank published the following table, followed by the text:
Prior to Southwest Airlines’ decision to defer 30 Boeing 737-800 deliveries from 2012-13 to 2017-18, it
published the data above in its latest 10-Q. We estimate that (after factoring in PDPs) SWA is paying ~$5.67B for the 131 MAXs in 2019-2022, or $43.3M each; assuming an average of nine years of price escalation at 2.5%/year, the base price would be $34.7M – a 64% discount off the 737MAX-8 list price. We do not view this as an indication of a “price war” between Boeing and Airbus, as SWA is a priority 737 operator that was certain to receive the most favorable MAX launch-customer pricing.
This is a somewhat deeper discount than we thought: 60%. If true, we can say that discounts of 60% for top customers are not unknown, even if they are not common. We understand Boeing is currently offering the MAX at discounts in excess of 50% but we can’t nail it down any closer than this.
Airbus likewise is known to offer discounts of up to 60% on the A320 family.
So what about the “price war?” Our information is that this extends to the 737NG and the A320ceo. Airbus and Boeing have each connected sales of the current generation of airplanes to the re-engined models in part to sustain current and announced production rates and to prevent a drop in cash in the run-up to EIS of the new airplanes. This means dropping the price on the current generation to help. (Separately, this also means drops in lease rates and residual values.)
Then there is the competition for only current generation aircraft, such as last year’s Delta Air Lines order for 100 -900ERs over the A321. He heard straight away that this came down to a price war and Boeing won. After the Airbus win at American Airlines, there was no way Boeing was going to lose Delta, and we heard at the time Boeing under-priced Airbus by about 10%. (Recall, too, that Boeing under-priced EADS by 10% in the tanker competition.)
We are hearing United Airlines also came down to price. We expect this Boeing win to be announced before at at Farnborough.
Bernstein Research, in a note also issued today about the EADS first quarter earnings call, had this to say about a price war:
A320 pricing should be a near term strength, but long term risk. A320 pricing was described as
“above expectations” with no declines seen in 2011 orders, and premiums captured for the A320neo. In
contrast, Boeing has said that it sees Airbus pricing aggressively, with the result that narrowbody prices are being taken down for both the A320 and 737. We believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle with certain customers (e.g. American, Norwegian Air Shuttle) driving aggressive price competitions, but with reasonably solid A320 pricing elsewhere. Based on our customer discussions, however, we do not believe that either Airbus or Boeing is capturing significant premiums for their reengined models (only relative to lower prices for their current generation airplanes).
More on the changes to the CFM LEAP-1B
As we reported earlier today, Boeing and CFM didn’t stop with the previously announced 68.4 inch fan for the LEAP-1B engine on the 737 MAX.
Buckingham Research, citing Boeing at the investors’ day, wrote that Boeing talked about a 70 inch fan. Jon Ostrower–now at the Wall Street Journal–confirmed the larger fan, but at 69.4 inches (70 inches apparently was a rounded number) as well as pursuit of a smaller core.
The smaller core is important for two reasons: a larger fan and a smaller core provide for a higher by-pass ratio, increasing fuel burn reduction performance. The smaller core also enabled the engine to be mounted closer to the wing, which in turn means the previously announced 8 inch nose gear extension remains valid.
70″ Fan for the 737 MAX
We picked up information that Boeing’s announcement at ISTAT in March that it had settled on a 68.4 inch fan for the 737 MAX LEAP-1B wasn’t a done deal. Now Buckingham Research comes out of Tuesday’s Boeing’s investors’ day with this notation:
A 70” fan for the 737MAX
BA noted that 737MAX development is proceeding on schedule with firm configuration expected in 2013 and first flight in 2016. Further, BA sees more upside than downside risk to the plane’s 13% efficiency improvement. BA is now looking at a slightly larger 70” fan for the LEAP-X engine vs. 68.4″ previously. While that might reinforce investor concerns regarding the GE LEAP-X engine performance, we see the change as part of the design optimization process. A number of factors impact engine fan size, including drag (larger engine fans have more drag), bypass ratio, core size, core temperature, etc. With the 737MAX recently undergoing wind tunnel testing, we think the revised engine fan size has more to do with optimizing the engine than a means to overcome performance deficiencies.
Note that this is not speculation on Buckingham’s part; it cites Boeing as the source.
Airbus, Boeing accuse each other of price war; what’s the real story?
We find this very interesting: Boeing says Airbus is engaged in predatory pricing on the A320. Airbus says Boeing is engaged in a price war.
What’s the truth? It seems to us that orders might tell the story. The scorecard YTD:
Airbus A320 family: 88
Boeing 737 family: 413
It seems to us that if Airbus were engaged in predatory pricing, the scorecard would be reversed.
Last year, of course, Airbus pounded Boeing at a time when it had the NEO defined and Boeing’s MAX was still evolving. But Boeing ended the year with about 1,000 orders and commitments while Airbus ended the year with about 1,200 firm orders and another 200 or so commitments. So while Airbus ended the year ahead, we believe it was essentially because Airbus had a firm product and Boeing did not.
Something doesn’t pass the sniff test here.
Odds and Ends: Puzzling math remains puzzling in 737 v A320 debate
Puzzling math remains puzzling: Boeing has said for the better part of two years that the 737-800 is 8% more economical than the Airbus A320 and the advantage translates into leads it claims for the MAX over the NEO. With the addition of the Advanced Technology Winglets (BATW), Boeing now claims the 737 MAX will be a whopping 18% more economical than today’s A320 and up to 10% better than the NEO.
Such claims make Airbus almost apoplectic. Airbus rejects outright Boeing’s 8% claim and further said its own analysis on the MAX (pre-BATW) indicated the best improvement Boeing could get was 8%, not 10%-12%. Airbus also sniffs at the new BATW. Airbus evaluated the design before settling on the sharklets as more advantagous.
We’ve always been skeptical of numbers advanced by Airbus and Boeing because, after all, they are hardly objective. We’ve placed more weight in analyses offered by customers, for obvious reasons: they are the ones who have to operate the aircraft and truly know theory in real life.
We’ve previously written that Lufthansa concluded the 737 MAX will have a 2% advantage over the A320neo (also pre-BATW), which returns the competition to the “status quo.” This means that in Lufthansa’s analysis, today’s airplanes are only 2% apart, not Boeing’s claim of 8%.
Now comes information to us that Qantas–which operates both types through its own airline and the JetStar subsidiary–finds its operating experience to be so close as to be indistinguishable.
So we asked Boeing about that, and about how its methodology comes up with the numbers it advertised. Here’s the response, foregoing addressing the results of the airlines, citing long-standing policy of not commenting on customers. As for the methodology:
[Our analyses] are based on our average vs. Airbus and not individual customer statistics. There are too many variables to be able to address specifics and details.
Our numbers are cost per seat and are based on a 500 nm mission using typical European economic rules for airplanes with two-class seating giving the Next-Generation 737-800w (with PIP – Performance Improvement Package) 162 passengers and the A320 150 passengers.
Fuel burn values are Boeing tested values for the Next-Generation 737 and Boeing estimates for the A320. Maintenance costs are estimated using Boeing methodology which takes into account industry reported data from the FAA and IATA for both manufacturers. Same crew cost, landing and navigation and passenger handling cost models are applied to both airplanes.
We’ll note from our previous discussions with Boeing that Boeing acknowledged factoring in 737 PIPs (as cited above) but not factoring in A320 PIPs. Airbus claims Boeing uses the CFM56 as the base engine for the A320, rather than the V2500, which is 1.5% more efficient. Airbus also claims that Boeing uses older versions of the CFM56 as the A320 base engine rather than the newer, more efficient model. Airbus also uses 800nm vs Boeing’s 500nm for its analysis. (AirInsight’s analysis of US operation confirms that A320s and 737s tend to fly, on average, around 1,100sm, concluding that the longer range assumption is indeed a fairer data point.)
So the puzzling math used by Airbus and Boeing remains puzzling. The airlines say the airplanes are very close. We believe the airlines.
ExIm Bank: Just when we thought this was over, it turns out the Republicans in the US Senate Wednesday blocked a vote to approve reauthorization of the US ExIm Bank and a hike in its ceiling to $140bn. This story has additional detail. Boeing and GE take a hit on this.
Emirates to Boeing on 777X: Get a move on. You’re taking too long.
AA plans 767 retirement from about 2015–does this mean 787 order will finally be firmed up soon?
American Airlines announced that it plans to retrofit Boeing 777-200s and half its Boeing 767-300ER fleet with lie-flat business class seats as a means to upgrade its international service. AA also announced that it plans to retrofit only half of the 767 fleet and retire the rest.
IAM 751 Tweets that the retirement will start about 2015.
Does this mean American is preparing to at long last firm up its MOU for up to 100 Boeing 787s? The MOU was made several years ago, but was never firmed pending resolution of pilot contract negotiations. This, of course, hasn’t happened, and now in bankruptcy, American is moving under Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code to void the contract (and other labor agreements) and to impose its own terms.
This fleet upgrade and retirement announced suggests to us that American might be nearing a resolution (under 1113 if nowhere else) that will lead to firming up the 787 order.
No wonder Jim McNerney favors an American solution to a US Airways merger.
Odds and Ends: Lufthansa on 747-8I vs A380; ExIm deal reached; not quite, Dan Rather
747-8 vs A380: While Boeing and Airbus engage in a long-running and unseemly war of words about whether the 747-8I is more economical than the A380–and each accuse the other of playing fast and loose with the data–the only opinion we consider that counts comes from the airlines. Lufthansa says the A380 is more efficient than the 747-8I on a seat-mile basis. This is what LH said years ago, before either airplane was delivered. End of story.
ExIm deal reached: It looks like a deal has been reached with Republicans to support extending the authority of the ExIm Bank and to raise the ceiling to $140bn. As readers of this column know, we were highly critical of the Republicans for opposing this funding mechanism for American business. Boeing benefits greatly–ExIm has been called “Boeing’s bank–” and that’s OK. The ceiling hike isn’t really enough for the three years, however; ExIm funds stuff at about the rate of $35bn a year (about $12bn of which are Boeing airplanes).
Not quite, Dan Rather: We just finished reading Dan Rather’s new book, “Rather Outspoken,” which chronicles some of his career. In it, he cites his “Dan Rather Reports” effort on the Boeing 787 composites questions about crash-ability and flammability as one of his hard-hitting, post-CBS, HDNet award-winning examples of his after-life from CBS. Except that his conclusion in his book is wrong.
“Our report shed light on what might otherwise have been swept under the rug,” Rather writes, referring to the questions raised about composites and safety. “It triggered a recertification process and caused Boeing to reluctantly acknowledge potential problems with the CFRP fuselage.”
Well, we don’t know about that; Boeing almost never admits a mistake and we certainly don’t recall one admitted here. But what we do know is that Rather’s following conclusion is flat-out wrong.
“In the aftermath, Boeing delayed delivery–seven times….These were better, safer airliners because Boeing had finally taken more time before delivery.”
There can be no other conclusion than Rather is taking credit for Boeing delaying the 787 seven times as a result of his report. And anyone who followed the 787 debacle knows that the seven delays had little or even nothing to do with Rather’s report, but rather (pun intended) because of the supply chain, industrial problems, and just plain screwing up.
Odds and Ends: Boeing revises MAX winglet, adding 1.5% to efficiency
Update, 2:15 PM PDT: Airbus issued this response to the Boeing development:
“This kind of split-tip device was among the options we studied for the A320 Family, and we decided instead to advance with our Sharklet design as the most efficient. Our Sharklet figures (3.5% improvement over the already-efficient A320 wing with wing-tip fences) are flight-test proven.”
Original Post:
Boeing today announced a revised winglet to add 1.5% in fuel efficiency for the 737 MAX, releasing a photo. See here. This will be on top of the advertised 10%12% fuel burn gain previously announced.
Separately, David Hess, CEO of Pratt & Whitney, told the PW media day “that as far as we know, the 737 MAX is not an opportunity for us,” citing the Boeing-CFM exclusivity agreement.
Update, 0900 PDT: Boeing held a tele-press conference to discuss the new “Boeing Advanced Technology Winglets,” (BATW) which it also called “dual feathered” winglets.
Boeing said this is an exclusive Boeing design and not derived from a similar design promoted by Aviation Partners. Key points:
- Up to 1.5% lower fuel burn, depending on the length of mission;
- The design used Computational Fluid Dynamics to design it, a process used from the 787/747-8 programs;
- This is completely new technology, not having roots to the MD-11 which has a similar-looking wingtip arrangement;
- The wingspan is increased by only “inches” compared with the NG;
- The BATW is likely scalable to larger aircraft;
- There are no current plans to make the BATW available on the NG, though this could change;
- Although there will be some benefit to range, the BATW isn’t significant;
- Boeing now claims 18% better all-in costs than the current Airbus A320 (based on figures as a starting point Airbus disputes);
- This just about does it for aerodynamic changes to the 737; architectural changes should be nailed down in the third or fourth quarter; and
- “Our major trades aerodynamically are done.”
Aviation Partners has a similar concept; the differences between Boeing and AP are evident.
Here’s how McDonnell Douglas executed a similar concept on the MD-11:
