Note: Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has a particularly thorough piece looking at this incident. The Wall Street Journal also has a good story on the topic. The New York Times has this story.
Update, April 5: Flightblogger has this story about how the 737s subject to the AD were identified. As Jon Ostrower closes his piece, he asks what the design changes were. KIRO TV (Seattle) told us that Boeing told it design changes were made to strengthen that area of the airplane.
Original Post:
The FAA said late April 4 that it will issue an airworthiness directive April 5 requiring immediate inspections of 175 Boeing 737-300/400/500 aircraft, following the Southwest Airlines in-flight decompression April 1. Eighty of the aircraft are in the US. Only those with more than 30,000 cycles are affected.
The FAA press release is here.
Other countries with reciprocity airworthiness agreements with the US–such as Germany, for example–will follow the FAA’s AD. Countries without airworthiness agreements with the US aren’t required to follow the FAA AD, and it’s unclear how many aircraft are involved.
Southwest Airlines suffered a second in-flight decompression of a Boeing 737-300 yesterday. This is the second–the first was in July 2009.
Both airplanes were 15-year old 737-300s and the failure on both airplanes were in the aft fuselage. The 2009 incident involved a hole in front of the vertical fin about one foot in size. Friday’s incident was bigger, about three feet, further forward and on the left size but aft of the wing.
Southwest grounded 79 737-300s for inspection, all about 15 years old. The company doesn’t have word how long the inspections will take; about 300 flights will be canceled today.
The WTO released the public version of its report on the illegal subsidies for Boeing. There are plenty of stories on the Internet to choose from, so we won’t recap it all here. We have said and still say a pox on both houses.
But here is a 10 minute podcast by AirInsight of an interview with Airbus’ Alan McArtor, Chairman of Airbus Americas.
Here is a slightly longer podcast with Boeing’s top WTO official.
This is an abbreviated Odds and Ends; we are traveling this week and next and we’re not sure if we’ll have the chance to update while we are on the road. Meantime:
Orient Aviation magazine has a cover story profile of John Leahy, COO of Customers, and it’s a good one.
FlightGlobal has a long piece about the new competitors to Airbus and Boeing.
This is a frightening story about construction at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.
An Australian TV station has a special on the Qantas A380/Rolls-Royce incident.
George Talbot of The Mobile Press-Register takes a look at how all the analysts and pontificaters were flummoxed by the Boeing win on the tanker.
1. Airbus wants to advance NEO EIS six months
Airbus wants to advance the entry-into-service of the A320neo by six months, to October 2015, we have learned. Airbus plans to introduce the neo in six month increments (A320neo followed by A321neo followed by A319neo). Airbus has more than 300 orders and commitments for the 320/321 and none for the 319. With Boeing increasingly talking about a new airplane in 2019, any advance Airbus can get for EIS on the neo will be beneficial.
Pratt & Whitney can probably meet this requirement. It will have versions of the GTF in service with Bombardier in 2013 and with Mitsubishi in 2014. Testing on the Irkut MS-21, a competitor to the A320/321, is to begin in 2014 with an EIS planned for 2016 (though we believe the MS-21 will likely be later than 2016).
Whether CFM can have the LEAP-X ready for a NEO 2015 EIS is unknown. CFM has yet to be selected for a NEO order (this is only a matter of time, though). The LEAP-X is in development for the COMAC C919, also a competitor to the 320/321. Flight testing is planned for 2014 and EIS for 2016 but we think the C919 will run years late, just as did the ARJ-21. Can CFM shave six months off its flight testing to meet an advanced NEO EIS when it is disadvantaged to PW’s CSeries and MRJ operating experience? We don’t know.
Over at Boeing, Aspire Aviation has this think-piece about the “737X.”
2. Airbus ponders slight larger A350-1000
The A350-1000 is aimed directly at the Boeing 777-300ER, but it is slightly smaller at 350 passengers vs 365 in typical three-class. Boeing, and others, question whether Rolls-Royce’s Trent XWB engine is big enough for the -1000 (Airbus, not surprisingly, said that it is). But we learned that Airbus is considering a 380 passenger -1000 and 50 miles more range to make it sure to do Dubai-Los Angeles non-stop. For this, the Trent XWB needs 5,000 lbs more thrust, and Rolls has been asked to figure this out.
In our view, this is the airplane Airbus needs to take on the -300ER.
Update, March 11: Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has an excellent article about the new Boeing airplane and its production site.
Original Post:
In a short article we did for Aviation Technology magazine, Boeing sees a long life for the 737. The airplane could sell right alongside the Y1, which Boeing’s Mike Bair says is erroneously called the replacement for the 737; he prefers to call this the “new airplane.” It is known internally as the Y1, hence our use of the term.
Indeed, the new airplane is 150-210 seats (some reports have it 180-220, but Bair told us 210 was the upper limit–though there is still some fluidity).
Our full article will be in the next issue of the magazine.
The Wall Street Journal has this article.
We’ve added a link to the daily news briefs from Aircraft Technology’s parent, UBM Aviation, to the right hand side of this page. UBM’s website is painfully slow, though.
With plans to assemble the KC-45 in Mobile (AL) in shreds, what’s next for EADS and Airbus in the US?
EADS and Airbus said creating a final assembly line (FAL) for the KC-X would lead to assembling A330-200Fs there as well. Without the tanker, the business case for the freighter FAL in Mobile didn’t exist, said officials.
The tanker contract is gone and Airbus now has a backlog of only some 50 A330-200Fs.