Odds and Ends: Why aircraft are late; catching up to Boeing

Why Aircraft Are Late: Boeing 747-8, 787, Airbus A380, A400M, A350, Mitsubishi MRJ, Comac ARJ-21, Sukhoi Superjet and probably Comac C919, Bombardier CSeries and Irkut MS-21–all late. It’s the new normal. Ernie Arvai at AirInsight takes a look at why.

Catching Boeing: Airbus may well have trailed Boeing through the Farnborough Air Show in terms of orders, but it may also be on the way toward catching up. The big PAL order for 54 aircraft was announced this week. A 100-airplane order out of China is due to be announced shortly. Another 100 airplane order from AirAsia appears to be pending. Year-to-date, Boeing has 701 net orders and Airbus has 270 net orders. These three orders still leaves Airbus well short of Boeing, and Boeing has more 737 MAX commitments to convert this year. We expect Boeing to finish the year in first place. It will be interesting to see how close Airbus can come.

NEO firm order wrap: Aviation Week has this detailed recap of NEO firm orders. We expect some of the A320neos to be converted to A321neos as time goes on, just as we expect 737-8 MAX orders to be swapped with 737-9 MAX positions.

There is still a place for airframe mock-ups

In today’s computer world and fancy 3D programs, it turns out there is still a place for airframe mock-ups to cross-check computer programming and to actually be sure the human can reach the nooks and crannies in an airplane.

Bombardier and Airbus are using mock-ups for the CSeries and A350. AirInsight has this report.

Bombardier’s iron bird this week began virtual flights. This is a key process to test the systems before the first airplane rolls out and it is a key way BBD hopes to avoid delaying EIS. Most people believe the first flight will be 3-6 months late (we concur) and BBD itself has been telegraphing the prospect of a 3-5 month delay, though so far it is sticking to its official schedule that first flight will be in late December.

  • Separately, Boeing activated the 787 surge line in Everett. This is key to achieving a production rate of 10 per month by the end of next year. It also serves as mitigation of the risk of Charleston.

Odds and Ends: More on 100-149 seat jet market; aircraft op cost comparisons; Super Guppy

100-149 Seat Market: AirInsight has more on its study of the 100-149 Seat Market analysis and why it will be turbulent in the next five years.

Cost Comparisons: Aspire Aviation has a long article on the Cathay Pacific Airways earnings but to us the most interesting parts are the operating cost comparisons between various CX fleet types. It’s all buried in the article.

Super-Guppy: The Puget Sound Business Journal has a video from inside the NASA Boeing Super Guppy. Based on the old Boeing Stratocruiser, the Super Guppy is a specialty airplane originally designed to transport Atlas rockets. Later, Airbus used them to transport fuselage sections around Europe to final assembly in Toulouse. This is probably the last operating variant of any B-377/C-97/KC-97. It’s the last of the Super Guppies. With the retirement of the NASA Shuttle fleet, we wonder what will become of this airplane.

Odds and Ends: Preparing market for 3-5 mo delay on CSeries; Air Canada fleet plans

Bombardier: On its earnings call. the company is preparing the market for a 3-5 month delay on the first flight of the CSeries. We’ve been estimating 3-6 months.

Air Canada: Here’s an interesting item. Air Canada is pondering major fleet changes that might see the removal of the Embraer E-190 as too big yet it is considering adding the CRJ-900, which is nominally just a little smaller.

AirAsia X: This LCC for long-haul is adding six Airbus A330s to its fleet, to bring the total to 26 when all aircraft on order are delivered. AirAsiaX considers the airplane ideal for flights of six to eight hours.

100-149 seat market isn’t ‘Bermuda Triangle’ for the right airplanes

A new study released today by AirInsight concludes the oft-maligned 100-149 seat market is viable, and not a ‘Bermuda Triangle,’ if the right airplane is developed to compete within it.

We’re a co-author of the study, Market Analysis of the 100-149 Seat Segment.

Some aerospace consultants, analysts and observers–as well as Boeing’s Randy Tinseth, VP-Marketing–term the segment a Bermuda Triangle because of airplane “failures” in the market. But the fact is that except for Embraer’s E-Jet, the poorly-conceived British Aerospace/Avro Jets and Bombardier’s pending CSeries, there hasn’t been a clean-sheet design since the 1960s. All other aircraft have been derivatives of older designs and offerings of weak and dying manufacturers.

We need to add the Sukhoi Superjet SSJ100 to the clean-sheet design list, but this falls into the weak OEM category.

Today there are six aircraft types and 15 sub-types from five OEMs. (There were seven and 16 until Tuesday, when Boeing finally dropped the 737-600.)

AirInsight has an analysis of the future of the A319/A319neo and 737-700/737-7 Max here.

Here is a run-down.

Read more

It’s official–new A350 delay

EADS, parent of Airbus, reported that there will be a three month delay for the A350 EIS due to wing drilling issues. We reported on July 6 we expected a delay of 5-6 months and earlier this week linked to an article suggesting one month. Here is an article synopsizing the information. The Wall Street Journal has this article.

This represents a 15 month delay for the A350 XWB-900 EIS. It’s unclear what, if any, cascading effect this will have on the A350-800 and the A350-1000.

Airbus said the program remains “challenging” and the linked news articles indicate this.

We’re skeptical of all new airplane programs given the recent history at Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier (CRJ1000) and, if you want to add it in, COMAC’s ARJ21 (though this one might be a bit unfair to include with the legacy OEMs). We would not be surprised if the A350 has additional delays between now and EIS.

But one thing we are seeing is that Airbus is coming forward sooner with delay acknowledgements than it did on the A380 and Boeing did on the 787. We have to give Airbus credit for being more forthcoming than in the past.

 

Odds and Ends: Aeromexico orders 90 MAX 8s, 10 787s; CSeries; A350

Aeromexico ordered 90 Boeing 737-8s and 10 787s. This order had been expected to be ready at the Farnborough Air show.

Aspire Aviation has a long profile on the Bombardier CSeries.

A350 delay: It looks like the wing issues previously disclosed will result in another delay for the program. Aviation International News has this story. Back on July 6 we opined that we’re expecting a delay of perhaps five months. The AIN story talks about one month.

Post-Farnborough thoughts: why so few orders, PR overkill and more

The Farnborough Air Show is over. Here are our thoughts:

For all the pre-show buzz about expected orders, with names and quantities identified, this show was a bust.

Airbus was said to be shooting for 250-300 orders; it finished with 115 (including orders, commitments, MOUs and so on). Just two of the talked-about orders would have brought Airbus close to the 250 mark. An A380 was also anticipated. But no-go.

Boeing also failed to meet pre-show expectations that revolved around converting about 75% of the then-remaining 550 737 MAX commitments to firm orders. In the end, only Air Lease Corp did so, for 75, while GECAS and Avolon were revealed as being among those Unidentified customers who “committed” to the MAX. We fully anticipate these, and the other MAX commitments, to convert but expectations were…expectations and in this, Boeing fell short. But the company was still the undisputed star of the show. Kuwait’s ALAFCO, a lessor, became a new MAX customer and so did United Airlines. United gave not only the MAX program in general a boost but the -9 MAX in particular a major shot in the arm with an order for 100. The airline also ordered 50 737-900ERs, a boost for this slow-selling airplane as well. Virgin Australian became another new MAX customer, albeit in the week preceding the show but this is a bit of a technicality.

Bombardier announced two new commitments for the CSeries, one from an Unidentified customer and one from Air Baltic. We view the Air Baltic order as significant, for this is the first time the CSeries competed against the A319neo and the 737-7 MAX. Previous competitions were vs the A319ceo, the A319neo and perhaps the 737–700.  BBD continues to make slow progress with the CSeries, with orders and options in the 10-20 range. This pace is similar to Embraer, Airbus and Boeing at this stage of the game (i.e., 18 months before EIS, six months before first flight) for the E-Jet, 737-700 and A319.

The news that BBD is talking with AirAsia about a 160-seat CS300 (28 inch pitch with new slim line seats) was a surprise. We’ll wait with great interest whether the airline’s CEO, Tony Fernandes will be enticed away from his exclusivity with Airbus for the A320/320neo. If Airbus’ John Leahy was motivated to “kill” the CSeries before, these talks are sure to start a war–and Leahy takes no prisoners.

Embraer, a star at the Paris Air Show, only announced a handful of orders.

ATR had a reasonable show with its turbo-prop. Bombardier brought up the rear with an order for six Q400s.

Pratt & Whitney bested CFM International in those A320 deals where they compete. CFM, of course, recorded far more orders since it is the exclusive supplier on the 737NG and MAX.

Mitubishi surprised everyone with an MOU for 100 MRJs from SkyWest Airlines of the USA. But commentary that this is a “blow” to Bombardier is over-stating.

Why so few orders?

Because the global economy still pretty much sucks. The backlogs are up to seven years out. Customers don’t want to pay escalation costs this far out. No need to hurry.

PR Overkill

A few years ago Boeing roundly criticized Airbus for announcing MOUs, LOIs and “commitments” while Boeing confined its announcements to firm orders. This changed at the Paris Air Show when Boeing announced commitments for 20 747-8Is from an unidentified customer. (It was the Hong Kong Airline Group.) Since then, all the airframe OEMs are busting their backs to throw every number they can out at an air show.

We roundly criticize this practice, whether it comes from Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer or anyone else. An order isn’t an order until it is. The Hong Kong 748 “commitment” is still pending, and this was one of those anticipated to be firmed up at Farnborough. Instead, it became one of those no-gos. The same goes for other “commitments” from other OEMs. That’s why we have been so harsh on the practice. A commitment isn’t really worth the paper it’s written on. A commitment isn’t booked as an order on the tally sheet. This PR charade should be dropped. Of course, it won’t be.

The absence of product news (other than some detail of the 737 MAX and formalizing the A330-300 HGW), the failure to meet even low expectations in terms of orders and the crappy weather combined to make for a dull show from a news standpoint.

It was nice to see Boeing return to the aerial displays with the Qatar 787. Boeing certainly has a point: aerial displays haven’t sold an airplane (probably since Tex Johnston did the barrel role with the Dash 80). But it’s always been cool to see the A380, A340-600 or even the Lockheed Constellation do some aerobatics. We hope Boeing continues the practice.

Farnborough Day 4: wrapping up; big United deal

The Farnborough Air Show for the trade is over. Here are today’s final orders.

Airbus: Avolon signs MOU for 15 A320neos. Middle East Airlines 5+5 A320s/A321s. Russia’s UTAir 20 A321s. Synergy Aerospace firms up order for nine Airbus A330 Family aircraft. Ends show with 115 orders, MOUs, commitments.

Boeing: United’s announcement for the 737-9 MAX (100) and 737-900ER (50) originated in Chicago and was broadcast to the FAS. With this order, Boeing now has +1,200 orders and commitments for the MAX from 18 customers. Firm orders for 737 MAX now hit 649.

Bombardier: Chorus Aviation of Canada exercises options for six Q400s. AirAsia’s CEO Tony Fernandez confirms he’s talking about 100, 160-seat CS300s.

Future materials: aluminum lithium, standard metals or composities

The Farnborough Air Show isn’t just about orders, though these get all the sex and headlines.

While we weren’t at the show, we had a telephone interview with a company called Constellium, previously known as Alcan. Constellium spoke at the February conference of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance, with which we are involved. We were particularly interested in talking with Constellium because it is a major supplier of Aluminum-Lithium, an alternative material to standard aluminum and a competing material to composites.

Constellium’s Al-Li combines other processes, including a design for recycling, and is named AirWare. Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier are among their key customers, and it is Constellium that is providing the materials for the CSeries. It’s also a supplier on the Airbus A350 (internal components, not the fuselage).

As Airbus and Boeing looked at the A320neo and 737 MAX, and as Boeing is looking at the 777X, we asked them about the prospect of using Al-Li. This is lighter than standard aluminum, more durable, less susceptible to corrosion and enabled 12 years between major maintenance overhauls compared with the 6-8 years now.

But Al-Li is more difficult to work with than standard aluminum. Boeing’s Mike Bair told us in an interview that Boeing considered Al-Li back in the 1990s when designing the 777 but it was too difficult and costly to manufacture. Since then, he praised the producers for strides. There are mixed reports what material will be used for the 777X fuselage: standard metal or Al-Li. The Seattle Times reported the airplane will have Al-Li. We’ve been told it won’t. But with the airplane still months and perhaps a year from launch, there is plenty of time to decide.

Airbus, in an interview at the Paris Air Show last year, said it was evaluating Al-Li for the A320neo. The A320ceo is heavier than the competing Boeing 737 and the re-engine adds about 4,000 lbs. Using Al-Li would mitigate some of this weight. We haven’t heard if Airbus might go ahead with Al-Li, but we’re leaning toward concluding that it won’t.

Boeing told us it will not switch to Al-Li for the MAX because the manufacturing process is just enough different that it would add complexity and cost to the current tooling and procedures.

Al-Li vs composites is a competition that will likely be fierce when it comes time for Airbus and Boeing to design the next clean-sheet airplanes, presumed to be the New Small Airplane, or replacement for the current 737/A320 class. (Boeing may have a new clean-sheet for the 757 class; it has a New Airplane Study underway for this, but the market may be too narrow when one considers the 737-9 MAX and A321neo will do 95% of what a 757 can do.)

Composites, selected for the 787 and A350 XWB fuselages and wings, offer advantages over standard metal fuselages that have been well documented and need not be repeated here. But Airbus and Boeing question the efficiency and benefits of down-scaling composites to 737/A320 category airplanes. Boeing apparently became convinced: Jim Albaugh, former CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said the New Small Airplane would have been composite, but the ability to produce it at a rate of 60 per month remained a challenge. Boeing went with the MAX instead.

Vistagy, a composite manufacturer near Boston, told us nearly two years ago, that the down-scaling challenges were met and that production rates were the issue. Autoclaves are very costly and so is the manufacturing process. There is actually less industrial waste than traditional aluminum manufacturing, but the materials are generally more hazardous—though there have been strides on this score.

This is the background that intrigued us when we had the opportunity to speak with Constellium’s Simon Laddychuk, VP of Manufacturing Global Aerospace and Director of Technology. Read more