Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing wants to remarket China’s airplanes. It’s costly and time consuming. April 28, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 19. April 25, 2025
- How good is the C929? Part 2. April 24, 2025
- Boeing First Quarter Results Update: China is 10% of the backlog, with 500 in “Unidentified” April 24, 2025
- Boeing First Quarter Results: Tariffs, Return flights, $10.55bn asset sale April 23, 2025
Odds and Ends: SPEEA says strike is likely; CFM LEAP update
SPEEA v Boeing: The Seattle Times reported that there is a very high chance of a strike by SPEEA against Boeing come February. This is, of course, bad news for all concerned.
SPEEA is already talking about a 60 day strike and says this would cost Boeing $400m a day. In 2000, when SPEEA struck for 60 days, Boeing deivered 50 fewer aircraft for the year. IAM 751’s 57 day strike in 2009 depressed sales and cost Boeing billions (though nothing like the $400m SPEEA forecasts, which is a puzzle).
Customers, who were ticked off by the IAM strike, will once again be the innocent bystanders in this potential strike. A strike will also redouble Boeing’s drive to diversify to non-union states, though hopefully this time it won’t be so stupid as to connect the dots again as it did with the 751. It’s our belief Boeing can’t fulfill the demand for engineers in Washington State anyway so it has to locate work elsewhere. Although as a Washington State resident we don’t want to see this happen, this is, we believe, reality.
SPEEA has the power to truly disrupt things at Boeing, not only for deliveries but also for future engineering projects, but nobody will win and everybody will lose if Boeing and SPEEA don’t reach an agreement.
CFM LEAP Update: The Seattle Times also has this update on the CFM LEAP-1B, the version for the Boeing 737 MAX.
Noteworthy in the article is the revelation of the contractual commitment for CFM to reduce fuel burn for the LEAP-1B by 15% compared with today’s 737 CFM engine. This is a key piece of information and well beyond the Airbus assumption in the continuing war of words between the two companies.
It also is key to Boeing’s previously advertised target of the 737 MAX being 13% better than today’s 737NG. What strikes us, however, is whether 13% is still an operative figure.
All other things being equal, installation typically costs 1%-2%, which means the MAX on engine installation alone should be 13%-14% better than the NG. We know that Boeing is working hard on airframe improvements. Shouldn’t the 13% actually be better? We know the advanced winglets are supposed to add 1.5% to fuel reduction, for example. Boeing has also cleaned up the tailcone and undertaken other aerodynamic improvements.
We’ve asked Boeing and will post its response when received.
Update, 2pm PST: We have an answer of sorts from Boeing, though we’ve asked for further clarification.
“CFM’s number is in SFC or specific fuel consumption for a given thrust which when you apply it to a specific mission gives you the fuel-burn reduction for that trip. The attached shows a 500-nmi trip comparison which gives the MAX engine 14% fuel-burn reduction compared to the NG engine, next we factor in engine integration and aero improvements ending up with a total 13% reduction for a 500-nmi trip compared to the NG).
“You will see in the chart that we credit the AT winglet with approximately 1 percent improvement (again this is at a 500-nmi trip). However, at longer ranges customers will experience even more improvement from the AT winglets, up to 1.5%.”
This chart (click to enlarge) is extracted from Boeing’s Farnborough presentation. It starts with a 14% improvement for the engine, while the news article says 15% is required in the CFM contract. The Boeing spokesperson said this is for a 500nm mission at a “specific thrust” level. We’re trying to clarify the difference between the 15% contract number and the 14% above. If we get this clarity, we’ll update again.
Update, 545pm PST: Here’s the final answer from Boeing:
“CFM’s number is in pure SFC and our numbers are in fuel-burn per trip so they are not equivalent. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. In our case – we are using a 500-nmi trip which is our standard comparison. This includes then in our calculations the fuel-burn cost of lifting the airplane empty weight off the ground since takeoff is part of the trip. CFM’s number is an engine in a test stand compared to another engine in a test stand so the two comparisons are not equivalent.”
Meanwhile…
Not revealed in the article but we learned that there will be a thrust bump for the LEAP engine. Right now CFM lists on its website the LEAP-1B thrust at a maximum of 28,000 lbs, the same as the current engine. Because of the higher weights for the MAX, runway performance has been assessed as poorer than the NG by customers we’ve talked with. A thrust bump, and airframe improvements, are aimed at fixing this issue, we’re told.
Boeing wants to outsource more work to Mexico; updated MAX v NEO orders
Boeing outsourcing: In an election where outsourcing is a major political campaign issue, The Seattle Times reports Boeing wants to outsource more work to Mexico. Here is Boeing’s letter, via The Times.
MAX v NEO: Here is an excellent set of tables updating the orders between the 737 MAX and the A320 NEO. According to the analysis, Airbus right now has a 63% market share for the airframe. On the NEO, where two engines are offered, CFM has a 41% share vs PW’s 39% share with the remainder undecided.
ISTAT Europe: a tough review by Aeroturbopower, and our thoughts
ISTAT Europe: Aeroturbopower has this recap of last week’s ISTAT Europe conference and he takes a devastating hit at the Boeing presentation. We weren’t at the event this year but we’ve seen plenty of Boeing presentations and agree with Aeroturbopower’s assessment that Boeing takes liberties…something we’ve written about and something we’ve also expressed to Boeing directly. Comparing apples to oranges seems to be a common tactic.
But in fairness, Airbus also selectively chooses numbers that boost its case. We dissected one such instance in this column on AirInsight. Both companies play around with the seating configuration of their airplanes and the opposition to come up with numbers for seat-mile costs. We’ve seen Boeing compare ranges of the 737 NG and MAX vs the A320ceo/neo families by including the auxiliary fuel tank for the 737 but not for the A320, completely distorting the comparisons. Boeing relies on DOT Form 41 data and a study from 2006-2009 in Europe when comparing maintenance costs of the two families to argue the 737 costs up to 27% less to maintain. The figure, on its face, defies logic. If the A320 cost this much more to maintain, airlines would be hard-pressed to buy it. But more to the point, the methodology for the DOT Form 41 data is thoroughly discredited as a reliable source of information. Relying on a study that uses data up to six years old is also questionable.
All these manipulations of data is why we view numbers from both companies with a high degree of skepticism. In this column, we discuss this at the very end.
Manipulation of data like this harms the credibility of both companies.
As for Aeroturbopower’s report on the 737 MAX design not being frozen, this is true and it’s not news. Boeing said it won’t be until next year and this is what we are also hearing from customers. We’re hearing from a variety of sources that there are still challenges in achieving the advertised 13% fuel burn improvement over today’s 737 NG. We believe Boeing and CFM will get there, but it remains tough. We would not be surprised to see the 69.4 inch fan diameter increase yet again.
WTO Compliance?
The Washington Post reports that the US has complied with the WTO ruling on Boeing illegal subsidies. Boeing didn’t announce whether it has repaid the illegal subsidies, as it pledged to do if it was found guilty of receiving them.
Air France A350 contract stalled; here’s the way forward
Bloomberg News has this report that the Air France-KLM talks for 25 Airbus A350s remain stalled over the long-running dispute between the company and Rolls-Royce over AF’s desire to overhaul the Trent XWB engines.
The Air France-KLM group offers its own maintenance, repair and overhaul services and wants the ability to provide MRO to others as well as perform the work itself.
Engine suppliers are loath to grant MRO rights to others. Engines are often sold at deep discounts, and in extreme cases, even given to airlines in exchange for the exclusive parts and MRO contracts. This is where the engine makers truly make their profits.
Rolls-Royce is known to be particularly hard-nosed in this regard.
So how will the log-jam be broken?
Rolls wants Air France to order the Trent 1000 for the 25 Boeing 787 orders announced last year. Given the long relationship between Air France and GE, the supplier on AF’s current fleet of a variety of aircraft, this will be a tough pill to swallow. But don’t count it out.
Boeing rolls out Ray Conner to analysts
Boeing rolled out Ray Conner, the new CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, to analysts in New York yesterday. The first research note we’ve received, from Imperial Capital’s Ken Herbert, portrayed a positive meeting. Below is a synopsis. As we receive more notes, we’ll add those comments.
We don’t like the resumed policy of using cash to repurchase stock, instead of putting it into new airplane programs (something Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, normally a pro-Boeing consultant, has roundly criticized for years).
Imperial Capital
We believe BA is benefitting from several tailwinds, and is demonstrating increased confidence regarding its 787 execution and the ability to take further costs out of the supply chain. However, we believe much of the good news is reflected in BA stock, and we see slowingorders in 2013 as limiting the multiple; therefore, we are maintaining our In-Line rating. Investors areexpecting a significant dividend increase or share repurchase program, which could be a positive catalyst, but we see the new program developments, which include the 737MAX, the 777X and 787-10, as potential competing cash pulls.
Regarding the 787, Boeing confirmed that Charleston is ahead of plan, but that it has been staffed to over deliver. Boeing also made a point of stressing that its movement down the cost curveon the 787 will be similar to that of the 777. We believe that there is an opportunity for Boeing toexceed expectations on the 787.
We continue to believe, however, the much of the execution upside is priced into Boeing stock. We believe that in order for the stock to see material upside, Boeing needs to demonstrate a very bold use of the expected free cash flow, in the form of both increased dividend and share repurchases, that will attract new investor interest and accelerate the EPS growth. However, this will limit the new product development options, considering the potentially competing development requirements of the 737MAX, the 787-10, and the 777X. We believe current BCA leadership wants to do both the 777X and the 787-10, and believes that there is significant pent-up order demand for both new aircraft, but we believe the focus on share repurchases and/or the dividend, reiterated at the 8/28/12 reception, could push some development effort to the right.
Separately:
- A reader posted this link on NEO vs MAX orders and options and we think it so good we’re elevating it to a primary post. This website also recaps which airlines have switched allegiance. Thanks to Dave O’Flynn for the link.
- China ordered 50 A320s instead of the expected 100.
Odds and Ends: Designing 737 MAX; RR & PW; CFM
737 MAX: Boeing Frontiers Magazine has a long article with lots of pictures describing the designing process of the Advanced Technology Winglets.
RR-PW on big engines: Aviation Week has this article speculating on the prospect of Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney teaming to offer an engine for the Boeing 777X.
CFM says the use of advanced materials will reduce fuel consumption in the LEAP-1A (Airbus) engine by 1.5%, which happens to be the amount John Leahy of Airbus said that PW’s GTF has an advantage over LEAP.
It’s official: United orders 150 firm Boeing jets (100 Max, 50 900ERs)
Press conference
Jeff Smisek, CEO United
- 100 737 Max 9
- 50 737-900ERs, replaces 757s flown domestically.
Jim McNerney, CEO The Boeing Co.
- Thanks to UA for putting trust in us.
- Boeing and United go back a long, long way. Once part of the same company.
- Boeing has delivered more than 1,400 airplanes to United and Continental.
- With today’s order, the 737 program has now surpassed 10,000 orders.
Boeing Photo.
Ray Conner, President Boeing Commercial Airplanes
- The 737 MAX like the 787 will provide customers best solution in air transport.
- Will provide greater value in fuel efficiency. MAX, like the NG, is perfect match for United.
Q&A:
Smisek:
- $14bn value, NG delivery begins in 2013. (Where did Boeing come up with delivery positions next year?–Editor.)
- -900ERs replace 757s domestically, 9 MAX will replace other, less fuel efficient aircraft including A320s. We have 152 Airbus airplanes today.
- First 787 due in late September. McNerney has personally guaranteed this.
- We had extensive discussions with Airbus and Boeing. Spent almost the past year in discussions with engine and airframe manufacturers.
- We’ll finance aircraft as we get closer to delivery.
- Deciding factors we negotiated what we believe to be the best airplane with the best engines at the best price.
But what of the runway performance?
Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has this story in which he has the following observation:
Wyse revealed that Boeing, through structural efficiencies, has also beefed up the allowed maximum take-off weights for the three MAX variants.
Each is 5,000 to 7,000 lbs heavier than the maximum take-off weights of the current 737s.
That means each 737 MAX model, even though heavier than the corresponding current model of the 737NG, can either carry a heavier payload or carry more fuel and so fly farther.
This is good. But we’re hearing from airlines that runway performance may be worse than the 737NG. The airplane is heavier but the wing is the same and the engine thrust is still somewhat of a mystery. CFM International, maker of the LEAP-1B that will power the MAX, lists thrust on its website of 20,000-28,000 lbs without identifying the sub-types and thrust to which the engines will be applied.
These thrust ratings are similar to those now on the NG, rather than being increased to compensate for the increased weight.
One airline tells us that runway performance for the -8 MAX and -9 MAX is longer than the -800 and -900. (The airline is not considering the -7 MAX and doesn’t have the -700.) This, the airline tells us, makes the airplanes problematic at some airports it serves.
This illustrates the dilemma Boeing and CFM have with the physically-constrained 737. CFM could build any engine it wants that would get the job done. It has, after all, two LEAP engines in development for the COMAC C919 and the Airbus A320neo. But the 737 presents special challenges and CFM is constrained unless Boeing lifts the entire airplane with new main gear. But this would mean a new wing box and associated structural changes, adding significantly to the cost. And Boeing won’t to this.
There’s still a lot about MAX we don’t know. And many customers are also waiting for the information.
Farnborough, Day 1: Orders, Price Calculator and other stuff
McNerney rejects “price war.” A quote from a Financial Times story (see below).
He rejected suggestions that a price war had broken out between Airbus and Boeing over the A320 Neo and 737 Max but confirmed the US manufacturer would woo some airline customers of its European rival.
Courtesy of Aspire Aviation, here is a summary of orders through Day 1:
Airbus
|
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
|
9th July |
Arkia Israel Airlines |
4 |
A321neo |
Agreement |
Boeing
|
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
|
9th July |
Air Lease Corp (ALC) |
60 |
737 MAX 8 |
Reconfirmation rights for 25 more |
|
9th July |
Air Lease Corp (ALC) |
15 |
737 MAX 9 |
|
Pratt & Whitney
|
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
|
9th July |
IndiGo |
300 |
PW1100G-JM |
|
|
9th July |
CIT |
60 |
PW1100G-JM |
|
|
9th July |
Cebu Pacific |
60 |
PW1100G-JM |
For 30 firm A321neos |
|
9th July |
Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) |
100 |
PW1100G-JM |
MoU |
CFM
|
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
|
9th July |
Air Lease Corp (ALC) |
150 |
CFM Leap-1B |
|
Embraer
|
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
|
9th July |
Hebei Airlines |
5 |
E-190s |
Booked in Q2 backlog |
Reuters put together a handy-dandy thing to calculate airplane prices easily. These are list prices, of course.
Some stories of note:
United to announce big MAX order July 12
AirInsight is posting daily news and videos.
The Financial Times of London has a piece with Boeing’s Jim McNerney. (Free but limited registration required.) Here’s a relevant quote.
Boeing announced the 737 Max in August last year and Mr McNerney said that “in retrospect” the US manufacturer should have made its decision to proceed with a revamped version of its narrow-body workhorse, rather than a brand new aircraft, “six to nine months” earlier.