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.
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:
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.
We’re all used to Airbus and Boeing engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The war has now spilled over to CFM and Pratt & Whitney and the LEAP engine vs the GTF.
There have always been some sharp words. But according to these two stories from Guy Norris at Aviation Week, the tone has now gotten even sharper.
CFM claims big advantage over GTF.
We’re puzzled by CFM’s claim (in the first story) that the LEAP will have a 2%-2.5% advantage in fuel burn over the GTF. Airbus gives a 1.5% advantage to GTF because of the larger fan (John Leahy, Credit Suisse conference Nov. 30, 2011). CFM claims a 15% SFC gain over today’s engines; PW claims 16% SFC gains (pre-installation) for its GTF and flying test results bear this out, PW says.
CFM has a larger market share of aircraft over 100 seats, because of its exclusivity on the 737 MAX. CFM also has a larger share of the A320neo family, the only airplane where there is head-to-head competition, bolstered by the policy of sister company, lessor GECAS, of buying only GE engines; and a financial rescue of Frontier Airlines, which has a CFM-powered A320 fleet and which ordered the A319neo/320neo at the Paris Air Show last year with LEAP engines.
It’s noteworthy in the first article that the LEAP-1B for the 737 MAX shares little commonality with the LEAP-1A and LEAP-1C. This reflects the challenges of fitting a LEAP under the wings of the physically-constrained 737, which basically required another core design.
Separately, here is a story about the materials and process used for the LEAP.
787 fuel burn: Aviation Week has this story about the early fuel burn results for the Boeing 787 beating expectations (which admittedly were tamped down because of the program difficulties). Some of this has been reported before. What caught our eye was the detail about the GEnx engine. Why? Because the CFM LEAP-1B derives much of its technology from the GEnx, including the higher temperatures fleetingly referenced in the AvWeek piece.
CFM is relying on high temperatures to achieve the fuel burn required by Boeing’s 737 MAX. This is hotly debated (pun intended) between CFM and Pratt & Whitney in the competition between the LEAP and the PW GTF.
CFM advocates that its hotter-running engine, equipped with advanced technology ceramics and other advanced materials, gives it the advantage over PW’s Geared Turbo Fan technology. PW argues that the hotter CFM engine will require more maintenance. Engineers that we ask generally agree that the hotter temperature approach will be a challenge for long-term maintenance but fall back on CFM’s sterling reputation of reliability as a measure of comfort. At the same time, these same engineers–who have no connection to either CFM or PW–like the GTF technology but want to see it proved in service.
Steven Udvar-Hazy said it best. It will be five to seven years after the engines are in service before the industry knows the reliability and performance of either engine’s advanced technology.
As Airbus and Boeing battle for orders for the current generation A320 and 737 families and for the re-engined models, comparisons between the four sets of aircraft has been difficult to come by.
Furthermore, with Boeing continuing to evolve the MAX–not only with the engine specifications but also the airplane weights–ambiguity sometimes dominates.
Boeing continues to talk with customers about the definition of the MAX, with higher weights under study. Airbus is more advanced, but of course until flight testing confirms figures, nothing is certain.
Over time, information as emerged through Airbus, Boeing, Pratt & Whitney and other statements and information. Aspire Aviation (now Orient Insight) also has been a solid source of information. Our own data gathering has obtained some solid information as well.
From all these sources, we’ve put together the following table. The 737-7 MAX is the murkiest, with little apparent interest so far from the customer base. Taking known facts for the 8/9 MAX, we estimated some of the specifications for the 7 MAX.
What struck us on the NEO is that Airbus specifications for range are greater than has been previously revealed.
We consider the specifications of NEO and MAX still evolving until flight tests for all six sub-types prove design goals.