Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Does an A220-500 need a new wing and engines? Part 4. July 3, 2025
- GE testing of giant GE9X engine aims for maturity at entry into service June 30, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 28. June 27, 2025
- Parent agency, FAA often at odds as politics outweighs safety June 26, 2025
- Electric Flight and the Ugly Duckling June 25, 2025
Boeing’s 767 revitalized as a MOM stop gap?
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Aug. 27 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In our Monday article, “Boeing sees healthy future for 767,” Boeing’s spokesperson said, “We are continuing to explore additional capabilities and improvements” for the 767. It was not clear what these improvements were other than a 0.5% engine performance improvement package (PIP) that was introduced earlier in the year. With lower and lower fuel prices, existing aircraft get more and more viable as a stop gap to cover market segments that today are not part of the plans for the OEM’s modern products.
We will therefore examine the 767 deeper to understand what can be improved further and how well such an improved model would serve as a stop gap replacement for the lack of a modern Middle of the Market (MOM) aircraft. We explored how a MOM aircraft should look like in our series, “Redefining the 757 replacement requirement for the 225/5000-sector”.
The 767 has several of the attributes that we found optimal for a MOM aircraft, one having a seven abreast cabin cross section. In the 767 variant that is being produced for the US Air Force tanker program, the 767-200ER, the overall fuselage dimensions are also close to the ones we found desirable for a MOM aircraft.
With fuel now well below $2.00 per US Gallon (about $1.35), we will compare the 767 to our MOM specifications and try to understand where there is a fit and what would needed to be changed to improve the 767’s efficiency so that it could serve as a MOM stop gap. Finally, we will check if such changes can be economically viable in different fuel price scenarios.
Summary:
- Different to the 757,the 767 is still produced for the foreseeable future, thanks to the US Air Force tanker program.
- Boeing 767 is the only produced aircraft that has the desired seven abreast cabin, which we found optimal for a MOM aircraft.
- How does the 767 fuselage and wing compare to the ones we found desirable for the MOM?
- Is the cargo capability of the 767 acceptable for a MOM role?
- We explore the primary characteristics in our first article today. We will go deeper with technical and economical analysis in subsequent articles.
Six year turnover in sale/leasebacks put supply-demand balance at risk
Subscription Required
Introduction
August 24, 2015, © Leeham Co. When airlines like Indigo of India, Air Asia, Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) and Lion Air have outstanding orders for Airbus A320s and
Boeing 737s that number in the hundreds, far more than operations and growth appears ready to support, the deals raises the natural question: What are they thinking?
As LNC’s Bjorn Fehrm explained Friday, one aspect of these big orders is to “flip” the aircraft every six or seven years, a time that roughly coincides with the maintenance holiday/warranty period. Sale/leasebacks are used to finance these huge purchases.
The practice is hardly new. The USA’s JetBlue Airlines, Ryanair and others practiced this flip for years.
Carriers like the new LCCs mentioned above not only plan to do so to avoid major maintenance costs, but also to fuel their growth. In the case of Lion Air and NAS, these companies also plan to lease out aircraft to other airlines.
But there remain risks involved for the companies and for the industry.
Summary
- The growing practice of flipping aircraft every six or seven years presents risks to lessors.
- Indigo Airlines has 96 aircraft in service, 430 on order.
- Select LCCs in Asia, Europe, India have 1,000 A320s, 737s on order.
Airbus’ and Boeing’s Payload/Range for VLAs
- Bloomberg reported this week that Airbus is now offering the A350-900LR to Singapore Airlines to reopen ultra-long haul US direct routes. We predicted July 14 that Airbus would offer the LR. We offered some high-level analysis about how Airbus could achieve a long range version of the A350-900; the Bloomberg piece confirms our analysis.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Aug. 19 2015, ©. Leeham Co: We will now finish our series over Boeing’s changes to its configuration rule sets by looking at how this affects the Very Large Aircraft (VLA) segment.
Airbus and Boeing used to describe the VLAs in their line-ups using three class cabins, albeit with different standards. Now Boeing has changed its standard to a modern three class seating while Airbus has changed to a four class cabin, including premium economy.
We have enough information of the A380 equipped with a three class cabin to be able to make a comparison using three class rule sets. We will therefore apply a three class cabin to the A380 and 747-8 that will have modern seating standards and pair that with Boeing’s tougher payload weights and enroute reserves.
Summary:
- Boeing’s new Standard rules three class cabin and our normalized three class cabin for A380 and 747-8i are close in their configurations.
- We use our knowledge of these standards to create a level playing field on the cabin side.
- We also apply the new tougher passenger and bags rules + the tougher reserves policy that Boeing’s new Standard rule set prescribes.
- It used to be that A380 had a range advantage at max passenger payload. We check if this remains under the new rules.
Airbus’ and Boeing’s Payload/Range for Dual Aisle.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Aug. 17 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In our series over Boeing’s changes to its configuration rule sets, we will now continue with the dual aisle aircraft. Here the differences between Airbus and Boeing are larger. Boeing used to be specifying a three class cabin and Airbus two class. Now Boeing has changed to two class and Airbus is just changing to three class.
There is a bit of difference in the Airbus change to three class and the three class that Boeing had until now. Airbus changes from modern two class to a modern three class with Business, Premium Economy and Economy. Boeing’s change was from an outdated three class with old style First, Business and Economy to a modern two class with lie flat business section.
The new Boeing two class and historical Airbus two class are close in configuration. These end up within a seat or two of each other and also within our normalized two class cabins. As these cabin rules are similar, we use our normalized cabin data to compare the payload range of the aircraft when all apply the new, tougher passenger+bags weight rules and an equalized reserves policy.
Summary:
- Airbus’ two class rules and Boeing’s new two class Standard rules are close in their configurations.
- They are also close to our Normalized rule set. We use our normalized rule set to level the playing field on the cabin side.
- We can then apply the new tougher passenger and bags rules that Boeing’s Standard rule set prescribes for the twin aisle aircraft and see how they compare.
- We also use the same reserves policy for the comparison. Read more
Airbus’ and Boeing’s Payload/Range for Single Aisle
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Aug. 13 2015, ©. Leeham Co: Boeing this month changed the way it presents its aircraft in important areas like seating, weight and performance configurations, in short its “rule set.” After using a standardized but old rule set for 20 years, it updated all data around how far its aircraft can transport a standardized payload.
Airbus at the same time is also changing how it presents its aircraft. Right now the dual aisle wide bodies are going from a two class to a three class cabin in its rule set. While Boeing is leaving three class for two class, Airbus is going in the other direction.
Why these movements and are there any common themes in these conflicting changes?
We go behind the scenes to decipher the changes and decode what it all means when one want to compare Boeing and Airbus products. We start with the single aisle aircraft this week.
Summary:
- Airbus and Boeing had rather small differences in their rules and how they characterized single aisle aircraft up until this month.
- From now on Boeing is using higher average passenger+bags loads and have added additional equipment to the aircraft’s empty weight specification.
- We show what these changes mean for the aircraft’s performance. We also use our model to show Airbus single aisle aircraft’s range should they use the same rules as Boeing’s aircraft.
C Series: challenges ahead
Subscription Required
Introduction
Bombardier CS300 (L) and CS100 (R). Click on image to enlarge. Photo via Google images.
Aug. 10, 2015, (c) Leeham Co. Bombardier came away from the Paris Air Show with positive reviews after finally displaying its new C Series. The CS100 was present in launch operator Swiss International colors and the spacious interior installed. The larger CS300, in house colors, was also on display and performed flying maneuvers, impressing the crowd with the quiet of the Pratt & Whitney P1000G Geared Turbo Fan engines, also a new product. Once airborne and circling around the runway, the engines could not be heard over the loud speakers of the show’s announcer.
BBD officials came away encouraged by response to the airplanes and they said potential customers were stopping by the chalet with new and renewed interest in the program.
But there remain formidable challenges ahead for the program. There were no sales announced at the Air Show, although BBD officials were clear in advance none was expected. None has been announced in the six weeks since the Air Show. Whether there will be any of substance by year end, and to whom, remains to be seen.
Focus is on execution: getting the aircraft certified by year end and preparing for delivery to Swiss in the first half of next year.
But the customer base remains of iffy quality and a number of the deliveries scheduled 2016-2018 fall into Leeham Co.’s Yellow and Risk Risk Assessment.
Summary
- Of nearly 200 deliveries scheduled 2106-1018, more than half fall within our Yellow-Red risk assessment.
- Country and region risk are concerns.
- A major customer has a changing business plan that puts deliveries into a Risk Assessment.
Rolls-Royce and Safran, major European engine OEMs with different fortunes.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
July 30, 2015 © Leeham Co. Rolls-Royce and Safran, the parent company of CFM partner Snecma, released their Q2 and first half 2015 earnings today. It is interesting to compare these companies as they are in different strategic situations in their dominant business segments, civil turbofan engines.
Civil turbofans constitute 52% of Rolls-Royce total business whereas it makes 54% of Safran’s turn over. Rolls-Royce’s focus has been widebody engines to the point where it exited its part of International Aero Engines, which makes the single aisle V2500 engine, three years ago. Safran on the other hand is heavily invested in the single aisle market through its 50% part in CFM through its Snecma subsidiary.
The present situation and the future outlook for these two companies are intimately aligned with this strategic difference. We look at why and how this will affect their immediate future.
Summary:
- Rolls-Royce is experiencing migration problems in its widebody turbofan business. Its bread and butter Trent 700 engine is on its way out and it takes until 2018 for the replacement, Trent 7000, to kick in.
- Other programs are only growing slowly: the Trent 1000 for Boeing’s 787 or Trent XWB for the Airbus A350.
- Safran civil turbofan business Snecma is enjoying record sales and deliveries through its CFM joint venture with GE.
- Despite sharing its revenue 50:50 with GE, the business turnover is the size of Rolls-Royce turbofan business today and larger tomorrow. Profit margins are three times higher.
Follow the suppliers
Subscription required.
Introduction
July 28, 2015: © Leeham Co. Trying to decipher what the airframe Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are going to do is a sporty game that is often analogous to Kremlin watching, especially when it comes to Airbus and Boeing.
The OEMs are naturally circumspect about most everything they do: product development, aircraft pricing, sales campaigns, etc.
They also often are like lawyers when it comes to promoting their products in the public domain: cherry-pick the data that supports your product and which puts your competitor’s product in the worst possible light.
Aerospace analysts, consultants and media (as well as the enthusiast) look anywhere and everywhere for information to discern what the OEMs are up to or how the airplanes are performing or whatever the soup de jour is.
There is more information in the public domain than you would think.