Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 25. June 6, 2025
- New RISE powerplant benefits from decades of GE research and development June 5, 2025
- Engine makers emphasizing durability, reliability June 4, 2025
- Boeing CEO: Lessons learned are key to certification of 737-7/10 and 777X June 2, 2025
- Digital twin is a key to JetZero’s hopes for Blended Wing Body entry June 2, 2025
How good is a used 767-300ER? Part 3
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
Introduction
Jan. 4 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Before Christmas we started our Boeing 767-300ER article series around acquiring used twin-aisle 767 aircraft to upgrade Boeing 757-based long haul services. We compared the aircraft’s base characteristics in Part One and then their Cash Operating Cost (COC) in Part Two.
Now we continue by analyzing the Direct Operating Cost (DOC) of the aircraft. This adds capital costs to the other operating costs for the aircraft. As the reason for our renewed interest in the 767-300ER is the attractive prices on the used market combined with low fuel prices, the capital costs are an important part of the overall understanding of the costs for the aircraft.
In our assumptions, the 767 is bought as a 10 year old aircraft and then refurbished. It is then operated on a six year financial lease, as is our 757 that we replace. Our benchmark aircraft, the Airbus A330-200 flying in a mainline airline, was bought new in 2009 and is operated on a 10 year financial lease.
Summary
- The low capital costs of the 767-300ER makes it cost competitive in the fuel scenarios that are likely within its six year lease period.
- The 757-200W has fractionally lower direct seat mile costs than the 767, but it has lower capacity and its more limited range reduce its operational usefulness.
- The A330-200 has the best operational flexibility but its higher capital costs makes it the most expensive aircraft to operate in the period of interest.
- In a final article, we will add the revenue capability of the aircraft. This is where the A330-200 gets the chance to show if it can cover its higher direct costs with its higher earnings capability, thereby generating more value for the airline.
How good is a used 767-300ER, Part 2
Subscription required
Introduction
By Bjorn Fehrm
Dec. 21 2015, ©. Leeham Co: Last week we started our Boeing 767-300ER article series around acquiring used twin-aisle 767 aircraft to upgrade 757-based long haul services, like Canada’s WestJet has done. We compared the aircraft and looked at the base data for the aircraft in article one.
Now we continue by analyzing the Cash Operating Cost (COC) of the aircraft in a typical long haul configuration, using our normalized seating. We are assuming that the 767 and the 757 are a half-life state between overhauls of engines and airframe.
Our benchmark aircraft is an Airbus A330-200 which is flying in a mainline airline. Here we assume that it is 25% deteriorated since new for engines and airframe.
Summary
- The 767-300ER and A330-200 differ in fuel and crew costs per seat mile but are close in most other cost items for COC.
- The 757-200W has lower fuel operating and crew costs than a 767 for the sectors it can perform. It is more expensive in maintenance and landing/underway fees on a per-seat basis.
- Overall the 767 is sufficiently within range of the A330-200 for cash operating costs so that when we add capital costs, it could be close to a draw.
- Finally, we will look at the earnings capabilities of the aircraft by adding standard yields for the payloads the aircraft can carry.
How good is a used 767-300ER?
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
Introduction
Dec. 16 2015, ©. Leeham Co: Fuel prices at a record low changes a lot of short- and mid-term planning scenarios for airlines. An introduction of a used aircraft with higher fuel burn for a typical lease period of five to six years is possible without endangering the airline’s economics.
The risk of oil prices going sky high in such a period is low, hence the attractiveness of complementing ones fleet with leased older aircraft like Canada’s WestJet has done. It will introduce ex. Qantas 767-300ERs on several traditional 757 destinations like Hawaii and presumably West Europe.
We therefore expand our in dept look of the deployment of used aircraft with a look at the WestJet choice; Boeing’s 767-300ER and compare it to a more contemporary twin, Airbus A330-200.
Summary:
⦁ The 767-300ER is around 25 seats smaller than our benchmark aircraft, the more modern A330-200.
⦁ The A330-200 previously put the 767 under pressure and Boeing responded with the 787-8. We will check if this is still the case when oil is below $40 a barrel and leasing cost for a used 767 is below $300,000.
⦁ We will also check what load-factors an airline like WestJet has to attain on the 767 to reach the same seat-mile costs as for the 757 that the route was up-gauged from.
⦁ We will follow the scheme of the 777-200ER vs. A340-300E comparison, Part 1 compares the aircraft, Part 2 the costs and Part 3 the revenue and margin performance of the aircraft.
Used B777-200ER or A340-300, Part 3
Subscription required
Introduction
By Bjorn Fehrm
Dec. 9 2015, ©. Leeham Co: We have now covered the Cash and Direct Operating Costs (COC, DOC) for our acquired and refurbished Airbus A340-300E and Boeing 777-200ER. We will now finish the article series by looking at the earnings capability of the aircraft and compare these to the cost.
We will start by examining the payload carrying capability of the aircraft over different stage lengths by means of the aircraft’s payload-range diagram. Any excess payload capability over a cabin filled to a normal load-factor will be used to add cargo to the revenue stream.
Finally, we will value the payload according to the market’s standard yields for Business, Economy and Cargo payload. With the revenue from our long range mission, we can then establish mission margins and see which aircraft is suitable for what mission type.
Summary
- The 777-200ER and A340-300 are very close in operating costs in their base versions.
- With the use of payload-range curves for the aircraft we can see that the 777-200ER not only has a higher passenger capacity (six seats, stretched to 30 with the refurbishment), it can also take more payload weight.
- Excess weight capability can be used to load cargo but only if there is space available for the cargo modules when passenger bags has been loaded. We check if this is the case.
- Finally, we check if the higher purchase price and conversion cost for the 777-200ER can be covered by its earnings advantage.
737 MAX to roll out to Boeing product strategy challenges
Subscription Required
Introduction
The Boeing 737-8 rolls out tomorrow to challenges to Boeing’s product strategy. Image via Google images.
Dec. 7, 2015, © Leeham Co: Boeing rolls out its first 737 MAX tomorrow to no press fanfare. Today there is a limited press tour of the assembly line, but, according to reporters who were invited, there will be no press briefings.
It’s an inexplicably low-key event for what Boeing otherwise touts as a major evolution of the venerable 737 line.
As good as Boeing claims the airplane will be, and as much spin as Boeing’s marketing department tries to put on the rivalry vs the Airbus A320neo, the 737 MAX clearly is second fiddle—and it’s not going to get better.
Summary
- Airbus holds a commanding market share: 60% to 40% of the family comparisons.
- Airbus holds about a 55% share of the A320neo vs 737-8 comparison.
- The A321neo outsells the 737-9 by about 4:1.
- Boeing faces cash flow challenges in 2020 decade.
Used B777-200ER or A340-300, Part 2
Subscription required
Introduction
By Bjorn Fehrm
Dec. 3 2015, ©. Leeham Co: Last week we started our article series around acquiring used twin-aisle aircraft to start new long haul services or boost an existing network. We focused on Airbus’ A340-300 and Boeing’s 777-200ER, two capable long haulers, both with a capacity of around 290 seats, using our normalized two class cabin. We wanted to understand which one would have the lowest operating costs over a network which has flights up to 12-13 hours.
We analyzed the Cash Operating Cost (COC) of the aircraft in their standard configuration in Part 1. We could see that their COCs are similar. We now study the aircraft’s capital costs. These will include a necessary cabin makeover where we will use the chance for the 777-200ER to convert it to a 10 abreast aircraft in economy. We aim to amortize its higher acquisition cost by spreading these over more passenger seats.
Summary
- The 777-200ER and A340-300 are very close in Cash Operating Costs in their base versions.
- The 777-200ER has a market valuation which is more than double that of the A340-300. Recently this level has declined but the acquisition cost of a -200ER is still higher than the A340-300.
- We use the potential of 10 abreast in economy to see if we can even the per seat cost of the two by spreading the higher costs of the -200ER over more seats.
Boeing 737 rate hike factors
Boeing 737 factory in Renton (WA). Boeing rendering.
Subscription Required
Introduction
Nov. 30, 2015, © Leeham Co.: As Boeing ponders whether to increase production rates of the 737 line beyond the previously announced 52/mo rate effective in 2018, there are other important considerations besides whether the market can sustain another rate increase and whether the supply chain can gear up to the higher rates.
It is widely known that Boeing is considering rates as high as 63/mo, the maximum capacity at its Renton (WA) plant. Airbus has already announced it plans to go to rate 60/mo for the A320 family in 2019. But a higher rate is being explored, and a relationship to the future of the 747-8 is a factor.
Summary
- Market share protection, backlog clear considerations.
- Termination of the 747-8 program, its effect on suppliers and a Boeing write down are factors.
- Cash flow going into the 2020 decade is important.
Used B777-200ER or A340-300?
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
Introduction
Nov. 26 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In recent articles we have latched on to the debate around the prices for used Boeing 777-200 aircraft. Contrary to the market appraising companies’ ideas about second hand values, our surveys show that not only the Airbus A340-300 is cheap in the market but the Boeing 777-200ER is also available at interesting prices.
This, coupled with sustained low fuel prices, makes for interesting opportunities. Charter destinations can be reached which were not possible with less competent aircraft and it is possible to lease or purchase these long range aircraft to backfill an expanding route network while awaiting or even postponing delivery of the latest technology aircraft.
We decided it was time to take a look at which of the two would be the better choice as a long hauler of 300 passengers to destinations of up to 5,000nm. We use our proprietary model to find out which one is the most suitable given different conditions, such as cabin makeover or not. We will also introduce aircraft deterioration to the calculations to map the reality of an older aircraft.
In this first article, we will establish the base values for the aircraft and find their cash operating costs. In a subsequent article, we will add capital costs where we will look at different purchase scenarios and refurbishing options and how these affect the overall direct operating costs.
Summary
- The 777-200ER and A340-300 are very close in most dimensions.
- The 777-200ER is the slightly larger and heavier aircraft. Thanks to more effective engines, it can compete on fuel costs.
- When the other costs are added to make up cash operating costs, the higher weight and more expensive engines start to eat up any fuel cost advantages the 777-200ER has.
The turbo-prop conundrum: small market, high costs
ATR Turbo-prop. Photo via Google images.
Subscription Required
Introduction
ATR and Bombardier are incumbents. China has a home-market offering.
Indonesia and India want to create a product.
It’s the 60-seat and up turbo-prop market.
It’s too many companies chasing too-small a market.
Summary
- The 20-year demand for 60-99 seat turbo-props is small.
- Developing a new, clean-sheet design is costly.
- There is a solid demand for an inexpensive 19-34 seat turbo-prop—but nobody is interested.