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 21. May 9, 2025
- Does an A220-500 need a new wing and engines? Part 2. May 8, 2025
- Embraer downplays tariff impact on 2025 results May 6, 2025
- JetZero readies effort for private equity fund raising May 5, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 20. May 2, 2025
Airbus, Boeing split YTD orders leads
May 10, 2016: Airbus and Boeing split the leads for orders year-to-date through April 30 (May 2), following the monthly total released today by Airbus. Airbus led in wide-body orders by a wide margin. Boeing thumped Airbus in narrow-body orders.
Pontifications: Derivatives at Boeing
By Scott Hamilton
May 9, 2016, © Leeham Co.: Last week proved to be significant when the CEO of The Boeing Co. and the head of the 737 MAX program each said the company is looking at revising its smallest member of the family, the MAX 7, and potentially enlarging the biggest member, the MAX 9.
Neither prospect was news. Jon Ostrower of The Wall Street Journal revealed the prospect of what he called the MAX 7.5, a slightly larger airplane than the current MAX 7. The idea of an airplane larger than the MAX 9, based on the MAX 9, was floated when Jim McNerney was still CEO.
What was news is that for the first time, the Boeing CEO and the head of the MAX program went on record essentially admitting the MAX line isn’t well positioned against Airbus after all. Or, on the lower end, to Bombardier.
How good is a MAX 7X and why would it replace the original?
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
May 9, 2016, © Leeham Co: Boeing is considering changing the 737 MAX 7 in a rather drastic way. The present model would be hitting the market as the last of the MAX models in 2019. It hasn’t been selling well. In fact, there are only two legacy airlines and a start-up that have ordered the MAX 7.
Right now, there are just 60 orders for an aircraft series which has garnered 3,100 orders in total.
Figure 1. Boeing’s 737 MAX 7 as presently defined. Source: Boeing
Sources have long told LNC that Boeing doesn’t really want to build the MAX 7. But Southwest Airlines needs the airplane for short-runway airports like Chicago Midway and Burbank (CA) and has resisted suggestions to up-gauge. The other airline that has ordered the MAX 7 is WestJet, which has thin markets in Canada that don’t justify a MAX 8. And there is a third customer, a start-up in Canada that has yet to begin operations.
With the C Series gaining momentum, the cancellation of the MAX 7 now seems off the table. Instead, Boeing is thinking about making it better, the MAX 7X project. What is it, and why would it be better than the original MAX 7? We use our aircraft model to answer the questions.
Summary
- The 737-700, and therefore MAX 7, was defined a continuation of the 737-300 at 126 passengers in a domestic two class configuration.
- Bombardier is offering 135 seats in a similar, but more comfortable, CS300 cabin with an aircraft which is lighter and more economical than the MAX 7.
- The already meager order book for the MAX 7 is therefore getting more pressure from a resurging C Series line.
- Boeing is now attempting to convince its customers that a larger MAX 7, based on MAX 8, would be a better aircraft for the customers (and for Boeing). We reveal why.
Bjorn’s Corner: Landing after navigation
By Bjorn Fehrm
6 May 2016, ©. Leeham Co: In a recent Corner, we covered how to navigate a modern airliner with the help of the Flight Management System (FMS). We described how the FMS uses different navigation receivers to fly the aircraft via the autopilot along the flight plan. In the end, we used a special instrument landing system to land at the Nice Airport.
The classical way to land on airports in bad weather has been to use a VHF based Instrument Landing Systems called ILS. Figure 1 shows the large installations of transmitter antennas which are necessary to get such an ILS beam to fly on for landing at a runway.
Figure 1. Antennae to form the lateral ILS localiser beam for a runway. Source: Wikipedia.
The antennae we see are only for the lateral beam, the Localiser. It guides us in the horizontal plane. There is a second transmitter with associated antennae which forms the vertical beam so that we have a two dimensional glide path to land on, with the vertical part called a glide slope.
It’s clear that it’s costly to install such ILS equipment for each runway for an airport. There have not been good alternatives to the classical ILS system until now. Several alternative systems have been proposed based on shorter wave signals to get the size of the antennae down (Microwave Landing Systems, MLS), but these have not caught on outside of military use.
Now there are good alternatives being developed. These are all based on GPS systems, with more or less advanced implementations. Read more
Embraer 1Q2016 results: Strong start to the year
By Bjorn Fehrm
3 May 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Embraer has made a good start to 2016. Group revenue for 1Q2016 was $1,309m compared to $1,056m 1Q2015, up 24% year on year. EBIT was $86m compared with $80m a year ago, giving a margin of 7.5%.
The major increase in revenue was for the Business jet side which delivered 23 aircraft compared to 11 1Q2015. Commercial aircraft increased with one aircraft to 21 deliveries.
Embraer’s commercial aircraft best seller, the E175 being delivered to United Express. Source: Embraer.
The commercial aircraft side sold 23 E175-E2 in the quarter giving a Book-to-Bill of 1.1. Sales for the Business Jets side was not publicized. Group order backlog was $21.9b compared to $20.4b for 1Q2015. The balance sheet is strong with $1,854m in cash and total debt of $2,389m.
The group’s only problem area is domestic state demand. Its KC-390 military transport program has stopped once for lack of Government payments and it risks being caught again in the problems of the Brazilian state economy.
Here the details of the financial results for the divisions and their aircraft programs. Read more
ATR begins US tour, part owner wants to divorce Airbus
ATR is making a push to sell its turbo-props in the US, which is the last exclusive domain of the Bombardier Q400. Note the new forward door on this ATR-72. The absence of this door, which the Q400 has, was a strike against the ATR in the US. The door now enables jetway boarding. Photo via Twitter.
May 3, 2016, © Leeham Co.: ATR, the maker of the ATR turbo-prop, is beginning a tour of its aircraft in the US, the last uncontested domain for the rival Bombardier Q400.
ATR won orders for its ATR-42/72 in the US decades ago, but largely ceded the market to Bombardier. ATR-42s fly for FedEx, the express package carrier, but no
ATR-42 operated for FedEx. No passenger ATRs are operated in the USA. Photo via Google images.
passenger ATRs are in service in the USA.
As the tour gets underway, Finmeccania, a 50% owner of ATR with Airbus owning the other half, wants to assume the latter’s holdings if Airbus doesn’t change its mind over its refusal to green light development of a next generation turbo-prop.
Airbus has for several years refused to grant approval because ATR had between 80% and 90% of the backlog at any given time. Bombardier had the remaining market share backlog. Now that oil prices are low, Airbus doesn’t believe a business case can me made to justify a new development.
Pontifications: Big sigh of relief at Bombardier
By Scott Hamilton
May 2, 2016, © Leeham Co.: To say that the order from Delta Air Lines last Thursday for 75+50 CS100s with conversion rights to the CS300s was welcome news for Bombardier is an understatement.
Bombardier has a superb airplane in the C Series. The passenger seats are the most comfortable coach seats of any manufacturers, better than the Airbus A320 and way more comfortable than the Boeing 737. With apologies to Embraer, the C Series is even marginally better than the Embraer E-Jet, which is very good. Read more
Bombardier’s onerous $500m loss demystified
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required
Introduction
May 2, 2016, © Leeham Co: Bombardier announced a game-changing order from Delta Air Lines for its C Series program last week. In the midst of the celebration and well wishing came the news that this order, one to Air Canada and seven firmed up options to airBaltic, would result in a charge of $500m next quarter.
Figure 1. C Series in the livery from Delta Air Lines. Source: Bombardier.
One analyst wrote in the wake of the Delta deal that “I understand that to get Delta and Air Canada you need to give attractive pricing, but that it would cost Bombardier $500m is a bit stiff.”
The comment shows that at least this analyst had no idea about the realities of aircraft programs financials. The announced onerous loss is nothing special; it is business as usual.
Summary
- Bombardier’s accounting is according to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) rules. These say that one must announce the results of a contract on the company’s financials at the time of contract closure.
- Consequently, BBD informed in the 1Q2016 report that: “In conjunction with the closing of these firm purchase agreements, we expect to record an onerous contract provision of approximately $500 million as a special item in the second quarter of 2016.“
- Note that it says “provision” and not loss. Further, the provision will have no effect on 2016 profits or cash flow. This is a non-cash charge.
- In fact, the $500m provision is nothing special; it’s part of business as usual. We explain why.
Bjorn’s Corner: C Series flight controls
By Bjorn Fehrm
29April 2016, ©. Leeham Co: With the order by Delta Air Lines, the Bombardier C Series has taken the step up to be a viable alternative to Airbus’ and Boeing’s single aisle 130-150 seat aircraft.
In my description of airliners’ flight control and Flight Management Systems (FMS), I have focused on the established mainline single aisle players. Time to change that; C Series has arrived and will stay in the mainline segment.
Why 130 seats as a limit? Because below 130 seats there are a number of additional players (Embraer, Sukhoi, Mitsubishi…) and we can’t describe them all right now.
Now to how Bombardier has implemented the flight controls, autopilot and FMS for the C Series. In fact, we will look at how they have made the C Series cockpit, Figure 1.
Figure 1. C Series flight deck. Source: Bombardier.
I haven’t flown the C Series yet (working on it!) but I have been able to glean quite a bit over time and spent quite some time in the cockpit with the Bombardier test pilots at the Paris Air Show.
So here is a shot at describing the C Series control philosophies and capabilities and how they mimic/differ from Airbus and Boeing.
C Series charge spotlights 787 deferred costs
Subscription Required
May 4, 2016: (c) Leeham Co.: The $500m charge reported last week by Bombardier for 127 recent orders for its C Series resulted in shining the spotlight on Boeing’s deferred production costs for the 787.
As LNC wrote this week, interpretation of the BBD charge was misunderstood. Some press reports yesterday demonstrate it continues to be. We won’t restate what we’ve already written about the true nature of the charge and how it differs from program accounting used by Boeing–this has been well covered by now. The Seattle Times suggested that the per-plane profit required to pay off the $29bn in deferred production and $3bn in tooling costs for the Boeing 787 was greater than
generally recognized. The average figure is about 20% higher than the number widely cited by Wall Street.
The most commonly accepted figure to recapture the record-setting deferred production costs and tooling has been $30m per airplane, a figure most Wall Street analysts believe is too high to achieve. But this number appears understated, according to an analysis by The Seattle Times in the wake of Boeing’s first quarter earnings call.
Boeing’s 10Q contains language that appears to confuse the issue somewhat.
“At March 31, 2016, $23,661 [million] of 787 deferred production costs, unamortized tooling and other non- recurring costs are expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that have firm orders and $8,757 [million] is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders.”
This appears to suggest the first tranche of these airplanes results in a need for a $36m per-plane profit and the second tranche requires a per-plane profit of $54m. Charles Bickers, a spokesman for Boeing’s corporate headquarters in Chicago, told LNC that segmenting out the ordered but undelivered aircraft from orders yet to be received but assumed is not the way to look at the issue.
Read more
Leave a Comment
Posted on May 5, 2016 by Scott Hamilton
Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Delta Air Lines, Leeham News and Comment, Premium
787, 787-9, A330ceo, A330neo, A350, A350-900, Air Baltic, Air Canada, Airbus, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Delta Air Lines, Dominic Gates, program accounting, Rob Spingarn, Ron Epstein, Seattle Times, unit cost accounting