In a sign of just how bad things are getting with fuel prices, Embraer is evaluating whether to launch a new 50-seat turbo-prop by 2015. This would challenge the derivatives offered by Bombardier on the Q400 and ATR’s new revamped series.
The AirInsight team of Addison Schonland and Scott Hamilton talk with Flight International’s Mary Kirby in this 13 minute podcast. (Subscription required.) We also discuss the P&W GTF and UDF potential.
Richard Aboulafia, Addison Schonland and Scott Hamilton discuss the winners (or not) between Airbus ands Boeing in the potential tie-up between United Airlines and US Airways and Delta and Northwest in this 15 minute podcast by AirInsight. (Subscription only.) The link is here.
EADS, parent of Airbus, reported a stronger-than-expected profit on higher production at its principal subsidiary. The details may be found in this AP story.
A couple of take-aways:
Airbus plans to take the A330/340 production to 12 a month by 2010 in response to demand for this airplane, higher and sooner than expected. This will further aid the cash flow shortfalls from the A380 program.
Northrop Grumman announced the grounding breaking for its KC-45A tanker even though the Government Accountability Office hasn’t rendered its decision on the Boeing protest of the tanker contract award by the USAF to Northrop.
This strikes us as incredibly premature and reminds us of another premature declaration:
Set for June 28
Mobile, Alabama Site to Provide KC-45 Tankers to United States Air Force
WASHINGTON – May 13, 2008 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) and its key subcontractor, EADS North America, will join local, state and federal officials and the citizens of Mobile, Ala., in a groundbreaking ceremony on Saturday, June 28. Ground will be broken at Mobile’s Brookley Field, where two adjacent manufacturing facilities will be built to produce the nation’s new fleet of aerial refueling tanker aircraft.
The ceremony has been scheduled pending the outcome of the Government Accountability Office review of the tanker contract award. “We anticipate a favorable decision and look forward to starting construction on this historic facility,” said Ronald D. Sugar, Northrop Grumman chairman and chief executive officer. “We’re committed to transforming Mobile into the centerpiece of an expanding aerospace corridor.”
“This event underscores the fact that we are ready to get to work now,” Sugar said. “We need to move forward quickly to provide our men and women in uniform what the Air Force has identified as its number-one acquisition priority – the new refueling tankers they so desperately need.”
Northrop Grumman and EADS North America are committed to the U.S. Air Force and also have contractual agreements in place with one another, the state of Alabama and the city of Mobile to ensure construction of the facilities is ready to move forward.
“We are excited that Brookley Field will once again be a hub of American military aircraft manufacturing,” said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama’s 1st Congressional District. “There is no doubt that Mobile is poised to be the crown jewel of a rapidly growing aerospace center of excellence in the Southeastern United States, bringing thousands of jobs and creating endless opportunities for our entire region.”
EADS North America will deliver the KC-45 aircraft platform to Northrop Grumman. Airbus, an EADS company, is responsible for manufacturing at its Mobile final assembly facility and will assemble, test and certify the aircraft before delivery. Following delivery to Northrop Grumman, the aircraft will receive the necessary military modifications to turn the commercial airframe into a U.S. Air Force KC-45 Tanker. In keeping with U.S. Department of Defense requirements, only Northrop Grumman and U.S. government employees with appropriate security clearances will militarize the tanker aircraft.
“EADS North America is fully committed to providing Northrop Grumman with an aircraft built in the U.S.,” said Ralph D. Crosby, Jr., EADS North America chairman and chief executive officer. “More importantly, our men and women in uniform require and deserve the most capable system available. They have been waiting far too long for a modern tanker. Our entire team is ready to get to work now.”
Northrop Grumman’s architectural and engineering firm for the facility, BRPH Companies Inc., was selected last year and is prepared for the construction phase. Northrop Grumman’s facility is scheduled for completion and initial operation late next year. BRPH is leading a team consisting of KBR’s Mobile office and Thompson Engineering, headquartered in Mobile.
The groundbreaking ceremony occurs just a few days after the 60th anniversary of the start of the Berlin Airlift. This is significant because Brookley Field was the base from which C-54 transport aircraft supported the airlift.
About the KC-45
The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-45 team will employ 48,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.
It’s official: new delivery schedule for the A380 shows fewer than planned for this year and next.
A 43 minute webcast on the press conference is available at www.eads.com.
Here’s the Airbus PR:
Airbus has completed the A380 programme review and is now informing customers about changes to its delivery schedule. The review assessed the programme status at the critical juncture of transitioning from low rate “individual” production, so-called Wave 1, to the full serial design and manufacturing process, called Wave 2.
Overall, the recovery programme, initiated in summer 2006, is progressing well. Four aircraft were delivered as planned and are performing very well in airline operations on long-range routes. Seventeen aircraft are in various stages of production, mainly in the wiring installation and system testing phases. Most aircraft earmarked for delivery in 2008 have already flown.
However, the review has also shown that the steep ramp-up planned in 2006 is not fully achievable. Time and resources needed for Wave 1 production aircraft are higher than expected, and this has created some delay in the changeover to Wave 2 with its new design and manufacturing process.
As a result, Airbus plans now for 12 (instead of 13) deliveries in 2008 and
21 (instead of 25) in 2009. Details about the new plan and the further
ramp-up and delivery slots in 2010 and the following years will be discussed with customers in the coming weeks.
The results of this review do not, at this stage, cover the financial impact. The extent of the additional costs will be influenced by the actual production and delivery scenario. This will follow discussions with the customers and a more precise evaluation of the implications of the new delivery schedule for 2010 deliveries and beyond. This will therefore take some more time to determine.
Airbus is an EADS company.
US Sens. Patty Murray (D-Boeing) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have asked the White House to investigate the claim by Northrop Grumman that 48,000 direct and indirect jobs will be created with the KC-30 program.
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile (AL) for the USAF’s KC-45A program.
Murray, who is actually D-Washington, is Boeing’s most vocal and hyperbolic advocate (along with US Rep. Norm Dicks, also D-Boeing/Washington), and has vowed to block the Air Force award to Northrop because the KC-30 is based on the Airbus A330-200, and Murray has been leading a crusade against Airbus for years.
Murray, Cantwell and a couple of other members of Congress want the White House to determine how Northrop’s job count increased from 25,000 to 48,000 after the award was announced and after the jobs issue erupted as a major point of controversy, according to this report in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
It’s a fair question and one we raised at the time in this report on our Corporate website. We were surprised and skeptical of the doubling of jobs claim as well. Our report details how Northrop got its new number.
Whether one accepts Northrop’s methodology or not is a matter of debate, but at least Northrop offers up one. Boeing does not for its job claims of 44,000 direct and indirect jobs for the KC-767 program, despite having been asked several times by reporters and analysts (including us). Furthermore, there is ample reason to suspect the Boeing figure.
In 2001, Boeing claimed 22,000 jobs were tied to the 767 program when the company was producing these at a rate of 36 a year–two to three times the rate proposed by the Air Force for the KC-45A program. Boeing also claims just 25,000 jobs associated with the C-17, which is has more US content than the 767 (the 767 fuselage, tail and certain wing components are built in Japan, Italy, the UK and Canada while these are built in the US on the C-17). The production rate for the C-17 is similar to that proposed for the KC-45A.
So how can Boeing claim there are twice the jobs at as little as one third the rate for the KC-767 vs. the commercial 767 at its peak? How can there be nearly twice the jobs associated with the KC-767 vs. the C-17? Boeing has never answered either of these questions.
As long as Boeing boosters want an investigation about Northrop’s jobs claim, this should be expanded to include Boeing’s job claims.
Having said all that, on the merits of the award, the entire jobs issue is irrelevant anyway. Jobs were not part of the RFP or evaluation process. This issue has been political from the get-go, and should have no bearing on the award at all; the award should be entirely about technical merits.
Leasing giant International Lease Finance Corp. revealed today in a federal filing that its entire order of Boeing 787s will be delayed “an average in excess of 27 months per aircraft and span across ILFC’s entire order.” The company’s parent AIG Group revealed this news in its March 31 first quarter Securities and Exchange filing, accompanying the announcement of a huge loss for the quarter made after the stock market closed Thursday, May 8.
The first of ILFC’s 787s were originally scheduled to be delivered in 2010 through 2017. The delay, which is in line with other customers that have so far publicly revealed the impact, means that the first ILFC 787 will be delivered in 2012 or 2013 (depending on what month the original delivery schedule began).
More, 3:00PM PDT: James Wallace of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer just published this item about Air Canada’s 787 order being 30 months late.
New, Monday, May 12, 1000 AM PDT: ILFC’s own 10Q filing (made Friday) with the SEC is more detailed about its 787 delays. ILFC says the airplanes will be delivered 19-30 months late, with the average delay in excess of the 27 months reported in the AIG 10Q.
With conflicting news reports over did the letters Airbus sent to customers specifically refer to potentially new delivery delays in the A380 program or not, we today spoke to one of the airlines at the center of the controversy. We’re told that the reporting media took some liberties with interpretation about what was in the letter and what it meant.
While the carrier declined to provide us a copy of the letter so we could see for ourselves, our interpretation (we deliberately choose this word for the irony here) of the airline’s comment is that delays were not mentioned.
Qantas Airways received the aforementioned letter and told a local newspaper that nothing about a delay was contained in it. The news report of this letter is here.
Here is the portion of the German interview with Airbus CEO Thomas Enders concerning the A380 situation. “MB” is the German reporter; “TE” is Thomas Enders. The transcript was made available by Airbus.
MB: Good Mood you could need, as not all things went as optimal in the last years.
TE: This can be said like that.
MB: Let’s talk about some of these things. The Airbus A380, the most known topic. The new large aircraft, where big delays occured in the past. And again,as reported in the last days, there should be new dealys. Is this correct?
TE: I cannot answer you this question here and now. I said last week that we currently run a major review, the result does not exist so far. Why do we do this? This is quite easy: Our plan to ramp-up production is definitely quite ambitious. We want to deliver this year – after delivering the 1st to SIA last year – 13 aircraft, then double this number and double again. In addition, there is the change-over from the so-called WAVE 1 to the WAVE 2, simply meaning that WAVE 1 has been handwork/manual work – this has not been and is not an industrial process. The second wave then foresees to run up a real industrial process, including all corresponding, existing tools, especially to get the electrics under control in the sense of a -like we call it – digital mock-up, a digital image. And this crosspoint quasi prompted me to say that we now have to look at this and to see if we indeed manage the production or if this is not the case respectively which counteractive measures we have to take.
MB: Regarding the electrics you are a burnt child. The original problems which lead to the first big delay with all its consequences, irritation on customers’ side etc., were also connected with electrics, tubes etc. How can this happen at all? Such a in detail planned project? How can things get ot of hand as strong?
TE: Mr. Beise, please relieve me of this. I could easily continue on talking the next remaining 30 minutes about cables and cabeling-problems. Let me describe it as follows: We had abosultely underestimated the complexity of this aircraft – in development, but also in production and equipment- especially also here in Hamburg. We then had not been able to equip sections- for delivery to the final assembly line in TLS – here and at other sites in a way that we could efficiently assembly them. We have today where we sit around 2000 Germans in TLS who work on this aircraft, and especially rework the work in TLS, which upstream, meaning in HAM, had not been finished in time.That this is not the most efficient way of working, that this is very costly for the company, is comprehensible. We now have to come back as fast as possible to “Plan A” , meaning equpiment of the sections in HAM and other sites before they get in the FAL and block it with rework, in order to enable the FAL to then work properly and enable us to ramp-up.
UW: Let’s come back again to the figueres. You want to deliver 13 A380s next year..
TE: no,no ..
UW: ..in this year, 2008. You just said you cannot confirm the information from the weekend, that this number probably cannot be achieved. On how many will you come?
TE: If I knew this, I would have already finished my review. But I have not. I pointed out last week on a tour in the Middle East in Dubai that we are doing this examination and the moment this is finished, we will say what we believe to be able to achieve in this year and what we believe to achieve in the next year. This is our duty for our customers, who have corresponding capacities in their planning. But this has to be done properly and I will not make a snapshot and shoot figueres out of the hip. We know how much depends on that within the company.
UW: This means a date for the start of serial production you cannot name?
TE: Oh, we are within the serial production. I mean we already delivered 3 aircraft this year, SIA now has a total of 4, company UAE is urgently waiting for their first aircraft this summer, company Qantas, these are the 3 airlines which get equipped this year, the aircraft are standing here in HAM for visit – or I have to say actually not, as the aircraft are under strongest “sealing”, as the friends from UAE and QFAs of course do not want to release their cards. Also – this is running! SIA will have 6 aircraft by summer, followed by UAEW and QFA. I do not want to see the impression that we are still sticking in the fogg like 2 years ago. This is not the case. It is now simply a thig we are always doing – also in other programmes
Airbus and Boeing have updated their orders for April (Boeing through April 29, Airbus for the entire month) and Airbus maintains a slight lead over Boeing for net orders, 397 to 346, year-to-date.
But the Airbus tally doesn’t reflect what’s happened to the 65 orders for Skybus Airlines of the US, which has ceased operations following bankruptcy. If these show up as canceled in the May tally, Boeing will almost certainly for ahead for the month.
Boeing has 236 net 737 orders for the year; Airbus has 300 net A320 family orders.
Boeing has two 747 orders vs. three A380s.
Boeing has no 767 orders vs. Airbus’s 57 A330 orders (11 of which are freighters).
Boeing has 30 777 orders vs 32 A350-900s and 0 A350-1000s.
Boeing has 79 787 orders vs 15 A350-800s.
It’s been pointed out to us that the A330 competes with the 787 as much as it does with the 767, because the 787 is designed to replace the 767 and the A330 seating capacity is similar to the 787. If one accepts this thesis, and there’s certainly merit to it, then the category stacks up this way:
767-767F/787 orders, 79, vs A330P (46), A330F (11) and A350-800 (15), or Airbus total 72.
Boeing single-aisle airplanes: 235, twin-aisle: 111.
Airbus single-aisle: 300, twin-aisle and wide-body cargo: 107 (minus 10 A318s).
Boeing’s YTD orders have a mix of 32% twin-aisles and 68% single-aisles.
Airbus’s product mix is 26% wide-bodies and 78% narrow bodies.