Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Odds and Ends: MAS MH370, Day 3; Qatar on A380; A330neo; New Small Airplane
MAS MH370, Day 3: The dominant news last week and over the weekend was, of course, the mysterious disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, a Boeing 777-200ER. It didn’t just crash (which is the assumption): it vanished, with no trace at all.
There was a tantalizing clue that maybe it turned back toward Malaysia, its origination, based on radar returns. But if it were near the Vietnam coast, why turn back when there probably would have been a closer airport in the event of an emergency?
If the radar report is accurate, and the airplane did turn, the larger question is whether the turn was intention, under the command of the pilots (or hijackers), or whether the turn was induced by some problem with the airplane or engines, or an explosion?
As we wrote over the weekend, the absence of debris along intended flight path suggests the airplane deviated–but this is speculation, albeit perhaps supported by the radar indication of a turn.
Some of our Readers, and observers on television, noted that a few days passed in the case of Air France 447 before debris was spotted. AF447 was the Airbus A330 that disappeared between Rio de Janeiro and Paris in 2009 in the South Atlantic. There are similarities but there are differences, too. AF447 went down well out into the open Atlantic in waters about 15,000 feet deep. MH370 disappeared in a much smaller, confined area where the depths are much shallower: up to 300 feet deep. The entire Gulf is 320,000 square km, no small area to search but certainly far smaller than the South Atlantic where AF447 went down.
Latest developments:
- It’s now been reported that the oil slicks have been analyzed and are not from MH370.
- Officials say it was standard procedure to keep the cockpit door locked, in accordance with ICAO rules, and cannot be opened from the outside. We’d point out that this doesn’t rule out a cockpit breach entirely, however.
- The “passport passengers” were not Asian.
The Wall Street Journal created this graphic that is quite illustrative about the situation. What we haven’t seen anywhere is the location for the “turn” reported by radar.
Mary Kirby and Steve Trimble have opinion pieces about the need for a real-time streaming of information. Kirby’s piece is here and Trimble’s is here. Each have a good argument. One thing they don’t talk about is whether there are international standards that would permit this. We did a story for Kirby when she was editor of APEX magazine about the international standards issue with respect to Wi-Fi on airplanes. That story is here.
Although the details between Wi-Fi and real-time aircraft data streaming are different, we wonder if the over-arching challenge Boeing faced with Wi-Fi is the same or similar for real-time data streaming.
Qatar on A380: Akbar Al-Baker, CEO of Qatar Airways, is known for his hyperbole and about-faces, but every once in a while he expresses an opinion that has some useful information. His comments about the Airbus A380 is one of these occasions. Take note of the operating costs vs fuel prices and the reference to re-engining the airplane.
A330neo momentum: There continues to be increasing interest among airlines about the prospect of an Airbus A330neo, our Market Intelligence tells us.
New Small Airplane: Here is a 13 page PDF paper written in 2012 and presented to the AIAA discussing the prospects of a twin-aisle operation on 757/737/A320 routes.
Additional thoughts on MH370 as mystery deepens
Latest: The debris spotted in the ocean near the oil slick is not from MH370, officials say.
The mystery deepens on the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370–there still is no sign of debris or the airplane, some 36 hours after it disappeared.
We have some additional thoughts, none of which should be considered as suggesting this is what happened, but only as possibilities to probe.
- The absence of any debris along the intended flight path seems to suggest the airplane deviated from the flight path. If the plane was destroyed at altitude, as if from a bomb or catastrophic structural failure, debris, such as seat cushions, blankets, insulation, and even bodies, would be been found quickly. See TWA Flight 800 for an example of this (though it came apart while still climbing to cruise altitude). If the plane was intact on impact, debris would have been found. See Air France 447 or Alaska Airlines 261 as examples.
- If the plane deviated from the flight path, then this suggests it obviously was under command of either the pilots or hijackers. But then what? Even after turning off the transponder, one would expect that at some point, primary radar contact would have been made, even if not immediately recognized as such. Investigation will certainly follow this path to determine any primary radar contact was established.
- If the plane was under command, what happened to it? In theory, it could have been flown to an airport but then what? If the airport is in use, a Boeing 777 is rather obvious. If flown to a disused airport, to what end? To hold the plane and passengers for ransom? If so, it’s hard to collect ransom when you don’t tell anyone.
- On the other hand, if the plane was being hijacked and flown somewhere, were the hijackers incompetent fliers, crashing the airplane into some remote mountains?
- After 9/11 it is unlikely that any hijackers could have cowed the passengers into doing nothing while taking control of the airplane. Certainly this being a red-eye flight means most passengers probably immediately tried to sleep but somebody would have observed an attempt to take over the airplane and raised the alarm. The fact that four passengers now appear under scrutiny is also intriguing: four or five passengers were involved in the 9/11 hijackings.
- But if hijacked, why hasn’t anyone claimed responsibility? The point of terrorists is to terrorize, not shroud an event in puzzlement and mystery.
How can a plane simply vanish? An ex-American Airlines Boeing 727-200 did so, and it seems to have been a criminal act. Air and Space Magazine recently had an update on this story.
Investigative focus on MAS MH370
The following will be areas of focus for the investigation of the Malaysian Airlines MH370 crash, involving a Boeing 777-200ER equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. These are standard areas of investigation and at this point, listing them here doesn’t imply or suggest any one area is more prevalent than another.
- Catastrophic structural failure of the airframe and/or engines. We consider this highly unlikely, given the sterling history of the 777, but investigators will look at this possibility.
- Dual engine flame out and immediate loss of control. The RR engines have had a history of icing that cut fuel flow. This was the cause of the British Airways 777-200ER crash landing at London Heathrow. A fix was undertaken, but this possibility will undoubtedly be considered. Even if this happened, unless there was an immediate loss of control, there would have been glide time and the ability of the crew to radio an emergency. The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) would have supplied basic power and instrumentation.
- Control upset caused by clear air turbulence. Apparently weather was good but CAT is not unusual in the Pacific. CAT would have to be awfully extreme to cause an upset of such magnitude as to permit the airplane to dive into the ocean in so short a period of time as to preclude a radio call. But remember that Air France 447 descended from cruising altitude to impact without a radio call in a very short period of time.
- Cockpit penetration and incapacitation of the crew, followed by deliberate destruction of the airplane.
- A bomb.
- Any prospect of an accidental shoot-down by a military missile.
- Pilot suicide. As inflammatory as this possibility is, this has been the cause of at least two crashes into water. The history of the pilots will be studied and any information from the black boxes will help on this point,
Holden elected president of IAM 751
Update, 8:30pm March 6: Jon Holden was elected president of IAM 751 today. He fills the remaining term of Wroblewski, to February 1, 2017.
Original Post:
IAM 751 members for today on the successor to Tom Wroblewski at president of the District.
Wroblewski resigned his post after the highly contentious vote by members approving concessions in their Boeing contract in exchange for the 777X work to be located at the Everett (WA) plant. Wroblewski cited ill-health.
Wroblewski was caught in the middle between the IAM International headquarters, which favored the concessions, and much of his membership and his own council leadership, which did not. The first vote in November soundly rejected the contract but the second narrowly approved it with a 51% majority.
The nominees seeking to succeed him, detailed in this Seattle Times story, are likely to be more militant than Wroblewski.
Relations between 751 and Boeing are at what is probably an all-time low.
Vote results will be after 6pm tonight.
- The Everett Herald has a story about “Boeing fatigue” in the Washington State Legislature.
- The Herald also has a story about an allegation of a “payoff” to Boeing in connection with an earmark to a lobbying group generally funded by Boeing.
Odds and Ends: Repairing composites; More on Rolls-Royce; Boeing layoffs; Book Review; A380 assessment
Repairing composites: Aviation Week has a good article about repairing composites: specifically the Boeing 787 that caught fire at London Heathrow Airport a year ago.
More on Rolls-Royce: Aviation Week also has a longer article to follow up its previous one on the development of new engines by Rolls-Royce. This one details RR’s 20-year engine plan.
Boeing layoffs: It’s one of those good news-bad news things. Boeing announced layoffs for 600 workers in San Antonio (TX). That’s bad news. But it’s because there is little 787 work remaining at this center used to catch up on fixing and finishing 787s during the huge backlog of airplanes. That’s good news. The San Antonio Business Journal has this story.
Separately, the Puget Sound Business Journal reports that St. Louis apparently was the leading contender to be the home for the Boeing 777X if Seattle’s IAM 751 hadn’t approved a new contract.
Book review-The Aviators: We’ve just finished a book focusing on Charles Lindbergh, Eddie Rickenbacker and Jimmy Doolittle and recommend it. 
The Aviators provides a single location for coverage of these three remarkable pioneers. If you’ve read dedicated biographies of these three, you probably won’t learn much that’s new but if not, this is a great one-stop shop.
Lindbergh was much more than “just” an aviator. He was an environmentalist and a scientist. Aviators also covers the kidnapping of his namesake son. Doolittle’s career as a salesman of airplanes and his hand in urging his employer, Shell Oil, to create 100 octane aviation gas, is chronicled. Rickenbacker’s entry into England is highlighted when British authorities thought him a German spy because of his name.
Aviators follows their stories through to death.
A380 assessment: No, it’s not by Richard Aboulafia, who views the Airbus A380 as his favorite whipping boy. It’s an opinion written by an Aviation Week reporter. It’s not a rousing endorsement of the A380’s future.
Odds and Ends: No 90-seat ATR for now; 777X work; JAL says A350 was ‘better;’
No 90-seat ATR: Aviation Week reports that for now Airbus Group, which owns 50% of ATR, won’t green-light a 90-seat ATR turbo-prop due to the adverse impact a development program would have on profits.
Competing for 777X work: Electroimpact is based near Paine Field in Washington and it supplies Boeing and Airbus. It’s interested in participating in the Boeing 777X work. The Everett Herald has this story focusing on the company. Meanwhile, Reuters has this story about the pressures the Airbus and Boeing supply chains are under to cut costs.
JAL: A350 was ‘better:’ Japan Air Lines says its choice of the Airbus A350 was made because the airplane was just “better” than Boeing’s offering. CNBC reports.
No highway in the sky: Just on the ground. See this series of photos to see what we’re talking about.
Boeing’s plan to bridge 777 production gap includes a 777-200 P2F strategy; we’re skeptical of the idea
Boeing plans to begin an effort to stimulate demand of the 777 Classic to bridge a three year production gap to the 777X entry-into-service in 2020. One of its strategies is to persuade current 777-200 operators to sell their aircraft to cargo airlines for conversion, replacing these with new 777s. This was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
We’re skeptical of this on a couple of counts. First, we remain unconvinced that 777-200 operators will be incentivized to buy new 777 Classics unless there is a deep, deep discount—something Boeing claims it doesn’t plan to do, although we wouldn’t expect Boeing to say anything else.
Odds and Ends: Rolls follows Pratt with GTF technology; Airbus’ challenge;
Rolls-Royce and GTF: Rolls-Royce today said it will pursue technology for its next big engine that follows the Geared Turbo Fan technology of Pratt & Whitney’s smaller design.
Aviation Week has this story and Bloomberg has this one.
RR says the engine will be ready around 2020, which is just about the time Emirates Airlines would like to see an engine that is 10% more efficient than today’s technologies, for the Airbus A380.
Airbus’ challenge: Reuters has a think-piece about the challenge Airbus faces in the heart-of-the-market twin-aisle sector occupied by the A330 and A350. Bloomberg discusses the A350 challenge in its report of Airbus Group earnings.