Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing CEO promises company is turning around…again April 24, 2024
- Solid start for stand-alone GE Aerospace despite cuts to LEAP output April 23, 2024
- SPEEA, Boeing at impasse over safety program, union says April 23, 2024
- Better transparency needed on Boeing’s 1Q earnings call April 22, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
Mystery Photo #6
Try this one. It is an airplane.
Readers were correct: Saab Draken.
Thanks to reader Martin for this week’s Mystery Photo.
DOD worries about sequestration affect on non-defense industries
The National Journal magazine has an interesting article detailing why the Defense Department is worried about the impact on non-defense sectors. Among the key points in the article:
- Half Boeing’s revenue comes from the commercial aircraft sector and adverse impacts on airlines could ripple to Boeing Commercial Airplanes;
- Air Traffic Control will take an immediate $800m hit, costing 2,200 controllers their jobs;
- The FAA’s NextGen system investments would be slashed;
- Lockheed Martin provides security services to departments like Social Security, and would be affect; and so on.
Here’s an article specifically on the FAA controller cuts.
There are charges and counter-charges among DC politicians about why no deal has been struck yet to avoid the fiscal cliff. The latest is that House Speak John Boehner wants to get past his reelection as Speaker Jan. 3. This is a pretty cynical theory.
Boeing details 737 improvements
With a tip of the hat to Jon Ostrower and his Tweet, here’s a link to some detail about the improvements to the Boeing 737.
Given the Airbus write-up in its advertisement about the MAX, we thought this link will be of more than passing interest.
Ad wars, continued–Airbus fires Round Three
This week’s issue of the trade magazines has Round Three of the Airbus response to Boeing ads. Click to enlarge.
Odds and Ends: Progress on the KC-46A; Southwest and AirTran; British Air’s A380
KC-46A Progress: National Defense magazine has this update on progress of the Boeing KC-46A tanker. According to the article, progress is proceeding well.
Southwest Airlines and AirTran: Southwest Airlines is the USA’s legacy low-cost carrier, and it has grown through selected mergers. The acquisition of LCC AirTran fills a big gap in Southwest’s system (the Southeast) and is the most ambitious effort yet. This article wonders if it’s too much.
British Airways’ A380: BA has revealed its interior plans for the Airbus A380. The news article is here. BA becomes another airline to configure the super-jumo with fewer than 500 seats.
Cattle Car: Airbus is looking at a 236-seat configuration for its A321, using 28-inch seat pitch. Ouch.
Odds and Ends: SPEEA says strike is likely; CFM LEAP update
SPEEA v Boeing: The Seattle Times reported that there is a very high chance of a strike by SPEEA against Boeing come February. This is, of course, bad news for all concerned.
SPEEA is already talking about a 60 day strike and says this would cost Boeing $400m a day. In 2000, when SPEEA struck for 60 days, Boeing deivered 50 fewer aircraft for the year. IAM 751’s 57 day strike in 2009 depressed sales and cost Boeing billions (though nothing like the $400m SPEEA forecasts, which is a puzzle).
Customers, who were ticked off by the IAM strike, will once again be the innocent bystanders in this potential strike. A strike will also redouble Boeing’s drive to diversify to non-union states, though hopefully this time it won’t be so stupid as to connect the dots again as it did with the 751. It’s our belief Boeing can’t fulfill the demand for engineers in Washington State anyway so it has to locate work elsewhere. Although as a Washington State resident we don’t want to see this happen, this is, we believe, reality.
SPEEA has the power to truly disrupt things at Boeing, not only for deliveries but also for future engineering projects, but nobody will win and everybody will lose if Boeing and SPEEA don’t reach an agreement.
CFM LEAP Update: The Seattle Times also has this update on the CFM LEAP-1B, the version for the Boeing 737 MAX.
Noteworthy in the article is the revelation of the contractual commitment for CFM to reduce fuel burn for the LEAP-1B by 15% compared with today’s 737 CFM engine. This is a key piece of information and well beyond the Airbus assumption in the continuing war of words between the two companies.
It also is key to Boeing’s previously advertised target of the 737 MAX being 13% better than today’s 737NG. What strikes us, however, is whether 13% is still an operative figure.
All other things being equal, installation typically costs 1%-2%, which means the MAX on engine installation alone should be 13%-14% better than the NG. We know that Boeing is working hard on airframe improvements. Shouldn’t the 13% actually be better? We know the advanced winglets are supposed to add 1.5% to fuel reduction, for example. Boeing has also cleaned up the tailcone and undertaken other aerodynamic improvements.
We’ve asked Boeing and will post its response when received.
Update, 2pm PST: We have an answer of sorts from Boeing, though we’ve asked for further clarification.
“CFM’s number is in SFC or specific fuel consumption for a given thrust which when you apply it to a specific mission gives you the fuel-burn reduction for that trip. The attached shows a 500-nmi trip comparison which gives the MAX engine 14% fuel-burn reduction compared to the NG engine, next we factor in engine integration and aero improvements ending up with a total 13% reduction for a 500-nmi trip compared to the NG).
“You will see in the chart that we credit the AT winglet with approximately 1 percent improvement (again this is at a 500-nmi trip). However, at longer ranges customers will experience even more improvement from the AT winglets, up to 1.5%.”
This chart (click to enlarge) is extracted from Boeing’s Farnborough presentation. It starts with a 14% improvement for the engine, while the news article says 15% is required in the CFM contract. The Boeing spokesperson said this is for a 500nm mission at a “specific thrust” level. We’re trying to clarify the difference between the 15% contract number and the 14% above. If we get this clarity, we’ll update again.
Update, 545pm PST: Here’s the final answer from Boeing:
“CFM’s number is in pure SFC and our numbers are in fuel-burn per trip so they are not equivalent. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. In our case – we are using a 500-nmi trip which is our standard comparison. This includes then in our calculations the fuel-burn cost of lifting the airplane empty weight off the ground since takeoff is part of the trip. CFM’s number is an engine in a test stand compared to another engine in a test stand so the two comparisons are not equivalent.”
Meanwhile…
Not revealed in the article but we learned that there will be a thrust bump for the LEAP engine. Right now CFM lists on its website the LEAP-1B thrust at a maximum of 28,000 lbs, the same as the current engine. Because of the higher weights for the MAX, runway performance has been assessed as poorer than the NG by customers we’ve talked with. A thrust bump, and airframe improvements, are aimed at fixing this issue, we’re told.
Mystery Photo #5
The PBY and the Accountant were too easy. Even the Boeing B&W was quickly identified. How about this one? Think very broadly.
Sunday: I flim-flammed you, though CBL was close:
This car is in the LeMay Museum in Tacoma, WA.
Airbus v Boeing: another round of what the customers tell us
With the recent spat upping the media war between Airbus and Boeing over whose airplanes offer better economics, we’ve been once more asking customers what their analyses conclude.
Nothing has changed from our earlier conversations.
As recent media and advertising wars relate, Boeing claims the 737-8 MAX is 8% better on a per-seat basis than the A320neo. Airbus claims its aircraft is 3.3% better than the MAX-8. The differences come in the assumptions of fuel burn, with Airbus claiming the neo will save more fuel than the MAX. Boeing claims the MAX, being lighter, will match the fuel savings and with 12 more seats, this is how Boeing comes up with the 8% figure.
Boeing also claims the 737’s maintenance costs are 24%-27% better than the A320, a figure which drives Airbus officials right up the wall as ludicrous. (We’ve written several times why we dismiss the validity of the Boeing claim as relying on old data on the one hand and data that can be manipulated on the other.)
In the last 10 days we have had conversations once more with customers and potential customers who have analyzed data from Airbus and Boeing and reached their own conclusions. These are additional customers to those we’ve talked with previously, thus adding to the list and data points.
The conclusions are the same:
- The A320neo and the 737-8 MAX are about equal in economics, with Boeing retaining a slight edge on a per-seat basis, but nothing like the 8% it claims. Boeing’s maintenance claims are laughed off. Commercial terms therefore become the deciding factor.
- The A321neo has the advantage over the 737-9 MAX, in part for the same reason the 8 MAX has the advantage: the neo has more seats than the MAX.
- The A321neo is a closer replacement for the Boeing 757 than the 9 MAX, although neither is a true replacement.