70″ Fan for the 737 MAX

We picked up information that Boeing’s announcement at ISTAT in March that it had settled on a 68.4 inch fan for the 737 MAX LEAP-1B wasn’t a done deal. Now Buckingham Research comes out of Tuesday’s Boeing’s investors’ day with this notation:

A 70” fan for the 737MAX

BA noted that 737MAX development is proceeding on schedule with firm configuration expected in 2013 and first flight in 2016. Further, BA sees more upside than downside risk to the plane’s 13% efficiency improvement. BA is now looking at a slightly larger 70” fan for the LEAP-X engine vs. 68.4″ previously.  While that might reinforce investor concerns regarding the GE LEAP-X engine performance, we see the change as part of the design optimization process. A number of factors impact engine fan size, including drag (larger engine fans have more drag), bypass ratio, core size, core temperature, etc. With the 737MAX recently undergoing wind tunnel testing, we think the revised engine fan size has more to do with optimizing the engine than a means to overcome performance deficiencies. 

Note that this is not speculation on Buckingham’s part; it cites Boeing as the source.

Odds and Ends: A380 & other Airbus tidbits; “SC-787-1” to be airborne soon

A380 & other Airbus tidbits: Aviation Week has this article about the latest on A380 wing cracks in the L brackets, along with some information on the A350 program, A330 production rates, a comment on the price war and the prospect of an A320 production line in Mobile (AL). A reader asked us for a report on the wing cracks; we’ll be in Toulouse next week for the Airbus Innovation Days and anticipate some discussion of this topic then.

“SC-787-1” to be airborne soon: The first Boeing 787 built in South Carolina will take to the air very soon, Boeing revealed during its investors day Tuesday. The Everett Herald has this article with some detail of production challenges and opportunities. There is also a reference well down in the article about diversifying production risk.

Speaking about that diversification: We were in Spokane (WA) yesterday addressing the Washington Public Ports Association. We urged the Port Authorities present to plan to propose to Boeing that the company should locate future assembly lines or supply clusters in Eastern Washington, away from the earthquake zones of Puget Sound. The April tornado in Wichita (KS) shut down 737 production for nine days and really brings home the potential risk factors to Boeing. This has been a song of ours since 2009 when we made a similar call to arms at another conference, which also was in Spokane. After our talk, one Port Authority commissioner noted that a computer model simulation of a Kobe, Japan-style earthquake concluded the ports in Puget Sound would be shut for three full months. The Boeing Renton plant is in close proximity to the Port of Seattle.

Sea of Foam: Check this out.

Airbus, Boeing accuse each other of price war; what’s the real story?

We find this very interesting: Boeing says Airbus is engaged in predatory pricing on the A320. Airbus says Boeing is engaged in a price war.

What’s the truth? It seems to us that orders might tell the story. The scorecard YTD:

Airbus A320 family: 88

Boeing 737 family: 413

It seems to us that if Airbus were engaged in predatory pricing, the scorecard would be reversed.

Last year, of course, Airbus pounded Boeing at a time when it had the NEO defined and Boeing’s MAX was still evolving. But Boeing ended the year with about 1,000 orders and commitments while Airbus ended the year with about 1,200 firm orders and another 200 or so commitments. So while Airbus ended the year ahead, we believe it was essentially because Airbus had a firm product and Boeing did not.

Something doesn’t pass the sniff test here.

 

Odds and Ends: KC-787 unlikely; Qatar on A380, A350 and CSeries; more Airbus-Boeing bickering

KC-787?: Defense News has this article quoting Jim Albaugh that the prospect of a KC-787 is unlikely.

Qatar on Airbus, Bombardier: Qatar’s Akbar Al-Baker says he won’t take the Airbus A380 without a permanent fix for the wing L-brace cracks. In the same story, Al-Baker comments on the redesign of the A350. Al-Baker also said talks for the Bombardier CSeries are on hold for 6-12 months. Details in this story.

More Airbus-Boeing bickering: It’s tiresome enough that Airbus and Boeing publicly bicker over the A320 v 737, neo v MAX and 747 v A380. Now they are in a public pissing match over the 737 BBJ and the Airbus ACJ business jets. Both sides need to act like the world-class companies they are.

Here’s to flying British Airways: No comment necessary.

Odds and Ends: Puzzling math remains puzzling in 737 v A320 debate

Puzzling math remains puzzling: Boeing has said for the better part of two years that the 737-800 is 8% more economical than the Airbus A320 and the advantage translates into leads it claims for the MAX over the NEO. With the addition of the Advanced Technology Winglets (BATW), Boeing now claims the 737 MAX will be a whopping 18% more economical than today’s A320 and up to 10% better than the NEO.

Such claims make Airbus almost apoplectic. Airbus rejects outright Boeing’s 8% claim and further said its own analysis on the MAX (pre-BATW) indicated the best improvement Boeing could get was 8%, not 10%-12%. Airbus also sniffs at the new BATW. Airbus evaluated the design before settling on the sharklets as more advantagous.

We’ve always been skeptical of numbers advanced by Airbus and Boeing because, after all, they are hardly objective. We’ve placed more weight in analyses offered by customers, for obvious reasons: they are the ones who have to operate the aircraft and truly know theory in real life.

We’ve previously written that Lufthansa concluded the 737 MAX will have a 2% advantage over the A320neo (also pre-BATW), which returns the competition to the “status quo.” This means that in Lufthansa’s analysis, today’s airplanes are only 2% apart, not Boeing’s claim of 8%.

Now comes information to us that Qantas–which operates both types through its own airline and the JetStar subsidiary–finds its operating experience to be so close as to be indistinguishable.

So we asked Boeing about that, and about how its methodology comes up with the numbers it advertised. Here’s the response, foregoing addressing the results of the airlines, citing long-standing policy of not commenting on customers. As for the methodology:

[Our analyses] are based on our average vs. Airbus and not individual customer statistics. There are too many variables to be able to address specifics and details.

Our numbers are cost per seat and are based on a 500 nm mission using typical European economic rules for airplanes with two-class seating giving the Next-Generation 737-800w (with PIP – Performance Improvement Package) 162 passengers and the A320 150 passengers.

Fuel burn values are Boeing tested values for the Next-Generation 737 and Boeing estimates for the A320. Maintenance costs are estimated using Boeing methodology which takes into account industry reported data from the FAA and IATA for both manufacturers. Same crew cost, landing and navigation and passenger handling cost models are applied to both airplanes.

We’ll note from our previous discussions with Boeing that Boeing acknowledged factoring in 737 PIPs (as cited above) but not factoring in A320 PIPs. Airbus claims Boeing uses the CFM56 as the base engine for the A320, rather than the V2500, which is 1.5% more efficient. Airbus also claims that Boeing uses older versions of the CFM56 as the A320 base engine rather than the newer, more efficient model. Airbus also uses 800nm vs Boeing’s 500nm for its analysis. (AirInsight’s analysis of US operation confirms that A320s and 737s tend to fly, on average, around 1,100sm, concluding that the longer range assumption is indeed a fairer data point.)

So the puzzling math used by Airbus and Boeing remains puzzling. The airlines say the airplanes are very close. We believe the airlines.

ExIm Bank: Just when we thought this was over, it turns out the Republicans in the US Senate Wednesday blocked a vote to approve reauthorization of the US ExIm Bank and a hike in its ceiling to $140bn. This story has additional detail. Boeing and GE take a hit on this.

Emirates to Boeing on 777X: Get a move on. You’re taking too long.

Assessing the Superjet crash

It’s always dangerous jumping to conclusions about an airliner crash within hours or days after an accident, but the speculation began very quickly after the Sukhoi Superjet went missing yesterday in Indonesia.

Despite the demographic of the passengers on board, Russia floated the possibility the aircraft had been hijacked. This seemed an incredible possibility given the passengers were made up of airline executives, journalists and members of the Indonesian aerospace industry.

The facts, though sparse, seemed to parallel other accidents throughout aviation industry over the decades. The captain of the flight asked for clearance to descend to 6,000 ft from 10,000 ft in a mountainous area where peaks were 6,200 to 7,000 ft (reports varied). It wasn’t clear what the weather was at the time the airplane disappeared, but searches were suspended later in part because of fog.

Descending to an altitude below the mountain tops suggests that CFIT (and pilot error) might be involved. CFIT stands for Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

But the altitude of the crash site was reported to be around 5,800 feet, slightly below the clearance. Does this suggest equipment malfunction? Or did the pilot “break” altitude, a not unknown occurrence.

If weather was a factor, might there have been wind shears at play?

What does this accident do to Sukhoi’s reputation? This column concludes it is destroyed. We aren’t ready to agree with that.(Update, 9:30am PDT: The headline on the column has been changed to suggest there is now an “operational risk” to the program as opposed to the program being “destroyed.”) (Update, 3:30pm PDT: Now the headline is about “reputational risk….”)

If this turns out to be pilot error or a weather-driven accident, why should the plane’s reputation suffer? If it is an equipment failure, a lot of Western equipment is on the aircraft and perhaps the fault might lie there.

What do readers think?

AA plans 767 retirement from about 2015–does this mean 787 order will finally be firmed up soon?

American Airlines announced that it plans to retrofit Boeing 777-200s and half its Boeing 767-300ER fleet with lie-flat business class seats as a means to upgrade its international service. AA also announced that it plans to retrofit only half of the 767 fleet and retire the rest.

IAM 751 Tweets that the retirement will start about 2015.

Does this mean American is preparing to at long last firm up its MOU for up to 100 Boeing 787s? The MOU was made several years ago, but was never firmed pending resolution of pilot contract negotiations. This, of course, hasn’t happened, and now in bankruptcy, American is moving under Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code to void the contract (and other labor agreements) and to impose its own terms.

This fleet upgrade and retirement announced suggests to us that American might be nearing a resolution (under 1113 if nowhere else) that will lead to firming up the 787 order.

No wonder Jim McNerney favors an American solution to a US Airways merger.

Odds and Ends: Lufthansa on 747-8I vs A380; ExIm deal reached; not quite, Dan Rather

747-8 vs A380: While Boeing and Airbus engage in a long-running and unseemly war of words about whether the 747-8I is more economical than the A380–and each accuse the other of playing fast and loose with the data–the only opinion we consider that counts comes from the airlines. Lufthansa says the A380 is more efficient than the 747-8I on a seat-mile basis. This is what LH said years ago, before either airplane was delivered. End of story.

ExIm deal reached: It looks like a deal has been reached with Republicans to support extending the authority of the ExIm Bank and to raise the ceiling to $140bn.  As readers of this column know, we were highly critical of the Republicans for opposing this funding mechanism for American business. Boeing benefits greatly–ExIm has been called “Boeing’s bank–” and that’s OK. The ceiling hike isn’t really enough for the three years, however; ExIm funds stuff at about the rate of $35bn a year (about $12bn of which are Boeing airplanes).

Not quite, Dan Rather: We just finished reading Dan Rather’s new book, “Rather Outspoken,” which chronicles some of his career. In it, he cites his “Dan Rather Reports” effort on the Boeing 787 composites questions about crash-ability and flammability as one of his hard-hitting, post-CBS, HDNet award-winning examples of his after-life from CBS. Except that his conclusion in his book is wrong.

“Our report shed light on what might otherwise have been swept under the rug,” Rather writes, referring to the questions raised about composites and safety. “It triggered a recertification process and caused Boeing to reluctantly acknowledge potential problems with the CFRP fuselage.”

Well, we don’t know about that; Boeing almost never admits a mistake and we certainly don’t recall one admitted here. But what we do know is that Rather’s following conclusion is flat-out wrong.

“In the aftermath,  Boeing delayed delivery–seven times….These were better, safer airliners because Boeing had finally taken more time before delivery.”

There can be no other conclusion than Rather is taking credit for Boeing delaying the 787 seven times as a result of his report. And anyone who followed the 787 debacle knows that the seven delays had little or even nothing to do with Rather’s report, but rather (pun intended) because of the supply chain, industrial problems, and just plain screwing up.

AirInsight has exclusive detail about MRJ delay

Mitsubishi last month announced a delay of more than one year for the MRJ, but was rather vague about the reason.

AirInsight has the detail, following an interview at the Pratt & Whitney media day attended by officials of the Japanese company in town for the first flight of the MRJ’s PW GTF engine.