Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Parent agency, FAA often at odds as politics outweighs safety June 26, 2025
- Electric Flight and the Ugly Duckling June 25, 2025
- Engine makers tout “Plan A” but have “Plan B” backups in R&D June 23, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 27. June 20, 2025
- Pontifications: A Personal Note June 19, 2025
Odds and Ends: To fly the 787 or not-conflicting reports; 787 schedule cancellations
To fly or not to fly: Yesterday there were several reports that the FAA was ready to allow Boeing begin test flights of the 787, only to be followed within hours that the FAA denied the reports.
The contradictions underscore the uncertainty surrounding the 787 grounding. Today the Wall Street Journal has this report further outlining the challenges of the investigation: the authorities don’t have the experts they need. The New York Times has this report detailing the FAA’s current position.
One expert we consulted doesn’t believe the FAA will approve test flights before April. A key paragraph from the New York Times article is this:
Boeing is conducting laboratory tests on its proposed fixes for the lithium-ion batteries on its new 787 jets, and federal regulators said Tuesday that they would need to see the results before deciding whether to allow flight tests.
This suggests to us that the April timeline may be reasonable as suggested by the consultant we checked with. Note, too, that the NTSB preliminary findings have yet to be issued and we don’t see the FAA making any decisions before this report is issued, expected sometime in the first half of March.
Meantime….
787 Schedule Cancellations: Some airlines have announced their cancellation schedules for the Boeing 787, while we had to go into Orbitz, Expedia or the airline websites to determine the schedules of the other operators with 787s. Here’s what we found:
Canceled through:
| ANA | 31-May |
| Air India | 31-Mar |
| Ethiopian | 30-Apr |
| JAL | 31-Mar |
| Lan | 29-Jun |
| LOT |
30-Sep |
| Qatar | 30-Apr |
| United | 5-Jun |
US Airways’ 757 problem
Notation: Lan Chile has canceled Boeing 787 flights through June.
US Airways has a large fleet of aging Boeing 757s it needs to replace. The problem is, a carrier official says, neither the Airbus A321neo nor the Boeing 737-9 MAX can do what needs to be done: Phoenix-Hawaii non-stop in both directions with maximum payload under all conditions.
The distance is 2,910 miles, well within the advertised range of 4,200 miles for the A321neo and 4,137 for the 9 MAX. But Derek Kerr, executive vice president and chief financial officer says fleet planners have yet to be convinced either plane can replace the 757W, which is uniquely able to handle the hot, summer conditions at Phoenix, where temperatures often soar to 110F degrees or more.
US Airways is one of only two legacy airlines in the US that has yet to order the MAX or the NEO (Delta Air Lines is the other). A year ago, US Airways CEO Doug Parker told us that the value proposition of ordering the neo still was unconvincing given the price premium sought by Airbus. Kerr told us last week that the large, outstanding order for the current generation A320 family as replacements for the oldest jets–and the lack of a true replacement for the 757–meant the airline wasn’t in a hurry to place an order for re-engined aircraft.
Odds and Ends: A350 production boost; 787 ‘Super Box’ and political influence; Boeing’s JAL monopoly
A350 production boost: Airbus wants to boost production of the A350.
787 ‘Super Box‘: In the harshest assessment we’ve seen so far of the Boeing 787 situation, BB&T Capital Markets analyst Carter Leake characterizes the proposed containment box for the lithium ion battery as a “super box” and Boeing’s entire proposed solution as a Rube Goldberg approach.
Leake writes:
We view Boeing’s “Super Box” proposal as a reverse Rube Goldberg contraption that attempts to solve a very complex problem with an overly simple solution. We believe there is no doubt that Boeing’s proposal is the fastest way to get the 787 flying again, but if the NTSB plays the safety card in its upcoming interim report (which we think they will), the Super Box strategy will be a hard sell for weak-kneed politicians who will care less about the arcane rules of aircraft certification, and more about the open-ended political exposure of supporting a rush job. Worse, we believe the very powerful, but instantly credible, pilot unions will soon weigh in against any solution that contemplates a “contained fire” of any kind. This issue has unfortunately become very political, and we believe the 787 crisis is far from being resolved.
Boeing doubled down on its Lithium Ion battery system by proposing modifications that purportedly address the risk of thermal runaway and the more critical issue of smoke and fire containment. Using a “Super Box” concept (our term), Boeing hopes to divert attention from how the previous system performed—or did not— and instead focus on a fortress approach that can deal with worst-case battery fires, regardless of their cause. Congressional sources cited in media reports state that Boeing is adamant that this is a permanent fix and no alternative solution is being pursued. Given the original battery system is being modified, even if for the better, some degree of re-certification will be required.
Kudos to Boeing engineers for constructing this kludge in short order, but we view the Super Box as a reverse Rube Goldberg contraption that attempts to solve a very complex problem with an overly simple solution. We believe there is no doubt that Boeing’s proposal is the fastest way to get the 787 flying again, but if the NTSB plays the safety card in its upcoming interim report (which we think they will), the Super Box strategy will be a hard sell for weak-kneed politicians who will care less about the arcane rules of aircraft certification, and more about the open-ended political exposure of supporting a rush job. Worse, we believe the very powerful, but instantly credible, pilot unions will soon weigh in against any solution that contemplates a “contained fire” of any kind.
All we can say is, “wow.”
Sole sourcing not preferable, says JAL: The grounding of the 787 may provide an opportunity for Airbus in Japan, where it has had decades of poor sales, if this article is any indicator.
Clues emerge on 787 service from FAA meeting
Clues emerged from a variety of news reports following the meeting Friday between Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration that point to when the 787 will be able to reenter service.
The most tantalizing: Boeing will need up to eight weeks from the FAA green light before the 787 will return to service.
Since we don’t expect the FAA to approve proposed remedies any time soon (a relative term, to be sure), we think it could easily be May or June before the 787 returns to service. The preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board isn’t likely until the first half of March. We believe the FAA will want to see and digest this report before drawing is own conclusions. It’s anybody’s guess how long it will take the FAA to review the NTSB findings and Boeing’s proposal.
Assuming the FAA concurs with the Boeing recommendations–which may or may not be a safe assumption–what kind of testing will the FAA require, both in the lab and in the air, and how long will this take? Only after all this would the FAA green light the fixes and the “up to eight weeks” timeline kick in.
Here are the key news articles and some key excerpts:
Washington State air facilities that could close with sequestration
The FAA has released a list of air traffic control facilities that could close with Sequestration, which is due to take effect March 1.
The following facilities in Washington State are on the list:
ALW Walla Walla Regional Walla Walla WA
MWH Grant County International Moses Lake WA
OLM Olympia Regional Olympia WA
PAE Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) Everett WA
RNT Renton Municipal Renton WA
SFF Felts Field Spokane WA
TIW Tacoma Narrows Tacoma WA
YKM Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Yakima WA
Additionally, the over night shifts in the following control towers are at risk:
BFI Boeing Tower Seattle WA
GEG Spokane Tower Spokane WA
The FAA warns that passengers at TSA lines could be up to three hours and tarmac delays at major hub airports could be up to 90 minutes.
The Elusive McNerney:some historical perspective
The Wall Street Journal has a long profile on the elusive Jim McNerney, CEO of The Boeing Co., and his role in the 787 crisis. (Subscription required.) The story is detailed. For those of us who follow Boeing like the US follows the Kremlin, McNerney’s elusiveness is nothing new. When McNerney was named CEO, we researched him and found that (according to reports at the time) one reason he got passed over by Jack Welch as CEO of GE was that McNerney didn’t like to do press interviews and he didn’t like to schmooze investors. According to profiles when he was CEO of 3M, he didn’t like to do earnings calls, either. This is pretty clear as we listen to Boeing earnings calls, on which he is scripted, halting, clearly uncomfortable and gives the impress he can’t wait to get off. Reports and our own impressions suggest that if he had his druthers, he’d just stick around the office and let others do the public stuff.
So it doesn’t surprise us that McNerney has been ghostly throughout the 787 crisis. Boeing said it’s restricted as to what it can say during the investigation, but we checked with others and are told Boeing can talk about whatever was said about the airplane prior to the investigation and that restrictions come into play about what happened after the investigation started.
We know from our own conversations that Boeing is worried about the brand of the company and the airplane. The launch of the 787 information update site and the long WSJ article make it clear that Boeing is now trying to protect the brand.
As for McNerney’s ghostly presence to investors and media, aside from his natural tendency to avoid them, we believe Boeing’s legal team is taking a conservative approach to what it can and can’t say. We conclude this not based on anything we know in connection to the 787 crisis, but based on what we know Legal’s approach is to pretty much any public statement on sensitive issues. Media often complains about the timeliness and brevity of responses from Corporate Communications (and general uselessness in many cases). We know that in some of these instances, Legal had to vet the responses and they’ve been watered down into meaningless pap. Based on this long history, we think Legal has a lot to say about what the company can and can’t say–or will or won’t say. We know Corp Com would like to do more.
Boeing hopes for March or April return for 787; we think this is challenging
Update: Aviation Week’s Guy Norris has this detailed article in which the third week of March is identified as a target date for the 787 to re-enter service.
Original Post:
Boeing hopes to return the grounded 787 to the skies in March, according to customer briefings, or April, according to news reports, following a planned briefing to the Federal Aviation Administration tomorrow.
See The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) and The Seattle Times for details of the FAA briefing and Boeing’s planned program for a permanent fix. These articles suggest an April return to revenue service. The New York Times has this report. Reuters has this report.
A customer we talked with who has been briefed by Boeing said the target date is next month, which squares with another customer briefing we previously reported.
Either date sounds aggressive. The FAA has to review the proposals and satisfy itself that the approaches proposed by Boeing are safe to precede a redesign of the battery. Having been proved wrong once before, we think the FAA isn’t going to rush to judgment this time and (in any event) being the government, nothing moves quickly.
Then there is Sequestration, due to take effect March 1. The FAA’s track record on approving changes proposed by supply chains on unrelated matters that require Supplemental Type Certificates is already excruciatingly slow. Layoffs following Sequestration are expected to hit the FAA’s research and development and will this affect Boeing?
Also an unknown is the investigation into the 787 JAL fire by the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB’s preliminary findings are expected in the first half of March. Will the FAA want to wait for this before moving? Furthermore, the NTSB has already criticized the FAA certification of the battery and related systems in its press briefings and is examining the certification process as part of its investigation. The tension between the FAA and NTSB is long-standing. Will the FAA take more time because it’s one of the targets of the investigation?
Having initially declaring the 787 safe, only to ground the aircraft within days, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the plane won’t be returned to service until the FAA (which is part of Transportation) is “1,000%” sure the airplane is safe. It’s a ridiculous statement, but has LaHood painted the FAA into a corner that will delay a decision about Boeing’s proposals?
Finally, having issued Special Conditions in approving the battery in the first place, will the FAA want more Special Conditions for the fix and the battery redesign?
Any and all of this will take time. There certainly is a recognition on the part of the FAA about the economic impact to the airlines from the grounding.
We don’t think this will move quickly. March-we don’t think so. April-maybe, but challenging.
SPEEA contract vote results in: Split decision
Update, Feb 20: SPEEA issued corrected vote totals; see below.
If negotiations fail to reach a contract for the Technical unit and they were to strike, the Professional unit cannot strike but neither can they replaced the Techies. SPEEA says production would come to a halt in the event of a strike.
Original Post:
Here are the results:
18,043 votes cast.
Professional Group
Accept: 5,691 6,483
Reject: 4,810 5,514
Do Authorize Strike: 3,316 6,727
Do Not Authorize Strike, 2,586 5,249
Technical Group
Accept: 2,801 2,868
Reject: 3,014 3,203
Do Authorize Strike: 3,796 3,903
Do Not Authorize Strike: 2,098 2,165
The Tech group will return to the bargaining table in hopes of reaching a new agreement.
SPEEA-Boeing contract vote count underway-and we are there
It’s Tuesday evening, Feb. 19, and we are at SPEEA headquarters to watch the ballot counting on the contract vote offered by Boeing.
It’s 6:25pm and it’s too soon to spot a trend. However, as we watched the ballots separated from he envelopes were could see a lot of “Accepts” and a lot of “Rejects.” As can be expected, the Accepts do not approve of a strike authorization and those rejecting the contract OK a strike.
Final results aren’t expected until after 9pm. Stay tuned here for updates as well as on Twitter @leehamnews
6:45pm PST: Counting underway, tilt toward Accept at one table.
7:00pm PST: Can see several stations; it’s too close to call a trend.
7:15pm PST: As we scan the room at the counting tables we can see, it looks like this vote will be close. Caveat: we can only see perhaps 25% of the voting stations. Best we can see, it looks like the tilt is toward Accept. This is not at all like the IAM 751 vote in 2008, in which the Reject was obvious and clear early in the evening.
7:20pm PST: SPEEA reminds us there are two employee groups voting tonight, the Professional engineers and the Technical group. One group could Accept and one group could Reject. One could OK a strike, the the might not.
7:25pm PST: In response to Shuper, “Accept” or “Reject” refers to the contract itself. “Do” or “Do Not” Authorize a strike is the other vote. We’re not trying to identify the Do or Do Not because these are basically tracking Accept or Reject. There is no visual on ballots (as there was with the IAM): both questions are on the same ballot (they were separate at the IAM, so a visual card stacking was obvious). The votes are tallied by the old-fashioned five-count hash marks on a sheet of paper. That’s what we are spotting.
8:00pm PST: Kind of quiet. One Professional vote counter says his table is neck-and-neck. A Techie tells us his group tends to be more militant but he doesn’t have a feel for the vote.
8:15pm PST: A bit of a surprise: several vote counting stations appear to be done.
8:30pm PST: Results will be coming “soonish.”
9:00pm PST: SPEEA first told us 20-25 min, now saying 45-60 min.
Twitter: The Herald @EverettHerald
RT @chcktylr: For you engineers, that’s 79.17068889864% of membership. RT @sbhatt: 18,043 ballots cast in #speea vote on #boeing contract
9:15pm PST: While we are killing time here at SPEEA, there is speculation that the FAA may not approve the temporary fix of the 787 (no news there) and this means a full replacement of the battery design might take as long as 18-24 months. We don’t have enough data to give credence to this timeline but–if it were to be this long, the Airbus A350 might enter service before the 787 re-enters service. Think about that.
The results are here.