Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 20. May 2, 2025
- Supplier Howmet exceeds expectations despite tariffs May 1, 2025
- Airbus 1Q2025 results: So far, so good, but US tariffs make future results unpredictable May 1, 2025
- Does an Airbus A220-500 need a new wing and engines? May 1, 2025
- Teamsters, Boeing have a new contract April 29, 2025
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.
Odds and Ends: Boeing revises MAX winglet, adding 1.5% to efficiency
Update, 2:15 PM PDT: Airbus issued this response to the Boeing development:
“This kind of split-tip device was among the options we studied for the A320 Family, and we decided instead to advance with our Sharklet design as the most efficient. Our Sharklet figures (3.5% improvement over the already-efficient A320 wing with wing-tip fences) are flight-test proven.”
Original Post:
Boeing today announced a revised winglet to add 1.5% in fuel efficiency for the 737 MAX, releasing a photo. See here. This will be on top of the advertised 10%12% fuel burn gain previously announced.
Separately, David Hess, CEO of Pratt & Whitney, told the PW media day “that as far as we know, the 737 MAX is not an opportunity for us,” citing the Boeing-CFM exclusivity agreement.
Update, 0900 PDT: Boeing held a tele-press conference to discuss the new “Boeing Advanced Technology Winglets,” (BATW) which it also called “dual feathered” winglets.
Boeing said this is an exclusive Boeing design and not derived from a similar design promoted by Aviation Partners. Key points:
- Up to 1.5% lower fuel burn, depending on the length of mission;
- The design used Computational Fluid Dynamics to design it, a process used from the 787/747-8 programs;
- This is completely new technology, not having roots to the MD-11 which has a similar-looking wingtip arrangement;
- The wingspan is increased by only “inches” compared with the NG;
- The BATW is likely scalable to larger aircraft;
- There are no current plans to make the BATW available on the NG, though this could change;
- Although there will be some benefit to range, the BATW isn’t significant;
- Boeing now claims 18% better all-in costs than the current Airbus A320 (based on figures as a starting point Airbus disputes);
- This just about does it for aerodynamic changes to the 737; architectural changes should be nailed down in the third or fourth quarter; and
- “Our major trades aerodynamically are done.”
Aviation Partners has a similar concept; the differences between Boeing and AP are evident.
Here’s how McDonnell Douglas executed a similar concept on the MD-11:
Odds and Ends: A320ceo production to end in 2018–PW; responds to 777X RFI
A320 Current Engine Option: The Airbus A320ceo production will end in 2018, according to David Hess, the president of Pratt & Whitney. Hess made the remarks today at the annual PW media day.
Hess said PW anticipates delivering an aggregate of 8,000 V2500 engines by the time the A320ceo winds down.
GTF to have >1m hours by year-end 2015: Hess also said the GTF will have accumulated more than 1m hours of tests and operations by the end of 2015 and more than 3m hours by the time the Boeing 737 MAX enters service in 4Q2017.
PW revenue will double from $12.7bn today: Hess said revenue will double by the end of 2020, driven by the GTF and aftermarket support. “The engines that we are developing today will define PW.”
Second GTF variant enters flight test: The Mitsubishi variant of the GTF made its first flight yesterday.
PW responds to Boeing RFI for 777X engine: in the 90,000-100,000 lb class. The benefits of GTF grow the larger the engine, says Hess.
Odds and Ends: ‘We’re happy with LEAP, confident it will meet target’
During the Boeing 1Q2012 earnings call, CEO Jim McNerney had this to say about the story that won’t die (that Boeing continues to look at the PW Geared Turbo Fan for the 737 MAX):
The gear turbo fan, the — yes. The — right now, as I think we’ve announced many, many times, we are working exclusively with CFM on the MAX, and we’re very happy with the development there. We’re confident that we can meet the targets that our customers need and that we’ve promised them. So that’s our plan going forward.
“Right now.” Was this a Freudian slip or an inconsequential choice of words?
Boeing likes American Airlines as stand-alone: McNerney also said Boeing prefers AA to emerge from bankruptcy as a stand-alone airline. This is no shock; the US Airways management is exclusively Airbus, and while American strayed from Boeing last year, it still placed a large order for 737NGs/737 MAXes.
McNerney talks about pricing: I think the summary on pricing is 777 steady, steady as she goes, capturing value, in many ways a uniquely positioned airplane today and significant productivity associated both with better conversion and with taking up rate. So the margin environment there, I would say, is good and favorable going forward. 37, all of the comments I just made on productivity apply. Significant productivity, both absorption kind of productivity due to increased rate as well as conversion productivity per unit. Slightly more aggressive pricing environment due to the introduction of the MAX and the NEO. So there’s launch customer kinds of pricing that have happened in a few cases. But I think at the end of the day, the — we anticipate about half of that market, which is a big number. And we see a pricing environment that’s not too different than the pricing environment we’ve had historically after we get through some of the launch customer — loss — launch customer pricing, which is part and parcel with our business.
[Source for all the quotations: Seeking Alpha Transcripts.]
We are hearing there essentially is a price war going on right now between Airbus and Boeing for single aisles, as Boeing attempts to stem the inroads and success by Airbus with the A320neo. In this case, we’re hearing Boeing is the aggressor (which follows, since it is playing catch-up).
Boeing won Delta Air Lines on the 737-900ER v A321 competition largely on price, we understand–bidding 10% lower than Airbus. We also believe price is likely the determining factor in the soon-to-be-completed United Airlines deal, where Boeing is widely reported to now be the favorite.
Another story that won’t die
We’ve recently tagged a few items “a story that won’t die.” Here is another one, the continuing analysis of the Pratt &
Whitney GTF for the Boeing 737 MAX.
Although Boeing’s Lauren Penning told The Puget Sound Business Journal there isn’t a “team” at Boeing working on this prospect, reports out of Aspire Aviation (now Orient Insight), Aeroturbopower, Airline Economics and last month’s ISTAT meeting continue to create buzz on this topic. The AirInsight piece was published in limited circulation two weeks ago.