787 Ramp-Up: UBS Securities issued a research note Monday in which it reports that the 787 rate ramp-up to 10 per month–a goal Boeing’s to be by the end of 2013–has slipped to the first quarter of 2014.
ISTAT: We’re at the annual ISTAT AGM in Phoenix and we’ll be reporting throughout the event odds and ends (adding to this post initially, separate posts later on). So come back often.
From ISTAT:
From Twitter, via Phil LeBeau of CNBC: @Boeing says it has NOT changed its goal of building 10 Dreamliners per month by end of 2013.
Back to ISTAT:
Side trip to Ex-Im:
Take a read of this column on the Ex-Im Bank financing controversy.
Back to ISTAT:
Boeing….
Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, today commented on the delamination issues on the 787 and the effect on deliveries and production going forward. He spoke at a JP Morgan conference. there are several stories that can be found on Google News, but here’s a link to a Reuters piece that neatly sums things up. Here is a link to Aspire Aviation’s synopsis.
Among other things, Albaugh said Boeing should deliver 70-85 787s and 747-8s, roughly evenly split between the two, or about 35-42 of each airplane. Jon Ostrower also Tweeted that the plan is to deliver the last re-worked 787 in 2014. Some may recall that Boeing’s Scott Fancher, at the time the head of the 787 program (now heading up 777), once said it would take “years” to complete the rework on the plethora of 787s lined up at Everett’s Paine Field. Ostrower also Tweeted, quoting Albaugh, as saying the first “clean” 787 will be line #66 (it had been forecast to be #63).
The other key point is about the delamination. While this has gotten a lot of high-profile attention, particularly in the context of the overall 787 program difficulties, independent sources we checked with tell us that while this is another annoying and embarrassing event for Boeing, the fix in relatively simple and the problem not particularly consequential. Boeing, of course, has said as much but skeptics continue to question Boeing’s credibility due to the history of the program often turning out to be worse than Boeing’s statements. Case-in-point is Boeing’s continued insistence that it will meet the goal of producing 10 787s per month by the end of next year and the disbelief expressed by every aerospace analyst and consultant we’ve seen. (Granted, there may be some who accept the goal as doable, but we’ve not seen them.)
Separately, an interesting public dispute between Air India, a 787 customer, and Boeing emerged. Air India says Boeing agreed to pay $500m for delays of 27 787s. Albaugh says that’s news to him. We ask, what precisely did Air India say? The news reports are too ambiguous. Did Air India say cash compensation or that Boeing is paying $500m in compensation, which, of course, could take many forms such as discounts, services, parts, etc? This would make Albaugh’s statement that no check is being written correct. So it goes….
The report is now public and to no surprise, Airbus and Boeing (and the surrogates, the EU and US Trade Representatives) each claim victory.
This excerpt from a Bloomberg report neatly paints the picture.
World Trade Organization appellate judges sided with the U.S. over illegal government subsidies to Boeing Co., the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office said. Airbus SAS called the ruling a “sweeping loss” for Boeing.
AirInsight published the press releases of Airbus and Boeing.
The news services on the Internet haven’t yet posted a full range of reports (as of 0910PDT Monday). We’re not going to bother posting the statements of the warring parties, reflecting our disdain of the entire process in the first place. Readers may search Google News, Yahoo News, et al. and comment–but a reminder to be mindful of our Comment Rules.
Word is leaking out in advance of Monday’s public release of the appeal of a WTO finding that Boeing benefited from illegal subsidies that the appeals panel upheld the findings.
Additional reports: Here and here.
Boeing has previously said on several occasions that if the WTO found it received illegal subsidies, it would write a check. We’ll see what spin occurs next week on this point.
The European Union claims Airbus has now conformed with the WTO findings against it, a claim rejected by the US Trade Representative and Boeing.
Spirit Aerosystems held an aerospace analyst day March 7 and several reports have already been issued. Given Spirit’s close association with Boeing 7-Series programs, we thought the following is useful information. Spirit is also a major supplier to Airbus on the A35, building sections of the composite fuselage at its North Carolina facilities.
Reuters has this interesting story from Airbus and a focus on selling the A320ceo (Current Engine Option) to fill in production slots in 2015-17 (2013-14 slots are sold out) while waiting for the A320neo (New Engine Option) production to ramp up. The A320neo is slated to enter service in October 2015, followed in six month increments by the A319neo and A321neo.
Concern about selling the current generation A320 (and the Boeing 737NG) at prices that won’t depress residual values is rearing its head again, alluded to in the Reuters story. The impact of the re-engine programs on the current generation A320 and 737 was a major talking point in the months leading up to the RE decisions by Airbus and Boeing. These concerns were pooh-poohed by both companies. But if Airbus (and perhaps Boeing) have to deeply discount sales of current airplanes to fill production slots, then this will depress values of the installed base.
Furthermore, UBS Securities just visited Boeing with more dismal news to values. UBS writes that Boeing acknowledged lease rates and values of second hand aircraft will likely weaken as production rates ramp up. Airbus and Boeing both have announced rates of 42/mo (Airbus by the end of this year and Boeing by 2014) for their single-aisle airplanes. Airbus is studying going to 44 and even 60 and Boeing has openly signaled its intent to go to 60 for the 737. This will put more pressure on lease rates and values.
The politically-focused publication The Hill has an article that describes a Republican Party that is completely out of touch with reality on the Ex-Im Bank funding of exports.
Ex-Im supports a broad spectrum of industries, but is especially important to Boeing–so much so that Ex-Im is sometimes derisively called Boeing’s Bank due to the dominance of Boeing airplanes funded by Ex-Im.
Ex-Im reaches its $100bn cap this month, according to The Hill, much earlier than the previously anticipated May. Boeing and GE–which supplies engines for 92% of Boeing’s airplanes–are lobbying Congress to increase the cap to $140bn. This might sound like lunacy in the budget crisis, but according to Boeing, Ex-Im actually contributed more than $1bn through fees to the US Treasury in recent times. And fees are going up as a result of international changes last year to Ex-Im and Europe’s similar credit agencies.
According to The Hill, some Republicans characterized Ex-Im as providing subsidies to US corporations. As readers of this column know, we dislike corporate subsidies of any kind (see also below), but Ex-Im is not subsidies (and neither are the European Credit Agencies’ support for Airbus airplanes). This are funding mechanisms to support exports. In Boeing’s case, the company is the USA’s largest exporter that helps the balance of trade.
So let’s see: Ex-Im is a net contributor to the US Treasury. It helps exports. It helps the USA’s largest exporter, which helps the balance of trade. What’s not to like about this program?
About the only thing not to like with respect to Boeing is Ex-Im lends to airlines that compete with US international carriers. But this complaint largely revolves around cheaper financing, and last year’s agreement took care of this. The other complaint is that Ex-Im also supports financially troubled carriers like Air India. But the airline complaining the loudest on this is a product of two bankruptcies (Delta Air Lines and its merger partner Northwest Airlines), and there now isn’t a US legacy carrier that hasn’t been “supported” through the bankruptcy process. We could write a whole new post about how the legacies, including the “old” Delta, complained that bankruptcy unfairly supported weak carriers.
The Republicans opposing Ex-Im funding are out to lunch, and this time with the business community they profess to support. No wonder the Republican brand is in so much trouble.