We posted an item Friday that normally would have waited until this edition of Odds and Ends, but the news that John Leahy might leave Airbus next year couldn’t wait. Aviation Week broke the story.
But we spoke with Airbus Toulouse Sunday and the company denied the story.
Boeing rolled out the first 747-8I Sunday (Feb. 13) in pomp and ceremonies that were foregone with the rollout a few years ago of the freighter version.
Here is some of the news coverage:
At a major press event Saturday, attended by some 80 global print and broadcast media, officials touted the 747’s fuel efficiencies compared with previous 747 models and, of course, against the Airbus A380. Airbus and Boeing have been having a running battle for years over which airplane is more efficient; Aubrey Cohen of The Seattle PI discusses this in his article above, which includes a link to a piece we did a year ago citing Lufthansa and Emirates figures which favored Airbus.
This is too good to hold for our Odds-and-Ends Monday. Aviation Week reports John Leahy may leave Airbus next year.
Update, Feb. 13: The link is dead but here is the relevant portion of the article; the cached version is here:
The news agencies are buzzing with stories that Boeing CEO gave the go-ahead for a new replacement for the 737.
This isn’t what we said and what he did say is not new. Do a Google News search to check out all the stories.
McNerney said Boeing prefers a new airplane, and it does; this isn’t new.
He said evaluation continues. This is true; R&D on a re-engine has not, repeat not, been discontinued. This is because no definitive decision has been made.
So slow down, everybody. This isn’t the launch of a new airplane at Boeing.
Day 2 of the PNAA conference: Richard Aboulafia, consultant of The Teal Group, said that a split buy is the only way the USAF will be able to procure the KC-X tanker.
Aboulafia said the decision no longer effectively rests with the Air Force, but with Congress. Each political party has the ability to block a sole-source selection, Aboulafia says.
Other thoughts from Aboulafia:
We’re at Day 1 of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference in Lynnwood (WA) and at the Defense Focus Day co-organized by the Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition, consultant Michel Merluzeau of G2 Solutions (Kirkland, WA) predicted EADS will likely win the KC-X competition.
Before the Francophiles go crazy, Merluzeau favors Boeing’s KC-767.
We wondered about this months ago and sure enough, there is yet another twist in the KC-X competition: Congressional dithering on the budget means there isn’t (as yet) funding for the tanker procurement that is needed this year. See this story from Defense News.
Boeing rolled out the 1,000th 767 Wednesday (Feb. 2) and BCA CEO Jim Albaugh suggested there is a longer life for the airplane even if the USAF doesn’t choose the KC-767 for its next tanker.
Dominic Gates has this story about the event. The Seattle PI quotes Albaugh as predicting 2,000 767s before the line peters out in this story.
We first suggested there might be a longer life in January 2010 with this posting.
We don’t really have much to add to Gates’ story or our previous post except for this refreshed analysis:
For all the spin back-and-forth Monday (Jan. 31) on the final, but still confidential, ruling on illegal subsidies to Boeing, little was said about the long-running (and overly-politicized) effort by Boeing and its supporters to have Congress force the USAF to take into consideration the previous WTO ruling on illegal Airbus subsidies for the KC-X competition.
Before we start our discussion today, let’s remind readers of our long-standing position that the USAF can’t do so for a variety of practical reasons and one major one: countries can only do so after the WTO authorizes sanctions, and unless the USAF postpones a decision on the tanker contract (or, more likely, screws it up yet again), the award date will come years before any WTO authorization is granted. We need not recount all our reasons nor the process; we’ve done this many times and a search of our Archives will yield postings from recent times on this.
Having stated this disclaimer, one of our reasons for opposing the effort by Boeing and its supporters was that the final Boeing decision had not yet been issued.
The decision is done, even if it is yet confidential for a few more months pending translation. However, with a final decision, the US Trade Representative could share a definitive ruling with the USAF for calculation.
Again, setting aside all the objections, here’s the interesting part that nobody has yet focused on, including Boeing (and this is really inexplicable):