A320neo engine shortage: PWA takes all the blame - but why?

Not long ago Airbus claimed, not for the first time, that PWA GTF engines would be late for the A320neo family. his might be true (and why should Airbus lie), but what I wonder about is where are the CFM LEAP-1A engines?

Last year the LEAP-1A had a market share of roughly 60%. Looking at the first 3 months of 2026 and the deliveries of the A320neo family two things are noteworthy:

1. Overall deliveries are lower for the first three months of the year than in 2025: 81 in 2026, but 106 in 2025, so about 24% lower.

2. Looking at the market share we can see that PWA had a market share of roughly 62% for the first three months of 2026.

Can we conclude that the "real" shortage is not with PWA, but with CFM? Of course a shift in market share could also just come from the individual customer demands, which had chosen either the one or the other engine. But such a clear swing in such a short time is not normal.

And if we count the A220 as well with their 19 deliveries PWA has a lead of 69% in the Airbus narrowbody sector.

Let's see how that evolves...

GE and the Geared Turbofan

There was quite a lot of hype in the last days around a story, first reported by Bloomberg, saying that GE talked with Airbus about a new engine for “a narrow-body jetliner in development”. In the article (and many that followed that first story) there is a lot of speculation about the aircraft: If it would be a successor of today's A320, a future stretched variant of the A220 or if that aircraft would in the end be the ZERO E (E for Emissions) aircraft announced by Airbus in September and the engine GE and Airbus discuss here would be an engine that would be used for that aircraft until a ZERO E engine (technology) would be available.

To make it short: this last consideration is – sorry to say it that way – bullshit! Whatever the source of energy of the future ZERO E aircraft would be – hydrogen or electricity comes to mind- the aircraft has to look very different from the design of a jet fuel powered aircraft and it would make no sense at all to hang a Geared Turbofan on an aircraft designed and optimized for zero emissions.

The fact that GE and Airbus talk about a new narrowbody is not a big story in the first place, as there are always discussions between airframers and engine companies about all kinds of possible future projects. But Bloomberg made a lot of noise due to the fact, that the design proposed by GE would be a geared turbofan, which is the engine design that today only Pratt & Whitney uses. GE always more or less dismissed the geared design in public because of the added complexity of the gear. Rolls Royce began developing their own geared engine concept called Ultrafan a few years ago.

So does GE not believe in the conventional turbofan anymore?

Not necessarily: believe it or not, but it is not the first time that GE proposes a geared design to an aircraft manufacturer. For the B777X, today's B777-9, GE also pitched a geared design towards Boeing, as did P&W at that time (I believe RR proposed a 3 spool design). But obviously Boeing went down the low-risk path of the GE9X engine, an evolution of the GE90-115B and the GENx engines, although the geared engines would have had a better fuel burn.

For the now (forever?) dormant NMA, Boeings reference engine was a geared turbofan. This makes sense, as at least in the beginning two of the three possible engine provider offered a geared design (P&W and RR), so we can only guess that GE (or CFM) also offered both variants (geared and non-geared) to Boeing. Later RR went out of the discussions as the aimed EIS timing was too early for the UltraFan.

So when today GE talks with Airbus about a geared engine, there is nothing sensational in there. Most likely the geared engine is just one out of two or more designs. And it most likely not more than a paper study, in which P&W and RR are involved as well. It is not more than the usual business of the future concept groups of all parties involved.

So do not expect an announcement of a new aircraft in the near future. Even a stretched A220 (-500) seems not to be on the horizon too soon...

Next (new) airplanes

After NMA is obviously no more, some people seem to believe, that Boeing could instead bring a refreshed B757 or B767 to market.

Is that viable? No, I would say, at least not for passenger traffic!

Both aircraft are late 1970’s aircraft, thus about ten years older than the A320ceo. Both were the first narrow- and widebodies with a two-crew-glass-cockpit.

But: the design of the airframe and the wing keep to be from these days, aside from getting winglets, saving up to 4% fuel burn.

So a new wing, along with the new engines, would be inevitable. Along with that goes a new center wing box. That means typically at least 50% of the development costs of a complete new aircraft.

But it does not stop here. A new cockpit with all the technology of B787 or B777X would be needed to make these airplanes attractive to airlines.

Now to the engines: for the B767 GEnx engines would be the likely candidate, and here the -2B version, as it has the right thrust and also a bleed air system. The GEnx though is an engine which was designed in the early 2000’s. The concept would me more than 20 years old if Boeing would decide to start development now with an EIS in 4 to 5 years. The basic aircraft concept would then be 50 years old.

The same is basically true for the B757: with the difference that there would not be an “off the shelf” engine with the right thrust available. But would any engine company spend $1bn for a brand new engine for a 50 year old fuselage? CFM/GE and PWA for sure not, as they have their engines in place on the A321XLR. So only RR could have an interest, but with todays news that they are laying off some 8000 people and delaying the development of their Ultra Fan this is more than questionable. In fact, I see RR in danger as they are so heavily exposed to the widebody market, which, in the opinion of all experts, will be the last market segment to recover.

So there won’t be a new aircraft from Boeing for the time being. CEO Dave Calhoun though says that the “true differentiator” of Boeing’s next aircraft will be “the way we manufacture and the way we engineer, as opposed to the… design of the airplane itself” (quote from the Flightglobal article). What does that mean? As I understand it: the B737MAX will stay the B737MAX, Boeing will (just) look into the cost of production. Well, hopefully they will get it right…

What does that mean for Airbus? A great opportunity, if they are bold and can get money in a similar manner as Boeing raised $25bn on the capital market. If Airbus can raise enough money with a lower yield than Boeing did, Airbus could use that money to invest in the so-called A320neo++, where the A320neo and the A321neo will get a new and larger composite wing and a new cockpit and both would be stretched to a “A320.5” (between todays A320 and A321) and a A322. Then Airbus would also need to develop the A220-500 and would have the perfect product line for the rest of the century and the early 2030’s.

Boeing meanwhile is stuck with the problems of the B737MAX:

1.     The grounded fleet at the airline customers has to be upgraded.

2.     The undelivered fleet has to be upgraded and to be delivered.

3.     Reacting to the potential A320neo++ would lead to the B737MAX being a non-seller

4.     The MAX is MAXed out: without a new wing, a complete new, longer undercarriage and larger bypass engines (from the A320neo) the B737MAX could not compete against the A320neo++. But would that make sense? No, then a complete new aircraft would be needed. Means another $15bn to be found somewhere, meanwhile back the $25bn bonds. Not easy…

So far for my theory…

A320neo deliveries

Reuters reports that August (as well as full year) deliveries for the A320neo are disrupted by slow deliveries of PW's PW1100G. The goal is to deliver about 200 A320neo this year, only 78 have been delivered by the end of August.
That deliveries with the PW1100G are slow and delayed is not particulary new. Not mentioned in the article though is the fact that alos deliveries with CFM's LEAP-1A slowed down in the last two months. After delivering 10 A320neo with the LEAP-1A in June, there were 6 in July and 7 in August. For the PW1100G the numbers are 1 for June,  3 in July and 3 in August.
An indication for future delivieries is are the numbers of first flights with the respective engines:
In June 12 A320neo with the LEAP-1A made their first flights, then 5 in July and only 3 in August.
For the PW1100G the numbers are 0 in June, 4 in July and 8 in August.
So it looks like the situation at PW gets (at least) a little bit better, but worse for CFM.

Engine choices for NMA

It looks increasingly likely that next Boeing will launch the NMA -  or MoM, or 797, or whatever you want to call it.

One of the most interesting questions is the engine choice(s) that Boeing will make:

First of all, will the customer have an engine choice? Here the questions are:

-   does Boeing want to give the customers a choice

     and

- how large the engine OEM think the market for the new aircraft will be

CFM A321neo noise levels revised

Yesterday the EASA published new noise levels for the A321neo, which now include the "right" noise levels for the A321-251N and A321-253N, fitted with the CFM LEAP-1A engines. As for the A320neo, the A321neo with the LEAP-1A is a little bit better (read_less noisy) than the PW1100G. This is surprising, as P&W always claimed that the GTF concept has, beside better fuel burn, it's merits in extreme low noise because of the slower spinning fan and the better damping of the low pressure turbine noise due to better atmospheric dampening.
I would be interested to hear how P&W and CFM explain the difference...

The future is geared!(?)

The future in commercial aviation is geared, it seems:
Of course P&W and it's partners in the PWW1000G engine thought so when they started to develop their engines for the Mitsubishi MRJ, the Bombardier CSeries, the A320neo and the Irkut MS-21 and the Embraer E2-Jets.
But then, about three years ago, RR started developing their own engine with a geared architecture, calling their product (to be) the "Ultra Fan".
No I read in an article from Aviation Week that also Safran is working on a geared fan engine, under the umbrella of the european Clean Sky initiative, the equivalent  to NASA's CLEEN program.
A cross section of the engine concept can be seen on page 17 of this presentation.
My guess is, all engine concepts that CFM, RR and  P&W will eventually offer Boeing and Airbus for a replacement of today's A320 and B737 will have a gear between the LPT and the Fan!

A320neo start-up times

The hype was huge when the problem around longer start-up times of the PW1100G-JM went public. Indigo stated that the ~2min. extra time that it took to start up the engines would threaten their Business model as a low cost carrier with high utilization and short turn around times between flights. As I showed in an earlier post this was not very plausible from the beginning. But at airports with tight infrastructure (Frankfurt comes to my mind) it could cause some headache - more for the airport than for the individual airline though - as, if one aircraft blocks the way to the gates as it has to wait until the engines are started, other aircraft have to wait.
Believing what Airbus, P&W and Lufthansa said recently the problem is largely gone now.
Now we can read in a report from airwaysmag about the first revenue flight onboard on the first Frontier A320neo that the that the competing LEAP-1A engine has a "noticeably long startup time". What that exactly means we don't know yet. There was nothing official about that yet, showing once again that the PR Folks at GE, CFM and Safran are doing a much better job than those at P&W.
But maybe someone should tell Qatar Airways CEO Al Akbar about it as the LEAP-1B should "suffer" the same problem before he confirms his order for the B737MAX. Or maybe he already counts on compensations...?

The CFM LEAP LPC issue

For the first time CFM acknowledged, though not directly but through Boeing's B737MAX chief engineer Michael Teal, that the CFM LEAP-1B has an issue with the stall margin of the LPC. This was widely known in the industry for months now and in online forums like airliners.net were some hints to that issue. It is alos clear, that not only the LEAP-1B

Why I don't believe In MoM...

In the last couple of weeks a new discussion about the so-called „Middle of the Market“ or “MoM” aircraft broke out. Apart from that nobody really knows what this aircraft should look like (B757 successor or B767 successor or both, narrowbody or widebody, scalable to cover the B737 market or not?) or every potential customer wanting something different, I do not really believe in the launch of such an aircraft in the near future.

Why?

Airbus has no interest in such an aircraft. They have a good market position with their A321neo, especially the LR version and the future A330-800, although I don’t foresee large order volumes for that aircraft. For sure Airbus is studying the MoM, but (for now) for the pure purpose of looking into what Boeing could do and if and how Airbus would have to react to it.

Boeing would be the one to launch such an aircraft. But do they have to do it? Although the B737MAX has less orders than the A320neo, the amount of orders the B737MAX got is massive. The B737MAX8 is right in the sweet spot of the market and has a small advantage in costs per seat against the A320neo – if the LEAP-1B engine performs as advertised, what remains to be seen.

The B737MAX8 just had it’s first flight. the –MAX9 and the –MAX7 have to follow. So why unsettle your (potential) customers talking too much and eventually launching a new aircraft that would at least partly overlap with the B737MAX family?

Also, Boeing will probably feel a drop in cash flow during the transition of the B777 Classic to the B777X between 2020 and 2022, just when the MoM would need large sums of money for R&D spending.

But there is another aspect why I do not believe in a launch of MoM for a, say, 2024 entry

The CFM LEAP-1B discussion

Last week, after the first flight of the LEAP-1B on the GE Flying Testbed, Aviation Week had a story about the LEAP engine family and the alleged performance shortfall, in particular the -1B for the B737MAX. Leeham then also had a short article, stating that the SFC shortfall, first reported by Aspire Aviation of 4-5% was only measured in one engine, where “tolerances” (i.e. gaps and, in particular radial tip clearances) where intentionally opened to test a deteriorated engine.

This kind of testing is new to me, I never heard that these kind of tests were done. In the end it is very expensive to build a test engine solely to measure the performance with so called “end of life ”clearances”. Normally the clearances in the engine are constantly measured so you get a relation between the change of the clearances due to wear and rub ins and the change of the performance (both fuel burn and compressor stability).

To build in intentionally larger tip clearances makes sense only for the compressors to test compressor stability. And if these tests showed a SFC shortfall of 4-5% (I now heard 5%) then either the performance retention of the LEAP engine is very bad or there indeed is a performance shortfall as the effect of larger tip clearance should not lead to a loss in SFC larger than 2%.

Now CFM always mad big  noise about the good performance retention the LEAP engine family would have, in particular compared to the P&W GTF Family. One could ask: how do they want to know that? And I think, neither CFM nor P&W nor anybody else can know today and will know until real life data is available. With “real life data” I mean data that will come out of the field once airlines really fly the aircraft and engines for some time.

So we don’t know for sure how much of the (obviously measured) 4-5% are attributable to a new and with production tip clearances build engine. But CFM’s argumentation does not add up to the point where they would meet not only their own expectations. To meet the own pretest prediction within 0.5% does not mean a whole lot to the outside world until you know where the prediction was relative to specification, i.e. relative to the target SFC where the B737MAX would meet 14% fuel burn reduction vs. the B737NG.

CFM LEAP-1B missing SFC

The revelation by Aspire Aviation about the performance shortfalls of the CFM LEAP engine family did not came totally unexpected. Rumours have been around for a long time. But the severity of the shortfall in the LEAP-1B engine is somewhat shocking, at least for Boeing customers. The shortfall of 2% in the case of the LEAP-1A is relatively unspectacular: the shortfalls of recent engines at EIS like the GEnx and the Trent 1000 were higher. A shortfall of 2% can be corrected with a suitable performance improvement program (PIP), but a

After Airbus Press Conference: Rate Increase and LEAP-1A delay?

Airbus today announced their final 2014 orders and delivery results. Beside a new delivery record there is one noticable item that begs two questions: the increasing backlog of the A320ceo shouts and screams for a (very) near term announcement of a rate increase, which was probably decided some months ago. Also, it puts into question if the CFM LEAP-1A, the second engine for the A320neo, will be available on time. The PW1100G seems to be "out of the woods", getting certification late last year and Airbus CEO Bregier during the Investors Days in December said that he expects the first delivery of the A320neo in November 2015.
The backlog for the A320ceo stands now at 1508. This is 38 more than at the end of November, which I analyzed here. Subtracting all 102 "suspicious" orders gets us to 1406 open orders. The still not booked order from CASGC would lead us then to 1476 open orders for about 1164 delivery positions until 2018. So Airbus overbooked the A320ceo lines by 250 aircraft at current production rates.
Now, as I said above, I think a rate increase is coming for sure. For one to clear the A320ceo backlog as soon as possible, but also to be able to offer earlier production slots in upcoming campaigns.
As for the overbooking of the A320ceo, there could also be another reason: the LEAP-1A has still not flown on the GE Flying Testbed. At the time the LEAP-1C began the test campaign on the other GE testbed in early October CFM said that the -1A would follow within a month. Now we are two months later...maybe something was found during the -1C test campaign that needed a change for both variants?

Boeing's B737 rate hike

I just read a very good comment from Richard Aboulafia regarding the rate hike for the B737MAX announced by Boeing last week.
I think he is right. The possibility that this rate hike will NOT be executed is higher than the possibility that we will really see the hike. Aboulafia points out several reasons why that is.
And there is another one (at least in my mind): and that is the fast pace that Boeing wants to transition from the B737NG to the B737MAX. The article by Dominic Gates points out that by 2018 when the rate hike would be kicking in the output of the B737MAX would reach 26 aircraft a month, thus 50% of the production. And another article at Flightglobal states that the last B737NG will be delivered to Ryanair in the second quarter of 2019. So the plan is to transition from the NG to the MAX in less than two years. This has two consequences:

1. I often wrote about how many B737NG orders Boeing would need to fill the B737NG production slots until the B737MAX will take over full production. I assumed that the transition will take place in a similar manner than Airbus plans it for the A320. The hast A320ceo will be delivered in 2018, almost three years after the first delivery of the A320neo. Now if Boeing cuts the transition time to under two years, a lot less open B737NG production slots have to be filled. In a first guess I would say about 250.
2. There is a big challenge for all B737MAX suppliers which have to produce parts that changed for the B737MAX compared to the B737NG design. The one supplier that will be most challenged is CFM (and CFM's suppliers as well). They have to handle the ramp up of the LEAP-1A for the A320neo and the LEAP-1B for the B737MAX almost simultaneously.

Airbus is in a little bit better situation as they have to engine suppliers, so the risk is not that big. The first engine (PW1100G) ís already flying on the first A320neo, the second one (LEAP-1A) is due to fly in late October/early November. Although the date for the first flight on GE's flying test bed for the LEAP-1A and the "sister engine" LEAP-1C (for the C919) seems to have already slipped more than one time. Originally the LEAP-1C should have had first flight in May, then later in the summer, the early September and then late September. It is now early October and I haven't seen a press release (and I fully expect one) nor have I seen N747GE (fitted with the LEAP-1C) flying on flightradar. Let's see if N747GF (with the LEAP-1A) will take to the skies in the next four weeks...

Three in a row, two in a week..

There is some movement in the A320neo engine market right now, it seems. P&W scored three "wins" in a row recently. After BOCA announced an order for 15 A320neo to be powered with the PW1100G-JM, this week both Tigerair and ANA selected the Geared Turbo Fan for 37 and 30 aircraft.
I would expect that we will see more decisions about A320neo engine options being taken this year as EIS is now less than 20 months away. The PW1100G-JM should gain certification this summer so that it will maybe have an advantage in customer confidence (and this is badly needed by P&W after the PW6000 disaster).
Right now the GTF has a slightly larger market share with 896 aircraft (866 shown here by pdxlight plus 30 by ANA) to be powered versus 827 to be powered by the LEAP-1A. But there are large campaigns waiting for a winner, like Lion Air (174 aircraft), American Airlines (130 aircraft) and easyjet (100 aircraft), so the picture can turn by any of these campaigns decided.

Discussion about the B757 replacement

Scott  Hamilton from Leeham has a post about the possible replacement of the B757.
 King5 then came out with it's own story, citing Scott.

I have to say I do not believe we will see a clean-sheet aircraft as a replacement for the B757 - at least not in the time frame Scott is mentioning. He sees a window for EIS opening in 2025, with Boeing probably being the first mover.
The reasons:

1. Business Case for B737MAX and A320neo. The A320neo will delivered from October 2015 onwards, the B737MAX roughly two years later (July 2017 as it looks right now). If a B757 replacement would be available in 2025, announced to the public by 2020, the B737MAX-9 would be dead by then. The B757 replacement aircraft (B757R) would be more economical on all missions - not just on the longer ones. In other words: if the -MAX9 would be more economical on shorter missions, there would be no justification for launching the B757R. In

Paris Air Show 2013 Recap

The Paris Air Show 2013 is history – and it wrote (at least a little bit) of aviation history:

Embraer

On the opening day it was Embraer to launch it’s highly anticipated EJet E2 family. Not surprisingly, the E195-E2 will be a stretch of the current E195. Also no surprise that the E170 will not be continued and that the E190-E2 will stay where it is, sizewise. The E175-E2 will be a little bit larger in capacity, stretching it’s fuselage by 0.62m or 24.4inches. The effect is that two more seats can be fitted and in a 1-class 31” layout there are now 88 seats compared to 86 seats in the current E175. This is exactly the figure that Mitsubishi gives for the MRJ90 – any questions? With the same engine as the MRJ will get, the same cabin capacity and a new wing (even larger now than the MRJ wing) the fuel efficiency of the two aircraft should be very close to each other. The MTOW of the E175-E2 is a little bit higher (44.33 t vs. 42.8t), but the Embraer has more range, too (1920nm vs. 1780nm).

A320neo engine orders at Paris Air Show

The ever-entertaining story about market share on the A320neo family goes into another round at the Paris Air Show. Two years ago CFM hit back hard at P&W during the Air Show. P&W had won the first round of orders back then with ILFC first committing to the PW1100G for 60 of their 100 aircraft strong A320neo order. Also Indigo choose the Geared Turbo Fan as well as Lufthansa.

Then CFM came back after redesigning the LEAP-1A with another (7th) stage of low pressure turbine and a slightly larger fan (78" instead of 75") to gain SFC. CFM then won SAS, Republic, Air Asia, GECAS (no surprise here), the remaining 40 aircraft from ILFC and Virgin America and was in a comfortable lead. During the last two years each of the two manufacturers won a deal here and there and the CFM consortium is still ahead with about 53% of the engine orders. So let's take a look at the A320neo orders which do not have an (announced) engine decision yet and how the picture could change after the Paris Air Show.

Narrowbody Review 2012

Slowly, but inevitably, the year 2012 is coming to an end. Here are some thoughts about the current situation of the narrowbody market:

Orders

 

Boeing now has not yet fulfilled its own prophecy and has “only” 969 firm orders for the B737MAX in its books (with 819 orders in 2012), shy only 31 from the goal to have 1,000 by the end of 2012 and I guess that there will be another order (or more) in December to fill that gap..

Surprising engine choice

Last week Aviation Week came out with a story that Philippine Airlines opted for the V2500 and PW1100G for their ordered A321ceo/neo fleet and chose the Trent700 for their new A330-300 fleet.
As of today the whole PAL fleet is powered by either CFM or GE engines this would be a surprise if true - but also shows that PW gained market power through the buy of the RR share in the IAE consortium.
Looking at the A321 in particular though, the choice of the V2500 is not that surprising. From here I pulled all A320 deliveries from this year through August 31: about 84% of all delivered A321 have the V2500. In contrast, about 60% of the A319 and A320 were delivered with the CFM56. As the A320 counts for roughly 76.5% of all A320 family deliveries and the A319 for 7.5%, the CFM56 has the lead with 53.2% market share over the V2500. This is slightly down from 2011, when the CFM56 had a share of 56% for the whole year. In 2009 I found that the market share of the CFM56 was 61%. So with the shift to larger narrowbodies, like I described earlier, the market share in the narrowbody engine segment also changes.