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..

Expected Airbus Order from China

As german chancellor Angela Merkel visits China this week, it is expected that China will order up to 100 Airbus narrowbodies. Looking at the delivery rate to chinese airlines and the backlog that chinese airlines have with Airbus, an order for 100 aircraft is not too much, even if the bulk of these would be for the ceo version. If I counted correctly there were 125 deliveries of A320 family aircraft between January 2011 and July 2012. The current backlog of chinese airlines is 186 aircraft - at the current delivery rate this is good for about 28 months. At the end of 2014 all the backlog would be gone.
There are an additional 42 orders from lessor ICBC and a MoU for 36 aircraft from CALC though, but these aircraft could also be placed outside China.  At best (here: when all aircraft are placed with chinese airlines) the backlog would be Zero at the end of 2015, just when the neo enters service but probably a long time before delivery slots would be available (although some chinese airlines or lessors may have reserved a limited number of slots in advance).
But before the A320neo will be available in larger numbers for chinese airlines (probably then coming from the chinese Airbus factory in Tianjin), Airbus can sell a bunch of ceo aircraft to chinese airlines meanwhile, thereby utilize also the Tianjin factory until the ramp up of the neo provides for a smooth transition there.

What is the situation at Boeing? There were 77 deliveries to chinese airlines from January 2011 until the end of July, a much slower pace than at Airbus. There are 212 open orders from China for the B737NG, good for 53 months of supply at the current delivery rate. This takes us into 2017 but well before the targeted MAX EIS and any open delivery slot for the reengined version of the B737. So another order for the B737NG from China is almost inevitable as well to satisfy the growing chinese aviation market.

A little unknown in the context of narrowbody aircraft supply to chinese airlines is the C919 and when this aircraft will enter into airline service. I do not know anybody who firmly believes that this aircraft will be on time (meaning a 2016 EIS). I would deem a 2018 EIS as a success, an even later date not to be a real surprise. And I would not expect a sudden ramp up to meet a significant part of the demand from chinese airlines.

The other unknown: the chinese economic activity. We are just seeing a considerable slowdown here. Highspeed Rail is another factor which could slow the growth in aviation. Boeing denied that possibility in their Current Market Outlook, but used numbers from 2009 in their presentation. Words from chinese airline managers sound different.

The chinese market is important for both Airbus and Boeing - 20% of all Airbus narrowbodies were delivered to China since January 2011 and 12.5% of all B737NG's went there. So a slowdown of economic activity in China is also of great risk for both manufacturers, in particular for Airbus.

UPDATE: About 30 minutes after I posted this entry, China Southern reported slumping profit due to the economic slowdown.

A320 and B737 backlog burndown

Scott Hamilton has a few more details from the Airbus Innovation Days.

He cites JP Morgan with an observation that not all of the delivery slots for A320ceo's are filled for 2015 (2014 is full) and therefore it would be a good decision not to boost output further.

Let's have a look at the current number of open orders for the A320ceo as well as those of the B737NG.

Here is how the backlog of A320ceo's develops if there would not be any new sale nor any cancellations. Of course there are some "risk positions" in the backlog: Kingfisher, the remaining Delta (Northwest) and United order and  Mandala come to mind...

As of May 1st, 2012, there were 2084 A320ceo and 1286 A320neo on firm order.

Boeing 737 successor Part III

We still have to wait about 3 months until we probably hear from Boeing what their plan is regarding the future of the B737. But if you read what the Boeing CFO this week said at the JP Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Defense Conference in New York, one has to question why Boeing should develop a new airplane at all.
If Boeing believes what their CFO James Bell told the audience, Airbus just closes today's gap between the A320 and the B737-800 with the introduction of the NEO. So why then doing something at all? If both big players are on-par, they could go on and share 50% of the market each - at least above the 150 seat level, where Bombardier reportedly will not offer a CS500 (and the announcement of collaboration with COMAC sheds some light on this) and Irkut and COMAC will have a long way to be a player in the the market.
So where is the incentive for Boeing to spend some $10 billion on a new aircraft with all the technical risk involved, but still staying with a conventional tube-and-wing design and the risk that Airbus will follow a few years later leapfrogging the 797 with an unconventional, radical new design.
The low-risk and low-cost solution would be what Airbus says Boeing will do: follow with a re-engined B737 and let the engine maker(s) pay for most of the cost, as now does Airbus (Udvar-Hazy made some comments about this at the ISTAT).
There are just two things that could lead Boeing to design a new aircraft:

1. Their statement that the re-engining only closes the gap is not true and in reality the NEO's are far better in costs then the NG's. The steadily rising oil price is in favor of the NEO cash operating costs right now and there is probably nobody out there who will predict oil at below $80/barrel in the future. But a re-engining could close that gap - maybe not entirely, but close enough, so that by "adjusting" the purchase price (see A340-600) for the aircraft should be good enough to sell the aircraft.
2. The basic design of the 737, namely the narrow cabin is too old to be attractive for airlines in the future. This is somehow contrasted by the good response to the Sky interior just introduced for the B737NG.

Bottom line: I am not convinced that Boeing will show the world a B797 in Paris - at least not this year...

There is more about that here:
Part I
Part II
Part IV

The Chinese "Threat"

At the Zhuhai Airshow COMAC presented first customers for their C919, aimed to be a competitor to the A320 and B737 narrowbody families.

COMAC said that there are now “up to 100 orders” – a closer look shows that 50 of these orders are firm orders the rest are options.

The four big airlines in China – Air China, China Eastern, China Southern and Hainan Airlines – all ordered the C919. The first three all ordered “up to 20”, probably meaning that 10 for each airline are firm orders and 10 are options.

GECAS is another launch customer – for 5 firm orders and another 5 options. This is not a big surprise, as GECAS is also a customer for the much-delayed ARJ21-700 and GE delivers the engines for both aircraft (as part of the CFM consortium in the case of the C919).

The last launch customer is CDB (China Development Bank) – also not a big surprise, as CDB wants to play a big role in aircraft leasing in the future and signed MoU’s with all civil aircraft manufacturers recently. An anticipated order for the Bombardier CSeries is still in the pipeline and will most probably not being made public during the Zhuhai Airshow, as Scott Hamilton assumed recently.

So the C919 got their first customers – fine! But do we see a threat for Airbus and Boeing here? Not really for the next 10-15 years to come, I would say. Let’s have a look at the numbers for outstanding firm orders from the Chinese airlines that now ordered the C919.

Airbus

Airline	A319	A320	A321	Sum
Air China		28	14	42
China Eastern	5	26	5	36
China Southern		25		25
Hainan	5	26		31
Sum	10	105	19	131

These are the numbers as in the Airbus O&D table from October 31, 2010.

We have to add the order the 50 A320 aircraft which was signed early November.

So the total is 181 open orders.

Boeing

Airline	B737-700	B737-800	B737-900ER	Sum
Air China		50		50
China Southern	25	30		55
Sum	25	80		105

Additionally, there are 46 open orders from other Chinese airlines for the B737 family for a total of 151 open orders.

This is a total of 332 open orders for Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies.

Let’s have a look at the actual aircraft and the (small set of) date given to the media by COMAC at the Airshow (Flightglobals headline was “Comac releases C919 specifications”, which was a little bit exaggerated) and compare it to the A320.

	C919	A320
Span	35.8m	34.1m
Length	38.9m	37.6m
Cabin width	3.90m	3.70m

Efficiency is driven largely by two values: aircraft (empty) weight and engine SFC. Another important factor Is the wing efficiency, expressed in L/D (lift-to-drag ratio).

The thrust needed to power the aircraft in level flight is mass*(L/D).

From press releases it is known that the LEAP-X1C for the C919 is designed for a thrust of 30klbf. The 1.3m shorter A320 has a thrust rating of 27klbf, the engines on the 5.6m longer A321 produce 33klbf of thrust at takeoff.

Weight is not given by COMAC, but the span gives a good indication of the weight. Assumed that the aspect ratio of the C919 wing is not that different from a A320 or B737 wing, the wing area is at least the same as the wing of A320. Wing loading at takeoff (takeoff mass/wing area) is - together with the takeoff thrust – the driving factor for the takeoff length. The C919 is designed with hot-and-high airports in Western China in mind, so wing loading should not be far beyond the A320.

L/D could of course be a little bit better, as the A320 wing design is well over twenty years old.

Given all that we can preclude that the C919 won’t have a large weight advantage against the A320. The main driver for efficiency will be the engine. No doubt that the LEAP-X1C will be far better in SFC than the V2500 and the CFM56-5B on the A320. But what if Airbus does the –NEO? And what if the LEAP-X1C is not the “real” LEAP, as discussed here and elsewhere?

Conclusion: for me, the C919 is not a big deal for the next ten to fifteen years – at least technically. If China decides one day that chinese airlines have to buy nothing but Chinese, then it’s a different story – and confined to the Chinese market and close allies.

By then the Chinese aircraft market could very well cool down, as high speed rail eats into air travel wherever a rail line opens.

Update:
There is a good artice on the Aviation Week Website detailing the C919 orders. It's a little bit different than originally reported by Flight International...