5X – what 5X?

During the last weeks Aviation Week had a few articles (here and here) about an alleged new Boeing widebody aircraft code-named -5X. More or less a NMA reloaded, this aircraft would be targeting the A330neo family, but in turn as well the 787-8/9.

Stop –say what? The 787 is right now not selling like hot cakes, but the A330neo not as well and the main reason is COVID-19, although also without the pandemic both aircraft would see lower production rates today than until 2019. So where is the point in developing a new aircraft there? The NMA, which was not able to produce a business case for Boeing, was shelved and was probably almost the same aircraft. Part of the problem back then was that the engine companies did not see the market as attractive as Boeing (officially) did and both CFMI and P&WA only wanted to develop an engine as a sole source.

So where is the reason to believe that now, two years later, it actually looks better for an aircraft like this?

The only thing Boeing should concentrate on is a new Single Aisle aircraft family! If Boeing would start an aircraft like -5X now with an EIS not before 2027, themselves as well as the engine companies would not have the resources to be able to counter an A320neo++ family with a new wing and engines that will then get a performance improvement package from the -5X engine(s). Also, as Scott Hamilton from Leeham writes today, the A220-500 is only a question of when, not if. So the lower end of the B737MAX would get increasing pressure once the - 500 is on the market. The B737MAX would be dead then, "killed" from the A220-550 from the lower end and from the A320neo++ and A321neo++ from the upper end – and in turn BCA would be dead!

But is it possible to design an aircraft family that can compete with the A220-500 on the lower end and a future (possible) A322? No, but the Airbus narrowbody aircraft family has two wings, two fuselages and different engines as well. So a clever scaling of the fuselage and the wings could do the trick for Boeing. Starting with the larger (6 abreast) family, starting just north of today's 737MAX-8 up to a A322 sized aircraft. After that scaling fuselage and wings down to a 5 abreast aircraft with a second or third generation of the PW1500G for example.

Just my 2 cents of course - but I see less than these 2 cents of value in a -5X! 

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…

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!

B757 replacement - NSA or NST?

Two different concepts for a B757 successor emerged over the last few weeks.
First, there was an article by "The Motley Fool" (not exactly an aviation expert website) speculating about a B757MAX (and  Scott Hamilton from Leeham Co. confirming these rumours), with composite wings and a new engine. Although this rumour was quickly dismissed by Steve Wilhelm from the Puget Sound Business Journal and another "Fool" and Boeing itself assured that they are not planning any B757MAX, it would be a relatively straigthforward and easy way to fight against the A321neo, as the numbers and the market already showed that the B737MAX-9 will be an inferior aircraft (I expect some announcements in the not too distant future that will further show that Boeing has a problem here). A new wing, new wingbox and new engines (which would be a few percentage points better in SFC than the PW1100G and the LEAP-1A) would provide enough improvement to be a very good aircraft for thin transatlantic routes. But then what? Airbus would not stand by and could develop a A322 with a similar fuselage length, also a new wing and wingbox and the same engines. And with successors for both of the narrowbody families planned for 2030+ that will likely start at today's B737-800 size, an EIS around 2022 would provide a production run of 10 years at best. So that concept does not really make sense.
Meanwhile also Scott Hamilton wrote another article about the subject, making clear that the "757 replacement" can only be part of a new family of aircraft, starting at the B737-800NG/B737MAX-8 size and topping at about 240 passengers, set by the aspirations from Airbus regarding the A321neo and that an EIS would be not anytime soon, i.e. not 2022.

The other concept emerged from an article by Aspire Aviation and this is completely different. Daniel Tsang proposes a small twin aisle family with a 2-3-2 seating configuration, comprising of two models between 200 and 240 seats. This of course would be a clean sheet design with the associated high development costs. The B737MAX family would still sell, he thinks, for shorter routes, as the "NSA" (New Small Airplane, not the other one...) would be optimised for routes around 4000nm in a 200-220 seat 2-class layout (where a B737MAX-9 and a A321neo would have to trade range versus payload).

But would the market be large enough for such an aircraft to justify a completely new aircraft, built from (today) very expensive carbon fibres? I think: yes and no! No, as I think the seat count of 200-240 would not cover a market potential large enough. And yes, if this NSA (albeit then not so "small") would occupy a larger part of the market, ranging from the B757-200 all the way up to the B767-300, say, from 220-280 passengers and a range around 4,500nm, to cover transatlantic flights between the US East Coast and Europe. This aircraft would have the potential to replace all the B757-200W,  B767-300ER, A330-200/300 and maybe also some B787-8 that are used on these routes today (and more then).

Now: could this aircraft be the first Boeing to be powered by a geared engine?
A few weeks ago Rolls Royce very openly committed themselves to the geared technology and pursues such an engine for 2025. As I do not believe we would see the "NSA" (I would call it "NST", for "New Small Twin") before 2025, that could fit in Boeing's time planning.
Now with two of the big engine companies in the "geared camp" what will GE do? My bet: the next generation of narrowbody engines (beyond the A320neo/B737MAX generation) will be "geared only" - including GE! Of course nobody from GE (or Safran) will say so openly today, because that would mean to admit concede against the "gear". But I am sure that behind the scenes GE is working closely with their new affiliate Avio Aero in Italy (providing  the Fan Drive Gear System for the PW1100G) to have a an engine architecture ready for the mid 2020's. And Snecma is working on a geared open rotor in the Clean Sky project.

Emirates asking for A380 engine enhancements

Emirates obviously wants some enhancements for their A380 engines - at least for the aircraft that should one day replace the first ninety. The last of these aircraft will be delivered in 2017 and by that time Airbus will have delivered around 240 A380 if all production slots are filled until that time. Well, obviously some of the ordered aircraft will be either delivered later as their deliveries are deferred (like for Virgin Atlantic) of won't be delivered at all (read: Kingfisher and probably Hong Kong Airlines as well as Air Austral).
Two engine manufactures share the A380 market: Rolls Royce and the Engine Alliance (50:50 JV between GE and P&W). Let's say both have around 50% of the market (actually, thanks to the large Emirates orderbook EA has a slight lead), then both manufacturers will have delivered 480 engines plus spares.
Now Emirates asks for a "propulsion technology crossover into the A380, in terms of what they’re doing on the 777X, the A320neo and the 737MAX”, says Emirates president Clark and claims that one of the EA partners will produce "wonders in propulsion technology" by 2020, when the A380 still should have GP7200 engines (and the Trent 900 of course as well). So he asks what the plans from GE and P&W are to improve propulsion efficiency of the GP7200.
my first question would be who of the two EA partners will produce these "wonders"?

• Does he refer to the GE9X? He should have a good knowledge about what GE is planning for this engine, although some questions arose around his comment that the engine would need water injection to be able to lift the B777X from Dubai year-round: read the first reaction from GE here, another one here. Clearly, the GE9X will be the state-of-the-art engine in it's class, encompassing the Trent XWB-97, as overall pressure ratio and bypass ratio will be higher and the use of CMC should save some cooling air, further elevating the core efficiency compared to the latest Trent engine.
• Or does he refer to the Geared Turbo Fan from P&W. From all what we know this engine defines the segment of the regional and  narrowbody engines for the years to come (closely followed by the LEAP engine family, of course).

Nevertheless which engine concept Clark has in mind, I wonder if the two partners in the EA are ready for a big improvement programme for the GP7200. Small improvements have already been made: today's GP7200 are better by 2% than original spec values. To improve the engine by any big (SFC percentage) number should be at least very costly, if not impossible without a change in architecture. But with only about 500 engines of the GP7200 sold by then there would be no hope for the engine program to ever produce a profit. So EA (as well as RR) will do whatever they can to avoid another large development investment in the engine. RR could on the other hand also offer a downrated Trent XWB, although this engine might be too heavy for the wing as it is today.
Last week , there was speculation in a german newspaper about what might be the A380 going forward plan from Airbus. Günter Butschek, Airbus COO speculated about "modifications" for the aircraft, Heinrich Großbongardt, a german aviation consultant, speculated about an A380neo. I guess in Hartford, Cincinnati and Derby this was not a fun-to-read...

GE buying Avio?

There are reports that GE might buy Avio from private equity firm Cinven.
Avio is a supplier for the GEnx engines and for also CFM.
But what is maybe more important is that Avio is also a supplier for the PW1100G Fan Drive Gear System.
Avio has a long history in designing and building gear systems - the ADP (Advanced Ducted Prop, build from a PW2000 core), tested by P&W back in the early 90's, used a (then Fiat) Avio reduction gearbox.
So what is behind GE's move to acquire Avio? There are three possible motivations:
1. GE just wants to grow (and participate in some revenue from the PW1100G program)..
2. GE wants Avio to keep away from P&W in the future.
3. GE wants to get the intellectual property of the PW1000G Fan Drive Gear System to have a option to move to a gear architecture in the future - possibly for the next generation of narrowbodies, expected now for the late 20's/early 30's.

Farnborough Airshow Orders

Here I will try to track all orders and commitments coming in at the Farnborough Airshow (main manufacturers only - sorry).


AIRCRAFT

LEAP leaps ahead...

After Qantas announced that that they choose the LEAP-1A for their 78 A320neo, the CFM engine has a clear lead in the neo engine race. The first A320neo to be delivered will be operated by lowcost subsidiary jetstar. This is a blow to P&W and it's allies, as jetstar is a current IAE V2500 customer. But obviously GE's and CFM's leverage was better - GE supplies the GEnx for Qantas B787 and CFM of course has it's stakes at Qantas on the current 64 aircraft strong B737 fleet. Also the A330 fleet is equipped with the CF6-80.
This deal shows again that despite of current rumours about the LEAP engine being up to 4% behind the GTF in fuel burn (and I personally doubt that the number is actually that high), there are always other considerations driving business decisions at airlines. Fuel burn might have become more important in these days, but there is more to consider for an airline...

Am I biased?

In the airliners.net forum there is a discussion about my last blog entry and that I am biased towards Airbus and the GTF and against Boeing and GE/CFM.

Am I? Well, yes and no! I am partially biased - but only by knowledge (where applicable). After all I am an engineer always looking for the best technical solution.
And I am not biased - I have absolutely nothing against the B737MAX itself. In fact, if you look at a posts from June 2011  you will see that I was sceptical that Boeing will do a NSA (New Small Aircraft) but was in favor of the reengining. I am very sure that Boeing will build a very capable aircraft. If the fuel burn improvement comes out as advertised by Boeing, the range capability of the B737MAX-8 will be for sure better than that of the A320 family. The article from Aspire Aviation points it out, although with the same payload as the A320 (150pax) the B737MAX-8 range will be boosted more than 405nm (as this is the range increase at max payload), so the advantage for the MAX is even larger than 3645nm vs. 3510nm.
I have just (and admittedly not just one time) offered my doubts about the LEAP-X concept, especially for the B737, where the fan diameter is restricted. You just can't argue against physics. And I have seen and read that I am not the only one who have doubts - also regarding the LEAP-1A for the A320neo. And in my last blog I just quoted what was stated in the article with some own comments. I will quote now the preamble of this article to underline that these statements are not my statements, but that they seem to be well researched and credible:

(quote)
Before you read this article
In the course of its research Airline Economics has gained direct input from the signatories on both sides of agreements for the aircraft and engines in question, from airlines, original equipment manufacturers and lessors. We also have had input from people involved in deals and engineering input from those working on the programmes. Airline Economics is now aware how much was paid for what, what mistakes were made, and knows who is worried. See Airline Economics, issues one, two and three, 201, for background on these aircraft and their engines. Thank you to those that helped with this article.
(end quote)

Currently I am working on a comparison between the A350 family and the proposed B777-X. I am not done yet, but I can already say that the A350, especially the -1000 will not look too good. The -800 will be (if ever build, what seems to be doubtful) what Michael O'Leary would call a dogs dinner, but falls out of the comparison with the B777-X family anyway and does not look good against the B787 family.
Finally, I am a big fan of the GE90-115B fan - not to forget the rest of the engine!

Airbus: GTF better than LEAP...

I obtained an interesting note from Forecast International, itself claiming to be the "Leading Provider of Aerospace, Defense, Electronics and Power Systems Intelligence. Here it is:

Technology Credibility

During the SWA web press conference about their B737MAX order, the CFM EVP Chaker Chahrour made an interesting statement. Leeham News and Comments has the quote here: "We believe we have much more credible technology than GTF."
Well, apart from that this might have been only some PR talking, I think we should shed some light on the credibility of the quote itself.

CFM power

Scott Hamilton has a piece about how GE and CFM are able to win so many engine competitions and for that went deep into the Republic deal for 40 A319neo and 40 A320neo, to be equipped with the LEAP-1A.

After reading the story I went on and looked at a few public databases, where you can check out which airlines owns which aircraft, with which engines they are equipped and who is (eventually) the lessor of the aircraft.

I was interested in the airlines which already ordered the A320neo, but did not commit to an engine so far. Here are my findings and what they tell me:

1. GoAir: they have a firm order for 72 A320neo

Current fleet: 10 A320 powered by CFM56. They firmed up 10 options for the A320 (classic), no information which engine they choose for these, but I would guess CFM56.

GECAS leases 4 of these aircraft to GoAir.

So both CFM and GECAS have leverage for a deal to sell the LEAP-1A to GoAir. CFM could reduce spare parts pricing for the existing CFM56 and GECAS could lower lease rates.

Now GoAir is reportedly also interested in the CSeries and could announce a deal in July or August.

That gives P&W a leverage to struck a combined deal here, as the PW1524G is the sole engine for the CSeries.

Conclusion: Tie! Everything is possible!

2. Jetblue: Jetblue has a MoU for 40 A320neo

Current fleet: 118 A320 with V2500, 49 E190 with CF34-10E

GECAS leases 13 A320 as well as 35 E190 to Jetblue

At first glance, P&W should have better cards, if one just looks at the A320 engines, but GECAS tries to get a hold here with more leases.

MTU does the MRO for the engines on a power-by-the-hour basis, so they could be involved in a deal for placing the PW1133G on the A320neo's for Jetblue.

Conclusion: It's P&W's to loose - and that's the chance of CFM!

3. Avianca TACA: they have a MoU for 33 A320neo

Current fleet: 42 A320 powered by CFM (mostly Avianca), 30 A320 powered by V2500 (+20 on order)

GECAS leases 14 aircraft to Avianca TACA.

GE has a dedicated MRO shop for the CFM56-5 in Brasil.

Conclusion: CFM's to loose. They have clearly more to throw into that deal.

4. LAN/TAM: 20 firm oders (LAN) + MoU for 22 (TAM)

The airlines are in a merger process.

Current fleet: Large A320 family fleet, powered both by the V2500 and the CFM56 - LAN selected the CFM56 last year for a further 50 A320.

GECAS leases 23 aircraft, mostly to TAM.

MTU is providing MRO for the V2500 at TAM.

Conclusion: Close call! CFM and GECAS have slightly more leverage...

5. Garuda Indonesia/Citilink: MoU for 10 A320neo + 25 Options

Current fleet: 78 B737 (Classics and NG) with CFM56

GECAS leases 40 B737 to Garuda.

Conclusion: CFM can hardly loose this one!

6. Transasia: 6 A321neo on firm order

Current fleet: 2 A320 and 5 A321 powered by V2500, 7 ATR powered by PW127

Conclusion: P&W can hardly loose here!

And now look at some prospective customers:

1. Delta Air Lines

Current fleet:

• GE engines are on 105 aircraft
• CFM engines are on 209 aircraft
• GECAS leases14 aircraft to Delta
• PW engines are on 355 aircraft
• IAE engines are on 27 aircraft with 13 more to come (MD-90)

Most PW engines will go away with the replacement (the last DC-9's and the MD-80's), so the P&W leverage is not that big as it looks.

Conclusion: a deciding factor could be the engine commonality with a possible CSeries order!

2. American Airlines

Current fleet:

• GE engines are on 73 aircraft and will be on the 6 ordered B777-300ER
• CFM engines are on 154 aircraft and 54 more ordered B737-800
• GECAS leases 61 aircraft to AA
• PW engines are on the 229 MD-80's, which will then disappear

Conclusion: never heard so far that AA is interested in the CSeries, so this is CFM's to loose.

3. Air France/KLM

Current fleet:

• GE engines are on 146 aircraft
• CFM engine are on 210 aircraft
• GECAS leases just one aircraft to AF/KLM (is that right?)

Conclusion: hopeless for P&W, M. Sarkozy will never let AirFrance order an engine without french content if there is one available.

Airbus A320neo order speculations

We are just days away from the Paris Air Show 2011 and every day there are more speculations about who will order how many aircraft at the show – and which ones.

The one thing that seems to be clear though is that the A320neo will get the bulk of orders.

So let me take part in the speculation game and start with the “Star” of the show:

Here is my guessing about who will order how many and the engine choice:

AirAsia	150-200	LEAP-X
Republic	40-80	PW1100G
Qatar	30-50	PW1100G
GECAS	50-100	LEAP-X
ALC	25-50	LEAP-X/PW1100G
CIT	20-30	LEAP-X/PW1100G
GoAir	50-70	PW1100G
SAS	30	PW1100G

In total we could see more than 600 orders/commitments for the A320neo family, with both engine makers getting their share of the market.

As for the LEAP-X it is crucial to get orders – GE seems to invest heavily in the AirAsia order, with GE becoming a sponsor of Tony Fernandes’ Formula 1 Lotus Team. Even if GE says that those two deals are complete separate…

As the CFM56 is AirAsia’s current engine choice, CFM was in the front runner position anyway. It remains to be seen, if Fernandes managed Leahy to convince him that a conversion of orders for the A320 ”Classic” can be transformed into A320neo orders and how many. And we will also see if this deal will be even larger than the yet-to-be-finalised order of 180 aircraft by Indigo.

Republic already placed a deposit in Toulouse, so we can expect an announcement about a fleet rollover for Frontier soon. As they already ordered the CSeries, they probably lean towards the GTF. But it remains to be seen, if the CSeries order stays intact. The financial troubles at Republic could mean that Airbus buys Republic out of the CSeries deal.

If Qatar finally decides to order the CSeries, they should decide for the GTF on their up to 50 neo's, too. But who knows what U-Turn Al will decide when he wakes up on the day of the planned signing ceremony. If he had a bad dream, all hid plans can change in a minute...

GECAS of course is the most natural LEAP-X customer. Nothing to add here...

After opposing the A320neo from the start, even Steven Udvar-Hazy seems to jump on the bandwagon now, as was reported earlier. I expect a split between LEAP-X and the PW1100G here, as well as from CIT.

GoAir obviously is in the market also for at least 50 A320neo. That seems a lot for an airline that has just 10 aircraft by now, but the fast growing Indian market is hungry for aircraft. The V2500 has a large customer base in India today and the PW1100G made the race at IndiGo, so PW might have the upper hand here.

SAS is looking for the A320neo, too, and I think this is the airline that is speculated to be the first neo-customer currently flying the B737NG. They have looked into the CSeries also, but decided to preserve cash by leasing 2^nd hand B737-700. SAS did not rule out to order the CSeries later, so they could lean towards the PW1100G on the A320neo to have engine commonality (sort of), if they ever decide to order the CSeries.

There might be others to come forward and order more A320neo – who know. John Leahy understands how to do good marketing and always pull out a rabbit out of the hat…

Geared Turbo Fan scores first

Now we have the long-awaited first battle "GTF vs. LEAP-X" fought out: the GTF (PW1133G) won at ILFC. Today they ordered up to 100 A320NEO aircraft, 60 of them will be powered by the GTF, the rest remains open.
Of course, this is only the first round of the battle, with many more to follow.
But many, including me, would have thought that a leasing company would opt for both engines, leaving their customers a choice.
Per CFM and PW, both engines promise the same reduction in fuel burn.
PW states that the GTF has 20% lower maintenance costs compared to today's engines - probably they compare the GTF to the V2500. CFM says maintenance costs for the LEAP-X will stay where they are with the CFM56 today. So at the end of the day the maintenance cost should be comparable, as the V2500 with it's 2nd HPT stage has "by definition" higher maintenance cost than the CFM56.
So the question is: why ILFC feels better with the GTF than with the LEAP-X - at least for the time being? Do they know something the public does not know?
One could say it is just a matter of a good deal, of course, and that could be right. PW might have offered ILFC a to good deal not to make. But on the other hand, pricing power should be something that CFM could play with - they have thousands of engines in the field and will have many more when the deal comes "online" in 2016 and beyond, so they could cross-subsidize more easily than PW can with their limited market power in the narrowbody market, as they are tied to RR in the V2500 - not to speak about the virtually non-existent widebody market power, where their only really selling products are the GP7000 (in a joint venture with GE) - the PW4000 picked up a little bit recently after it got the Advatage70 package.
Bottom line: it is unlikely that pricing power was the driving factor behind the engine decision from ILFC.
Let's wait for the next battles and their outcomes - maybe we can see some kind of a pattern then...

Oh, and by the way - I would love to know what our "friend" Saj Ahmad from the fleetbuzz Editorial has to say about the GTF now...

Thinking about LEAP-X and TECH-X

Over the last week there was growing speculation about when the LEAP-X engine, one of the candidates for the A320NEO, would be ready for the planned EIS in late 2015. I briefly discussed that matter in my last post, referring to an article in the AviationWeek. Meanwhile, also Ernest Arvai from AirInsight posted a story, speculating what might be behind the A320NEO decision holdup.

So let us go back in history – well, it’s just two or three years anyway…:

In 2008 at the Farnborough Airshow, when CFM for the first time talked about the LEAP-X in public, a certification in 2016 was announced as possible.

This announcement meant a turning point for CFM, as with the LEAP-X CFM changed their engine architecture strategy from a core with a single stage HPT to a 2 stage HPT. Simultaneously, the HPC got an additional 2 stages, driving up the pressure ratio from 16 to about 22 and thus becoming (more or less) a scaled down GEnx HPC. Thus, by changing the core architecture, the LEAP56 became the LEAP-X.

The reason for this radical change was rising fuel prices, changing the balance between fuel costs and maintenance costs in the equation for determining the operating costs of an aircraft. Fuel became the No.1 in operating costs for many airlines, particularly in the U.S., by then exceeding labor costs.

But obviously the preparations for LEAP56 and tests for the single stage HPT core were too advanced to stop the whole effort. This core was now called the eCore1 and was tested in two campaigns starting in 2009. The eCore2 will be tested in mid 2011, a second build is foreseen for mid 2012. The first engine to test should spin in early 2013 with certification expected by CFM sometimes in 2014.

In 2008, the LEAP-X handout (thanks, Scott!) at Farnborough showed a similar timeline with the eCore2 testing at the end of 2011 and a “Full Engine Demo” in 2012.

So the core tests moved a little bit to the right, the FETT moved a year out, but certification is aimed two years earlier.

An here the speculation begins:

• CFM has dramatically accelerated their pace of technology development
• CFM ousted some technologies to be ready for a 2014 certification, sacrificing SFC and maybe adding these technologies in a second step

Then there is the TECH-X. Building on the same technologies, the same core, scaled down from the LEAP-X, this engine was chosen by Bombardier to power their new Global Family members (Global 7000 and Global 8000). The Global 7000 will hit the market in 2016. What does that mean for the engine? Take a look at the rival, the Gulfstream 650. First flight happened in November 2009, certification is planned for 2011, first deliveries to customers are slated for 2012. Flight tests thus take about 2 years. Even if we assume that Bombardier will hand over the first aircraft right after certification we can assume that the flight test will take about two years, so the TECH-X engine has to be certified in late 2014 to meet the (late) 2016 delivery target.

The GE press release sets the official timetable like this:

• eCore Demonstrator 2 in 2011
• first engine run in 2013

That would allow a certification in 2014 – so far, so good.

But then I stumbled across this article from Flightglobal’s John Croft, stating that building up the first engine would be in 2013 with the engine running in 2014. That would allow for a certification only in 2015. I am puzzled…

Now – the whole thing would not really be that important as there is no competing engine on the Global 7000/8000. But if one transfers that story over to the A320NEO, this could be the key to many answers surrounding the questions why the widely anticipated launch of the –NEO did not happen so far.

CFM did not react so far about the growing speculations that a late 2015 EIS LEAP-X for the A320NEO might be not the LEAP-X with the fuel burn vs. the current CFM56 (-15%) as advertised. The aero-geek-public is keen to know (at least I am), so let's wait for a clarification on this matter coming from Cincinnati or Villaroche.

The CSeries and what it already did to aviation

We don't know today if the Bombardier CSeries will ever become a success. But one thing is for sure: it has initiated a maybe never seen activity in aircraft development, if you count re-engining activities as aircraft development.
Airbus and Boeing would never have lost a thought about that matter - and they just started when it became clear that the CSeries would have the potential to eat into their market.
This has a lot to do with the Geared Turbo Fan: Airbus started their re-engining studies only after they tested the GTF-Demo on their A340-600 testbed.
But it does not end with A. and B. - also Embraer today thinks about a re-engine programme for their successful EJet-Series. They feel the pressure that comes with the MRJ70/90 on the low end and the CS100 on the high end of their product line.
A re-engining with the same engines could be a straightforward and low-risk solution. Why:
a) The GTF works as advertised. Then the E170/175RE with the "MRJ GTF" would regain it's leading position, as the MRJ70 is (somewhat surpringsingly) heavier than the EJets, so that with the same engine and (probably) a new wing, as Embraer would have to redesign the center wing box to accomodate a longer gear anyway would provide less fuelburn. The same would be true for the E190/195RE against the CS100. For routes typically flown by the EJets (<1000nm), they would be unmatched in fuel burn. Embraer would have the market for themselves.
b) The GTF does not work (which is, from my perspective unlikely, but let's just play the game...): then there is no competion to the EJets anyway and they can flip back to the CF34  - the MRJ is dead, the CSeries is dead, BBD can't do anything to keep the CRJ family competitive as they are financially burdened with the CSeries, the Lear85, a Global successor and maybe the Q400X, the SSJ100 will not have a big impact in the western markets.
c) Embraer decides to take another engine, either a CFM/GE LEAP-X/TECH-X or a RB282 from RR: then there is the risk that the GTF works but the alternative fails - and Embraer is out of the market altogether.

But there is also the possibility that Embraer decides to develop a whole new aircraft. Probably to compete with the CSeries. Then there is the danger that it will be a "me-too" aircraft. They will probably go a little bit higher in capacity than the CS300 (see B787 vs. A350XWB), as aircraft tend to get biger anyway. But they would then also compete heavily against A. and B., so they would have to bet on new narrowbody aircraft families by A. and B. coming earlier than it is expected today. These aircraft families then would probably start at the size of todays A320 and 737-800, so that there would not be any direct competition to the new potential Embraer Jet.

Enough food for thought for today - whatever Airbus as the catalyst for all what is coming after that decides  - and annouces - in the coming weeks: it will lead to a series of decisions to make by all others involved.

Meantime - good luck to Bombardier: they are the ones we have to thank for all the debates we can do today ;-)

Have a nice sunday!