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

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.

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).

Orders, orders, orders...

Starting early last week we see another MoU firmed up (MEA, Avolon), a new MoU (Hawaiian) or even a completely new order (Citilink) for the A320neo. An exception was last Friday, when Airbus and Singapore announced the order for 5 more A380 and 20 more A350-900.
I am now sure that John Leahy will tell the audience on Thursday that he now has (more than) 2000 orders and commitments for the A320neo. Maybe even 2000 or more firm orders.
Today's order came from BOC Aviation for 25 A320neo as well as 25 A320ceo, further filling the remaining delivery positions for the "ceo".
I wonder who is featured in Leahy's 5th season show tomorrow. And who is going to be the rabbit jumping out of Leahy's hat on Thursday.
That leads me to...Lion! They reportedly will order or have ordered more than 200 A320's. I believe it when I see it...Scott Hamilton reports also that they selected the GTF for this order - if this is all true, it would be a huge blow for both Boeing and CFM.
The firmation of the AA order is subject to cout approval now (as is the MAX and B787 order).

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.

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!

Even more doubts about B737MAX

I obtained a very interesting article from "Airline Economics", a publication from Aviation News. As it is a subscriber only magazine, I cannot upload the full article, but I will quote some interesting statements of the story called "A question of circumstance":

1. Regarding the engine competition on the A320neo between the GTF and the LEAP-1A: "The end result is that you've got a really big gap between a P&W Neo and a CFMi Neo." To clarify: the gap is in favor of the P&W GTF and Airline Economics is quoting an senior industry expert here, who expects the LEAP to have a 4% disadvantage (what in my eyes is maybe a little bit too much).
2. Regarding engine competition in the marketplace: "Airline Economics learned early last year that

GTF for B737MAX?

Rumors are spilling over and over since the ISTAT Americas conference in March that Boeing is seriously looking at the P&W GTF as a second engine option in addition to the LEAP-1B for the B737MAX. Aspire Aviation has a long article about the ongoing optimisation of the MAX here and Scott Hamilton is quoted in an article by the New Mexico Business Weekly here. A reason for these rumors seems to be the lack of confirmed orders for the MAX so far. There are only three customers who have ordered the MAX, all others only delivered commitments to the Boeing Headquarter so far. Sure, the year is long, so there is enough time for Boeing to convert the commitments to firm and credible orders, especially as Boeing might be keen to make a similar splash with the MAX at Farnborough as Airbus did with the Neo at Le Bourget last year. But as now there are these rumors about a possible second engine, the committed customers might want to wait and see if there is some truth behind them. So firming up the commitments before there is a final word from Boeing (or P&WA) in either way might be a challenge.
Scott Hamilton expects a decision in the next months - that could also coincide with Farnborough...

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.

Embraer decides in favor of EJet's

Embraer decided to abandon plans for a new 5 abreast aircraft for now and instead opted to reengine to EJet's in the latter half of the decade - EIS could be in 2018. Given that Embraer could not do both at the same time - financially, but also due to manpower restrictions, as the KC-390 is in development also, this seems to be a wise decision.

Let us look at the timeline: in 2018 all new engines currently under development for the MRJ, CSeries, the A320neo, the B737MAX, the C919 and the MS-21 will be in service. Of course one could ask at least in case of the latter two if the EIS dates for these will stay where they are now. But Embraer will have a good idea how the engines - two versions of the LEAP (the C919 LEAP-1C will have the same turbo machinery as the A320neo LEAP-1A) and three types of the GTF (MRJ, CSeries and A320neo/MS-21) - are doing during development. An EIS in 2018 would probably mean an engine selection about 5 years earlier, around 2013, maybe 2014. By that time the PW1200G and PW1500G are flying at least on the respective aircraft prototypes and the first PW1100G engine should run on ground (the LEAP-1A seems to be a bit behind).

Changing the engine landscape

That was really a big surprise for everyone, I guess! Not so much the fact, that PW bought  RR out of the IAE – that was considered by UTC for about two years. The real surprise is the Joint Venture to tackle the market of next generation single aisle aircraft – in particular, of course, the Airbus A30X and the Boeing NSA/B797.

At first glance, this is a technical win for Pratt & Whitney, as, at least in the near term, development will focus on the Geared Turbo Fan technology. The Open Rotor concept, advanced geared technology and “other advanced configurations” will also be pursued, but it seems that the GTF has won for now.

RR rationale 

But what is the reason for Rolls Royce to “give up” their own plans (at least for the nearer future) for next generation engines in that market? So far Rolls Royce planned with three options: Advance2, a two spool advanced turbo fan, Advance3, a three spool configuration and the open Rotor option as the answer for beyond 2025. Work on these concepts will continue, RR President  Mark King says, but to what extent is unclear. King also says that the formation of the joint venture should not be seen as a shift in strategy, but as a natural extension of their strategy and an elegant solution. Well, this is at least a discussable point of view…

The JV does not include the PW1217G and the PW1524G for the Mitsubishi MRJ and the Bombardier CSeries. An interesting question would be if Rolls Royce will compete with an own engine for the reengining of the EJets or the clean-sheet narrowbody CSeries competitor. P&W logically would offer versions of the PW1200 and PW1500 (maybe with added technology, depending on the EIS). Rolls Royce could become a risk sharing partner in these engines, but this seems unlikely.

A little bit in contrary to what RR officially said, they were also in the running to power the A320neo, but lost to CFM and P&W. Inside the IAE there were no agreement about the architecture of an offer for the A320neo, so both major IAE partners took their offer to Airbus. As RR had difficulties to scale the three spool concept down to the size of the neo thrust requirement (the most inner spool had such a small diameter that it could not withstand the torque).

The consequence was that Rolls Royce would have been out of the new narrowbody business once the last A320 with V2500 engines were delivered. Of course the aftermarket business for the V2500 would have been a long cash-in program for Rolls Royce, but without at least a participation in a running program it would have been very difficult to get back into the business once an A30X or a Boeing NSA where on the table. The fate of Pratt & Whitney after they lost their B737 business with the JT8D is a good example what Rolls Royce is about to avoid with the new JV and their “modest financial investment” in the PW1100G-JM.

PW rationale

So there is a good reason for RR to start the JV with P&W. But what about P&W? What is their rationale? Maybe it’s like that:

With a unbeatable customer base, CFM seems to be a set candidate for the Airbus A30X as well as the Boeing NSA. It is unlikely that one of the aircraft OEM’s will offer three engine options, so one of either P&W and RR would have lost. Maybe each of them would have gotten one application – but with both joining forces, this CFM antagonist can be seen as an almost sure second choice for both aircraft, without competing against each other and spending a lot of money to win against the other. So it is a win-win situation for both OEM. Not so much necessarily for the existing partners in the PW1100G-JM, JAEC and MTU. Their shares in the next generation engine program could be lower than it is in the PW1100G-JM now. On the other hand  they now have the possibility to enlarge their share in the V2500 and at least MTU already submitted a statement that they intend to do so.

IAE exit

Why does Rolls Royce exit the IAE consortium?

First, this is good news for P&W and the PW1100G-JM. Marketing the GTF engine becomes easier, as the owner of IAE and the partners in the PW110G-JM are the same now. Campaigns were airlines take both the classic version and the neo version of the A320 (like American Airlines and LAN) are now easier to handle. Also existing V2500 customers who order the A320neo can be given cross concessions easier (look what CFM/GECAS did for Frontier to get the A320neo business).

For Rolls Royce it means they get $1.5bn in cash immediately and a steady stream of cash flow in the next 15 years without any cash out (winning new campaigns usually means a cash out) and saving own IAE personnel, as they are “just” a supplier now).

Now - does Rolls Royce need cash? If one looks at the balance sheets of the last years: not immediately. But with the Trent1000 three years behind (cash-in) schedule, at least two of the A350 models delayed, further development costs for the A350-1000 TrentXWB engine, there could be a cash problem approaching Rolls Royce in the next couple of years, so the deal with P&W to exit the IAE could ease that.

ISTAT Europe 2011

For the second time I had the pleasure to join the european ISTAT (International Society for Transport Aircraft Trading) meeting, this time taking place in Barcelona, a wonderful city! Here are some thoughts about the conference...

A320neo
Last year the conference was "overshadowed"

LEAP-X striking back?

CFM said over the weekend that they have four announcements on every of the first four days of this years Paris Airshow regarding LEAP-X customers. It is not clear, whether these are all for the A320neo or some of them will also be for the C919, but apparently CFM is strongly coming back from behind and it remains to be seen if the PurePower GTF engine can hold it's No.1 position on the A320neo.

According to a Bloomberg report, SAS will order the LEAP-X for their 30 A320neo. A few days ago I expected them they will go with the GTF - apparently I was wrong and I will speculate about the reasons a little bit later.
But let us look at the possible reasons of this comeback: if you read the blog entry behind the first link of this, article, there are two interesting things to note: CFM just lately changed the design of the LEAP-X engine:
1. The fan diameter got larger, from 75" before to 78" now.
2. The LPT got an additional stage - now it has seven, just as the GEnx-1B for the B787.

Both changes are good for about 1% in SFC - each. Additionally, I guess CFM changed to size of the core and made it smaller, what could yield in another 0.5% in SFC.
On the other hand, the engine gets larger, produces more drag, gets added weight and the added LPT stage produces extra maintenance costs.
Because of the added drag and added weight, the fuel burn benefit will end up in the range of 1.5-2%. Operating costs could end up being somewhere between 1-1.5% better.
If you study this site, CFM now claims a 1% better fuel burn against the GTF. Is this credible: a few weeks ago, before the design changes were made official, Bernstein, AirInsight and others said (with obviously good knowledge about the situation), that LEAP-X would trail the GTF by about 3%.
So if CFM now claims to be better by 1%, then they probably project their best possible SFC without regarding any development risk. This is not engineering practice, but as it seems, CFM can convince quite a number of customers with that strategy.

Now to the story about SAS and why they might have turned to CFM:
First, they are a flying a lot of  B737NG, thus having a number of CFM56 in their fleet and possibly a good relationship to CFM. A few weeks back they dedided to lease 2nd hand B737-700 and with that opting against the CSeries.
Easy question: who is most interested in CSeries failing in the marketplace:
1. Airbus
2. CFM
For that reason, I could see a campaign to fight all possible CSeries deals in a joint effort from Airbus und CFM. The litmus test for this thesis will be the CSeries' fate at Republic: if Republic now orders the A320neo with the LEAP-X and (sooner or later) cancels the CSeries, I would see this thesis is "proven". Also watch for Qatar...
The thriller just starts here!

Some airlines can't wait for Paris

The official opening of the Paris Air Show is still four days away, but there are a few airlines who can't wait to announce their (A32Xneo) orders.

Cebu Pacific and GoAir both placed orders today.

Cebu Pacific (I did not even have that on my list yesterday) placed an MoU for 30 A321neo. They also firmed up options for 7 A320 (Classic). Cebu stated that with the A321neo they will be able to fly to destinations which cannot be reached with the A320 today, namely Northern Japan, Australia and India. They will outfit their A321neo's with 220 seats - I have not heard of any airline with such a dense seating in a A321. Air Berlin has 210 seats, Air France in the domestic market version 206 seats.

And then there is GoAir - for 72 A320neo. I had them on my list for Paris, but for a maximum of 70 - well, not too far off. GoAir is owned by the Wadia Group, a powerful conglomerate, and got a new CEO just a few days ago, the former Chief Revenue Officer from Air One (Giorgio De Roni), which was (more or less) forced to merge with the old Alitalia.
GoAir has 10 A320 in the fleet, with 10 more to come in the next two years. By then, with a fleet of 20 aircraft and after 5 years of operation, they can fly internationally.

Both airlines fleets are powered by the CFM56 today and both airlines gave no indication of engine selection yet. It remains to be seen if my assumption that the PW1100G has the better cards in the indian market. At least the planned first delivery date (2015) for GoAir's A320neo seems to indicate a GTF selection here.

LEAP-X wins first customers

Just a quick note as I am just coming back from a small vacation and saw the news that LEAP-X reportedly got their first two customers - ILFC for the remaining 40 of their 100 A320NEO order and Virgin America for 30 A320neo. The latter is no real surprise, as it was CFM to loose as the incumbent here. Lessors tend to split their A320 orders anyway, so one could anticipate that, too.
The next very-likely-LEAP-X-powered-A320neo-order should be from AirAsia. As Tony Fernandes wants to convert some of the "Classic"-orders and the current Air Asia order is CFM56-powered, a deal including a conversion of orders is only thinkable with CFM.
Still open are TAM with their MoU for 22 A320neo.
During the Paris Air Show we will probably see orders from Republic and Qatar for the A320neo. I would expect Qatar to choose the GTF, as they are also likely to order the CSeries, which is exclusively powered by the GTF. Republic as one of the existing CSeries customers is also a good candidate for the GTF on the A320neo.

737 successor Part IV

In early March I wrote the first piece of this story and explained why I think that a "small widebody" seems unlikely as a 737 successor aircraft.
Hearing Boeing CEO McNerney at the conference call on Wednesday kind of confirms that. He said that the next new airplane will probably first address “the heart of the market,” which is 145 to 185 seats, McNerney said. “Which is not to say that we will leave the (7)57 space unaddressed at all.” (quoted from the seattle.pi blog).
So Boeing clearly will not back away from the "Southwest Airlines" market, which is (as of today) the lower end of that bandwidth, but SWA just this year also ordered their first batch of B737-800, representing the upper end of that "heart of the market".
Not leaving the 757 space unaddressed means they also plan to have an aircraft in the family with 200+ seats. But this would lead to a competitive disadvantage on the lower end, if all family members would have the same wing. If the 200+ seater should have a transatlantic range, the wing has to be considerably larger than today's 737NG wing. That would burden the 145 seat family member with a wing that is too large and too heavy. Trim drag would have to be used during cruise to keep the aircraft flying in level flight with the desired speed, as the large wing produces too much lift - alternatively the aircraft could fly slower, burning less fuel, but cutting productivity.
And by the time the new Boeing aircaft arrives, there could be, apart from the CSeries, another narrowbody - optimised for around 150 seats and probably lower range than the ~3000nm CSeries: a new 5 abreast aircraft from Embraer. With around 2200nm as today's EJets, a specific version of the GTF, the LEAP-X or even a new engine from RR, it could be better than the CSeries and the new Boeing aircraft.

Boeing of course could produce two wings - one for the lower end of the market and one for the upper end - in case of the 787 that strategy failed, but for reasons that do not apply in the narrowbody sector.

About the timing McNerney said:  “You’ll hear more from us at the end of the year.”
So, as I wrote in the third part of the story, we will obviously not hear anything spectacular from Boeing at the Paris Air Show - only a "guidance", probably further emphasizing that they lean towards an all new airplane, but not ruling out a reengining at all.

The first three parts of the story are here:
Part I
Part II
Part III

Bernstein Research on GTF and LEAP-X

AirInsight has a post today about Bernstein Research thinks about the GTF. As I do not want to "cannibalize" AirInsight please read this post before continuing here...
So what can we take from this? The most important point for me:
CMC turbine blades availability slipped from 2018 to 2020!!! This means:

• That moving the EIS of the chinese C919 forward from 2018 to 2016 was a bad decision for CFM, as CFM was forced to speed up their development plan. But some technologies obviously need and take their time and can't be accelerated too much.
• That the 2016 LEAP-X engine for the C919 and the A320neo needs more turbine cooling than originally was planned with CMC turbine blades. As cooling air for the HPT blades is rather "expensive" (it is taken from one of the rear compressor stages), more cooling air means higher SFC.
• That the LEAP-X is not competitive with the GTF in terms of fuel burn (at least) until 2020.
• That a version of the LEAP-X for a potential B737RE would not yield an improvement good enough to keep pace with a GTF powered A320neo (at least in terms of fuel burn).
• That the LEAP-X with CMC blades would be ready "just in time" for a new Boeing aircraft in 2020. But 9 years ahead, who would count on that today?

If Bernstein Research is right about the CMC turbine blades, CFM has a big problem. To position the engine as the lower risk engine is "BS", as it is a new centerline engine as the GTF is - but the GTF neo-engine will benefit from the engines for the CSeries and the MRJ. LEAP-X is also running considerably hotter and this is always risky. So I do not see airlines will give them credit for lower risk.

As I wrote earlier, the litmus test for CFM will be a potential order for the A320neo from AirFrance-KLM, the decision from Virgin America and the anticipated order from AirAsia.

AirFrance interested in A320NEO - litmus test for LEAP-X

Reuters and others today report that AirFrance is interested in the A320NEO. As AirFrance is one of the largest Airbus customers (I think actually in second place right beghind Lufthansa), this is not a big story - but before Airbus actually launched the A320NEO, AirFrance ofiicials said that a pure reengining would not be good enough. So their mind must have changed.
What is more important is, that once AirFrance will eventually order the A320NEO, sooner or later they have to commit to one engine or another. And as AirFrance is up to now the most natural and loyal CFM customer you can imagine - CFM is 50% owned by the Safran and CFM did a version of the CFM56-5B customised for the A318 only on AirFrance's request - it would be a disaster for CFM if AirFrance would decide in favour of the GTF and clearly a sign that there is something "wrong" in the development of the LEAP-X.
An interesting thing to watch...