Fed Ex Pilot To Service Log, A Must read

The Federalist Papers Link

Winging It investigates Aviation  Humor on the flight Line.




P= Pilot
S= Service Technician

Space The Final Frontier ala Star Trek

Airlines have over committed towards supplying seats for its aircraft. ANA first ventured with eight across seating on its 787-8, 186 seat aircraft. Then comes to Jet Star (Qantas) 335 seat 787-8. "Whoa they can do that with the 787-8?". Space is the final frontier I guess, so beam me into one space for eight to twelve hours, and see if I can re-materialize without bodily harm. The airlines won't back off of revenue units in the twin aisle category.

The Arab states can play with space like its coming out of the ground in a profusion of oil. Give them 42 inches front to back and a other 22 inches for elbows. Stuff it with amenities and call it luxuriant. The 777-300 ER is going through a scavenger hunt for more seat space by shrinking the  bathroom.

The mile high club has vigorously protested the bathroom shrinkage. How can they make time in a real water closet 5 miles up? Its just for making space for 14 more seats on the 777-300, before it transitions into an X rated aircraft called a dash  8-X or dash 9-X! Its own standard 777 configuration will go from 386 seats to 400 seats within its same 777-300  frame allotment. Just because the mile high club lost its bathroom lease, until the 9-X says, "climb aboard mate" they will have to make other provisions for membership.

The idea is now afoot, how do you stand/sit people in a smallest pitch possible before cluster phobia wrecks havoc on the passengers on board? I have given this "considerable thought" and have come up with well, a solution of sorts. I got my inspiration from a recent MRI test taken in a tube with its 6 inches of pitch from the tip of my nose to the MRI wall. Xanax was added with the music and a cool stream of air washed across my face. I was in another world for 30 minutes. When I landed (on the floor) it was all over. Mission accomplish, my brain is okay and it cost only $2,000 dollars.

Why can't they do something like that for air travel. Why tease us with windows and seat trays for spreading food onto the floor. Just put all people into a smaller tube in a allocated 24" cylinder. Just walk into a row with the cylinder open, sit/stand into it, and slam the door. Air, food and amenities are in the cylinder. Movies project to you in a 3-D world. You are in the final frontier of limited space. What if you have to go? No worries mate I'm working on that with NASA. You will never have to leave your seat until landing. Nitrous oxide will fill the cylinder space. Can't stop laughing? No problem don't start laughing, problem solved.

By now maybe you think I bought the farm of insanity. However, I've got my inspiration from Star Trek and its suspended animation chambers on the Enterprise, its TV after-all. Why stop with 335 seats with Jet Star having the smallest 787, the dash eight. The final frontier has been reached and only takes six hours of sitting/standing while the seat forward of your position headrest's , is inches from your nose. Retaliation is complete when you recline your seat with its allotted 3 degrees back into your final frontier space allocation. Its really problematic when get to the last row. There is no one behind you to irritate and no final frontier to explore. The bathroom has your back. It doubles as a phone booth for those 14 extra seats sake.

Qantas Fights Financial Crosswinds

The time has come to order up some 787-9's but also the time has come to wait for improved financial ratings as Qantas disposes its debt. Unfortunately Qantas is caught between the two worlds where it has turn around its financial status from cheaper fuel advantages and from its robust business plan executed for reducing its operational cost. The impact of those turnarounds have not made it to an improved financial rating yet, until it is way clear of its debt. If they had a strong financial rating at this time they could do fleet renewal for the 50 787-9's it needs. However putting money down from banked gains destroys the Qantas financial portfolio and rating. They may have to wait and lose the option window with Boeing.

What can Qantas do? Parse out the order out in segments of 10 units a time over the next 10 years, keeping the low price for the first ten and then ordering from options on the next ten at a higher price. Than what would happen if had closed the deal for the first fifty from its old standing option in the first place? The old option it is about to expire. Credit ratings are a pain when you have a tough decade. They will have to renegotiate with a benevolent Boeing. They may cut a deal that Qantas can financially swallow, but not the deal it now holds through the nearly expired 50 787 options.

A structured order may be coming with Qantas in layers of aircraft that will please Boeing, and enable Qantas to reach its critical needs of fleet renewals. It may come about with a two tier purchase scheme of ten at one price ten at "another price", and then tacking on a new options matching that same "other price" Boeing quotes, which would not be comparable with its original 50 options on the books. This would buy Qantas time for catching up its credit ratings from its current financial standing, during its turn-around. Qantas must keep emerging from the operational and financial efficiency over the next five years, as the 787 fleet grows and replaces the 747. It remains when Qantas needs the 787-9, and must make some purchase sacrifices along the way to get there, as it dropped financial rating ball awhile back.

Otherwise Qantas may have a rabbit in the hat for the current option closing for its 50 787-9's. Boeing may have worked a deal to fit its financial quandary. The current clock does not allow Qantas enough time to gain financial ratings, as it tries to swallow more fleet on one hand and keep making financial progress on the other hand.

Flight Global Feature Article Caught the Wind.

Winging It is scabbing the Flight Global article today? Because it realizes a Boeing prediction about the 787.

------------------------------

A380 does not work for United: CFO

"United Airlines chief financial officer John Rainey says the Airbus A380 “doesn’t really work” for the airline’s network, driving its preference for smaller widebodies like the Boeing 787.

“We’ve looked at that and we are looking at it right now [but] it just doesn’t really work for us,” he says on the European superjumbo in an exclusive interview with Flightglobal in Chicago today."

--------------------------------

Why does this happen to have legs? Boeing said so in 2004, the 787 philosophy is point to point and the Airbus A-380 Hub Jammer is counter intuitive of the efficiency model.  The 787 has been a hub Buster since its announced program gained legs back in 2004.

Now United affirms the A-380's hub jamming with the super giant is not in its own vision's statement's view: 

United Vision Statement:

Through our Diversity and Inclusion strategy, we find innovative and effective solutions (787) to engage employees from diverse backgrounds and cultures in taking our flyer-friendly service around the globe (787). We are driving to become recognized as an airline where:

• leaders embrace Diversity and Inclusion as a business advantage (on the 787)
• employees feel highly valued, are actively engaged and are treated with dignity and respect (while loving the 787)
• customers value our inclusive approach to delivering flyer-friendly service (as part of the 787)

How does this vision statement tie back to No United A-380's ordered? The answer comes back from Boeing's vision for the 787 and its mission. Point to point travel is the optimal convenience for every traveler. The 787 can land and take-off with a medium sized footprint of a 8,000 foot runway near you and go around the world. The A-380 is limited  by thickness of the tarmac as well as its space consumption, so it seeks out the super hubs in the desert kingdoms of the Middle East and the handful in European stops like Frankfurt and London-Heathrow.

United affirms the A-380's is a hub jamming monstrosity as a super giant, is not in its vision's statement's view; where it seeks going around the globe making every airport inclusive within its vision.

VN-A861 For Vietnam Airlines

Soon is sooner than most Airlines when it comes to 787-9 delivery. VN-A861 is about to be delivered in June for Vietnam Airlines who is about to receive its first A-350-9 soon. But the 787-9 will be sooner. I am trying for a coffee spew today with word play. Vietnam Airlines must have Gold bullion to pull this off. The Boeing will fly one way to London, and the Airbus A-350 will fly another way to Paris from Hanoi Vietnam in keeping with Airbus penchant for everything Left Bank.

 Boeing 787-9 Going Right Banking Turn  Into London Heathrow

 

Left Bank Airbus A-350 for Vietnam Airlines  from Hanoi to Paris

Boeing On The Production Cusp Of Greatness

Boeing fires off 787 production beyond its expectations of ten a month, by the end of Month Five, 2015. January experienced only seven 787 delivered, as per normal, during its first of the year factory regrouping.  It has delivered 54, 787 before even the annual midpoint arrives at the end of June. The item of note is how well the 787-9 is blending into production without any seeming interruptions going from 787-8 to 787-9 production and back. This is the same condition at both facilities.  All of this shows that even with a slow January start, and a two model production flow, Boeing is ready to project twelve a month before 2016. As in reality it will try to go further with 14 787 a month on some monthly occasions, until it has smoothed into a solid 14 a month by 2018.

Having summarized this notion of 14 a month by 2018, it will have to include the introduction of the 787-10 by 2017. Boeing may opt in two years to go with an exclusive 787-8 production, and 787-10 production in Charleston only. There are about 205 787-8’s currently in backlog and 142 787-10’s on order, totaling about 347 787’s for Charleston using this balance. Everett would take on the load for the 787-9 backlog, now standing at 477 787-9’s.

Going all-in with the 787-9 in Everett, it would show mastery for the 787 program while optimizing both facilities in this manner. After considering the 777X program needs the former 787 surge line in Everett for the breeding of the 777X development, all the production pieces fit together. This would be also true since the 777-300-ER remains on its current production line for customer delivery. Additional sales in the interim can be absorbed easily once the backlog goes within 600 in number of 787’s remaining after the next 18 months in time has passed. Having under 700 in numbers with the 787 backlog, matches Boeing's production capability with a customer's five year plans and needs. it allows for additional and continuous purchases of fifty units a year during a production cycle.

Twelve A Month Scale:

• (5 years) x's (12 787 a month delivered) = (720, units delivered in five years)
• (Current Back Log of 823)- (720 units factored in the window ) = (103) 787 until it reaches the buyer's manageable 5 year waiting back log number of 720.
• Adding any sales during the year, 35 so far, production backlog becomes a static number over-all. 

There remains one problem for both the customer and Boeing. Urgency for these aircraft  is high as airlines are planning expansion and it needs to grab routes while they remain hot. Long legged routes have a finite availability.  As if this were a "Gold Rush" of the air at this time. The prospecting airlines need the 787, and 777 now. Both are booked up beyond the impulse and opportunity windows for the customer. Airbus has filled its A-350 window with 779, A-350 orders. Playing off of each air-frame builder for available instant gratification or immediate build slots, is a dicey and uncertain result and frustrates the planners. This is the Golden era for those who seized the opportunity at its beginning in 2007.

Boeing should be able to make Six 787-9 a month in Everett while in Charleston, SC three 787-8 and three 787-10’s a month, balancing its backlog and increasing productivity in some kind sensible flow for twelve-a-month over-all for its three types during 2017. If Boeing goes to 14, 787 a month, (during 2018) for all three types, more schedule shuffling will occur at both facilities. It will be a strategy Airbus will have to address if it wants to keep up with Boeing for its own customer’s sake of competition. “The early bird gets the routes and airplane sales”, during the World of Air Wars for routes, passengers, and airplanes.

Data Sources: All Things 787; Boeing.Com: Winging IT Analysis

The CFM Leap 1B was Underated Last Month. Now Its Gaining Height!

The CFM Leap 1-B had a 5% short fall last month coming off its bench testing. Now that it is under wing several key players in its development have come forward and said those numbers misrepresented what was really happening to the CFM Leap 1B. Smiles have returned to the Boeing execs faces in lock step. It is a key indicator of a hasty news report about the CFM engine. The 68" front opening of the MAX directed engine has achieved early bench marks while under wing on the 747-400 test bed. No one has said exactly what has happened to that 5% low ball short fall number, but it appears the first tune up during its flying testing has moved the efficiency needle back closer into the 14% efficiency realm it has promised its Max customers. Quiet backslapping is a great indicator of corporate relief.

The MAX is on track again with CFM and Boeing. The testing and tweaking process has begun. Innovation is once again a hold card, once all normal progressions are completed. The CFM at 68 inches has achieved theoretical performance it had claimed when compared with the Airbus CFM Leap 1-A 79" diameter. The 1B will be lighter than the 1A. It has an Aerodynamic sweet spot compensating for the Airbus advantage of its larger 78" for the A-320 family.

The rule of thumb is a bigger diameter jet engine produces better efficiency than one with a lessor diameter. In Boeing's case they had to find a better preforming CFM Leap 1B than the Airbus Leap IA configuration. Boeing reached back in its bag of tricks for some aviation Trickeration for the 12" smaller diameter engine using wing placement adjustment and center of gravity considerations. Drag elimination on the engine nacelle with new aero design points mitigating any so called engine drag and from a lighter over-all single aisle structure than Airbus with its engine weight. Even though CFM shares its technologies with Airbus, Boeing seeks a greater performance efficiency out of a smaller engine size.

The gauntlet was laid down for CFM, where Boeing asked for more Carbon Fiber or plastic components with its engine needing a greater heat dissipating properties under its nacelle than the prior CFM's. The trend line for the Leap 1B indicates more innovation on the engine and aircraft complying with the MAX design points for having a low engine clearance on the ground. Secondly, the engine, frame fit, and performance must work more within the MAX design, as a sum of all its contributing parts equals optimal performance for Boeing and CFM. The Leap 1A with Airbus may have a role of all CFM efficiency are hung on the wing, and are found just within the engine. The Leap 1-B is a solid two team project integrating the MAX with The Leap as a Joint solution in performance.

Considering the chart above it appears the 737 NG has a 6% head start before the MAX had announced its inception for development. Now it will lead by 5% at the end of the day. The caveat is seats available is greater for the MAX. This does not include the A-321 frame which is a separate class of Single Aisle. The MAX 737-9 is also not part of this discussion as shown by the chart above.

The testing that is occurring is an epic change to the paradigm for single aisle aircraft engine building. The Boeing smiles this week indicate a self-assured positive outcome. Getting the CFM off the bench and flying was a great idea, and long over-due from a press point of view. Actual final efficiency numbers are usually understated as an error towards being conservative for all concerned until it goes on the MAX itself.

Call Me Crazy, Call Me Irish, Don't ever Call Me Crazy Irish

Michael O'Leary Dips into Darby O'Gill's Pot O' Gold IBT Photo Credit (Getty)

To the tune of: "Ryanair has reported an end-of-year net profit of €867m (£613m, $944m) after carrying 90.6 million passengers in the 12 months to March."

A steady delivery cycle of 183 737 NG's are heading his way since it began last year in 2014. Then comes the 737 Max 200 in 2017, or is it 200 Max 737's. I lost my own mind in his quest for Darby O' Gill's Pot O' Gold . 2023 is the year the deed is done.

Why am I am clicking my heals? Because IBT says its so, that's why!

66% profit increase, yowser!

Rumor has it Michael has invented a better way to pack sardines into a can too! He is unstoppable with his ideas relating to product packaging.

O'Leary for Airline President! Oh, excuse me he is already one to boot. The Max should deliver on March 17th  on any year past 2017. I have plans for that day every year, until the cows come home, and doesn't include staying home. It may include a trip to Ireland for cabbage and corn beef until the c... well you know the tag line. Michael O'Leary can you spare me two airline tickets from Boise, Idaho. Call me crazy, but I was always told... to politely ask the question anyways, so I asked, so sue me. I asked my wife a question once, and it changed my life permanently. I am not Irish, just a hung over Scotsman at the belt line, who likes corn beef and cabbage with a little Irish music. 

Crores Are eating away Air India's Lunch

The long awaited and long deployed 787 has not turned Air India away from loss even though the fuel metric has turned most operations in a positive fuel cost direction on its international routes. The 787 has lived up to its promise for Air India, making gains in the fuel in its cost category for each international flight. The disturbing Air India financial news remains with the operators end of mismanagement. The 787 delivered, but the company that flies it cannot get its arms around its own profitability scheme.

The  above chart suggests over $90 million a month is lost while operating and applying its variable costs. A chief indicator of that loss is from not receiving enough revenue stream gained from appropriate ticket prices and collecting  greater loss from its operational inefficiencies. Air India  picks up too much of the the work and supply tab every time one of its airplane flies. Anybody for fixed Costs?

The numbers above come from  Hindustan Times. Trade values for currency are from today's calculation converting Crore to US dollars.

Keeping Up: Airbus has 3 WB's Delivered, Boeing has 279 WB's Delivered

Airbus has delivered 3, A350-900 since December 22, 2015. All to Qatar. Boeing has hit full stride with 279-787's, since its first delivery in late September 2011. Boeing spun out three 787 in its first three months. Airbus has done the same feat in five months.  It has predicted 12 more in 2015. Comparing the two programs indicates a separate strategy. The Boeing 787 effort jumped over Airbus, and has left the Euro company a no rush approach. Boeing rushed its charge forward regardless the obstacles it encountered for its more complex made aircraft.

Had Boeing not had the battery issue, it would have probably gained more sales in the early production years. However, things being what they where, Boeing gave up some precious ground over Airbus during 2012-2013. Risk averting airlines, may have opted for the Airbus during the bad days Boeing had encountered. All things considered, the market is settling into an orderly two camp market for wide bodies. Each having its own talking points for salesmanship.

The Airbus approach is going very carefully forward, and celebrating its three deliveries in five months without the press hounding them over any internal calamities from program mishaps. As it was experienced in  Boeing's fast start. Airbus is simply laying low in the weeds and relishing its second place position without all the Boeing "hub-bub"  concerning its: forming, storming and norming and performing of the 787.

1. "The Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results."

Wiki reference:

Tuckman's stages of group development

These are factors of team building. Airbus has done its storming in privacy with no unreasonable goal setting the pace. It quietly keeps announcing certainties long after that "certainty" is achieved within the program. Where it is long past tense rather than ,Boeing's approach of announcing a "certainty", before all problems are worked out. Hence Boeing ran the risk of a program mishap during the early history of the aircraft.

It is not to say Airbus did not have its share of mishaps within the program. However, it is to say being second, allowed them the position for the A-350 of laying low in the weeds, of never having publicity over those types mishaps. Airbus couched its airplane development, and not often reported any problems within the framework of A-350 lower tech development. Boeing came out naked into the press stirring up interest for its "All New 787", which superseded the Wright Brothers Historical effort back-in-the-day.  Boeing needed the limelight to launch its program for the 787 to succeed. It needed the press to quantum jump Airbus who was left sanding flat footed back in 2007.

The Boeing risk was shadowed by battery failure, adding shims, and drill holes and fastener making wing cracks. Airbus for sure had its shakedown period for its own million part aircraft assembly during  the early A-350 start-up. Except they were in second place, and mitigated its news under the developmental umbrella of press protection. Boeing marched out with its chest laid bare. Oops, there were some nasty scars exposed after if flew commercially during 2012. Boeing pressed into gaining separation from Airbus' slow slog to delivery.

The market has settled. The bean counting has started comparing both programs. Airbus claims its better than the 787. That is to be expected even if the A-350 is considered nothing more than a plastic kite. They will always say they are better, no matter the circumstance! It's their job that's what they do.

Boeing has passed the mishap curve in full display of the press ramblings. The aircraft is actually remarkable, imagine that! The added value 787 has secrets within its frame, and its not 5 inches wider which is Airbus' only difference maker over the 787. The all electric scheme has flown in almost four years, where in a few months it will celebrate its fourth years in service. Over 330-787 will be delivered by end of October 2015. The added value of the 787 is becoming realized through those same systems diagnostics. Maintenance cost are now hard numbers and very pleasing to Boeing's customers. A second wave of orders should reflect the pleasing performance of the 787, sans glitches. The brochure given the customers back in 2011 rings true finally.

The A-350 has only three in commercial aircraft flying at this time, and will soon have more. By the time the A-350 has delivered 15 of its type at years end, Boeing will have delivered about 120 during 2015 and totaling 348-787 for the over-all program delivered. (See Chart Below)

*2015 Delivery Projected for Year End

Winging It Chart adjusted for Year end production projections . 

Laying in the weeds during development for Airbus has paid off for its WB order book. Baring any major mishap in commercial service, the A-350-9 will be a steady program forward, which keeps Boeing hopping for years to come. At the end of 2016, Boeing will have an over 400 units delivered lead over A-350 delivered making a significant foot print in the WB  Market. Airbus is betting on additional passenger space and its follow-on optics for the passengers. Boeing has played both to the Airline customer and its passengers with top to bottom advancements. Airlines choose the seat configuration and numbers in passengers for the space available.
,
Both makers have a comparable backlog of around 800 units. However, Boeing is at a 10-12 unit per month rate where Airbus has not achieved even a 1 a month rate since first delivery. Boeing may go under Airbus' Backlog by year's end, depending on any new orders taken in for the makers in the next six months.

This leads into the next topic, the customer reflexes towards having a quicker delivery date from the airplane maker's backlog availability. Boeing certainly has the high ground, since it has devoured backlog from its peak order book number of 1,104-787, and it could it go significantly under the 800 backlog units mark by year's end from a robust production program. Otherwise, the Paris Air Show could change the backlog metric with new order announcements, as Airbus uses this event for its own self-promotion. The Paris Airshow becomes a signal, whether Airbus has anything going on at-all for the year. Boeing may come in with a few 787 surprises (orders), as I am suspecting. The first three months Boeing showed a normal progression of orders each month.. The pace of announcement has lessened, as customers may be waiting for this year's next event for its big bang, and attention generation during the Paris Airshow event. It looks as if both manufacturers will hover around 800 WB's to be delivered from its backlog by end of 2015. I would not be surprised if Boeing's Backlog goes back up to, and over 850 787's after the Paris Announcements.

Reference Credit: All Things 787