Scoot Has Started Its Own Purge Line With The 787

Clear from Boeing's 787 Surge line out of Everett's Mega Building, Scoot Airlines has started its own Purge Line. It is administering a holistic approach, by replacing each of its family of existing larger aircraft with an exclusivity for Boeing 787 models. They are taking in one 787 a month since the first of the year in 2015. July, Scoot received its first 787-8, the smaller of the two currently available Boeing models. It has already received five 787-9's.






The last 777-200  Scoot operates will go away by late August 2015, while more 787 are on the way. The surge/purge will result in a total of Ten 787-9's, and Ten 787-8's, as the company expands by becoming an all 787 fleet of twenty. This purging of the old inventory, and its 787 expansion will represent a first with what the 787 model can do for a business plan in total. Boeing's marketing talking points can use Scoot's 2016 financial results, having a true picture what the all 787 fleet does to an Airline's Bottom line.

Budget Airlines beware, Scoot has your number.

Like The 787, The DDG Zumwalt Has Teething Problems

The DDG 1000 stalls "the works" or as insiders call it,  "Teething woes". Sounds familiar to Boeing's own transition from 20th century to 21st century technology, as it had processed with the 787 project. The 787 "Teething Woes" were a headline feature from 2007-2013. A five year maturation process before customers exhaled. The Zumwalt is now welcomed into the BIW fold of "Teething Woes" and Boeing's exclusive club.  

Report: Zumwalt 'Teething Problems' Affecting BIW's Competitiveness

While Bath Iron Works remains tasked with some 20th century Burke class Destroyers, or the DDG51's and above group, it is also bogged down with the Zumwalt class destroyer as pictured. A whole new evolution of technology is stuffed on-board the Zumwalt. This dock side appearance represents thousands of resources expended on its existence. The BIW was awarded the bid for many more, then it was cut by the Navy, down to three of its types, as costs rose on the project. BIW was hooked and landed by the Navy. DOD made a pivot towards the 1990's Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, back filling its ranks and sustaining the Navy's fleet renewal program.

Since BIW immense resources are tied to a changed Zumwalt program, which was recently dead-ended, it finds itself losing out to competitors from Mississippi during the Zumwalt gridlock. The Navy is a fickle mistress with flighty aspirations.

BIW thought all along, it was the premier ship builder worthy of the Zumwalt assignment. The too pricey project was served by Congressional slights in a down size resolution. The Mississippi ship builders gleefully picks up where BIW stalled with the Navy's closure on the Zumwalt three.

UPI:

"Our shipbuilders are very excited about beginning the fabrication process of another DDG 51 destroyer, especially one named after the first Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy," said George Nungesser, Ingalls' DDG 51 program manager. "Serial production provides the most effective and efficient way to build ships, and this is our fourth ship started in three years." 

Ima Black reacts after starting a plasma cutter machine at Ingalls Shipbuilding, officially beginning construction of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), which is named in honor of her late husband. Photo by Andrew Young/Huntington Ingalls Industries.

Hot Link Boeing $9.97 Billion-US 767 Order: Confirmed By Fedex

Winging It Hot Link for a quick review.

Winging IT Original Report July 10, 2015 Before Its News Legs

Boeing 2nd Quarter, EVA Airways plans to buy 24 to 26 Boeing 787 jets

Rueters report: 

"Boeing Co posts second-quarter results. The company on Friday said it will take a $536 million after-tax charge related to its aerial refueling tanker for the U.S. Air Force. The commercial aircraft business will still show strong underlying growth, after delivering 381 commercial jets in the first half, more than half of its annual target of 750-755 jets. The company also announced that EVA Airways plans to buy 24 to 26 Boeing 787 jets for around $65 billion at listed price, with delivery slated for 2018 to 2019."

Quarterly reports sometimes are all about notations and not the rock hard crunched numbers. The Taiwan Air, EVA, considers 787 in a Boeing purchase footnote, and it comes at time as if it were a smoothing pink solution for Boeing's 787 order book. It’s an indication of Boeing's relentless sales pursuit of note. EVA and 787 are considered a mutually exclusive impression by most people not familiar with Taiwan. However, this drawing board notion becomes interesting, since EVA hauls passengers in and from the region to North America.

WSJ 24/7: 2ND QUARTER pre announcement speculations. "Boeing also may say something about its 777 orders. The company announced a new order Tuesday morning for four of the freighter versions of the plane from Taiwanese airline EVA Air. The company needs to add about 40 to 60 orders annually for the current version of the 777 in order to keep the production line running. The new version of the plane, the 777X, is not scheduled for first deliveries to customers until 2020. 

The second quarter for Boeing becomes a much needed second quarter exhale during 2015. All-in-all, Boeing financials seems to reflect its business churning on several fronts from military contracts, freight orders, and commercial intrigue. This comes as its on the cusp of making its financial goals. Its vulnerability is in the cash flow section as mentioned, since it is a finite positive condition. Boeing keeps using the positive flow propping up its development costs from its production generating the surplus cash, all the while, sustaining its positive position. Boeing can use its cash infusions, applied to its concurrent programs, but at some point cash can become a finite source for pushing its frames to customers. Even though Boeing pushes out the next Boeing 787, it currently costs more than the delivered price. The economic 787 engine has its limits for its cash position, as analysed in the second quarter 2015 report.

Boeing knows this too well and is striving to turn the 787 production efficiency into a financial efficiency by this year's end. It’s well positioned itself by  the end of the second quarter for a positive production condition, only when delivering its 787 as it begins gaining more cash flow above its production cost, even though for a long time it took more cash to build the 787 than it received at delivery. That condition of positive cash will be an announced 2015 benchmark for year’s end. Once more, Boeing claims the build at delivery will have an actual revenue value above  and ahead of the production cost of goods sold. Currently cash is sourced from: stock sales/price, bonds, sales transactions, and debt. 

The Cash position on the 787 by 2016 will stand on its productions shoulders. Cash position vs COGS for every unit delivered.

• 737 NG +
• 747-8 +
• 777 300 ER +
• 787 - (until January 2016)
• 737 Max (Cash flowing into the program is considered an investment until its first deliveries)
• 777X (same status as the Max Program)

Cash will become a scarce commodity for programs unless the 787 turns a corner in early 2016 when Boeing builds each 787 for less than what the customers pay for it.

Part III: Key Aerial Refueling Capabilities Should Be Demonstrated Prior to the Production Decision

Part III Winging IT: The GAO report is an auditor's delight. The decision point comes in October for all players scripted in this immense saga of the KC-46 Tanker program. Aviation Class take note; Read the GAO report before raising your hand and then write a 500 word essay on what it actually means for Boeing and its KC-46 problems. 

Winging It Findings and Recommendation:

The GAO Report Link April 2015 Your reading assignment "should be" completed before making comments.

Having read through it, I came to several conclusions, the GAO audit was cautiously crafting warnings, while sounding calm about the whole matter. Cost to the government are below expectations. Cost excessive conditions for Boeing, isn’t a GAO’s problem.

However, the Taxpayer and aviation junkies should know this, Boeing has its hands full on this project, since it’s a fixed cost on Boeing’s shoulders weighted down by the specter of cost over-run.

Secondly, all the issues not delved into explicitly by the GAO remains a dangerous tight rope for Boeing. Parts in the fueling area haven’t reached a state of completeness or otherwise known as engineering open problems are running in the background, as exampled with some fuel delivery systems, remaining on the design table renderings.

What does that mean to Boeing? Anything on the design table is costing Boeing until completed and is not ready for gaining a full Air Force Validation or a demonstration of its operational competency in front of the government compliance teams.

Let’s cut to the chase: The GAO cheat sheet

“The program is also working to resolve other development challenges that pose additional schedule risk to the flight test pace needed to demonstrate aerial refueling capabilities, such as late delivery of parts, software defects, and assumptions related to flight test cycle times. These challenges could result in additional schedule delays. The following is a summary of these development challenges and any steps Boeing is taking to address them."

Findings points: By Government Accountability Auditors

Officials of GAO's Corporation Audits Division, 1949.

Ted Westfall is fourth from the left.

• Late delivery of parts for aircraft final assembly: Boeing’s suppliers are having difficulties delivering several key aerial refueling parts. For example, the telescope actuator, which extends and retracts the boom, needs to be redesigned in order to work properly. A redesigned telescope actuator is tentatively scheduled to be delivered in April 2015, enabling the boom that will be used to support the July/August 2015 demonstration flights to be delivered two weeks prior to its June 2015 need date. In another example, the supplier of the wing aerial refueling pod and center-line drogue system is experiencing delays in delivering these subsystems due to design and manufacturing issues with a number of parts. To stay within schedule targets, Boeing and the supplier have developed a plan to complete parts qualification testing and safety of flight testing in parallel. Program officials have said that one of the risks of this parallel approach is that discoveries during safety of flight testing could drive design changes that would then require qualification testing to be re-done. Boeing has sent engineers and other staff to help the aerial refueling suppliers overcome these challenges, and held regular management meetings to stay abreast of the latest developments.

9 GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-14-340SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2014). Page 15 GAO-15-308 KC-46 Tanker Aircraft 

• Defects in delivered software: Boeing and the program office consider the resolution of software problems as one of the program’s top risks. According to program documentation, open problem reports may have peaked in December 2014, at roughly 780 priority problem reports. Boeing fixed 170 of these problems over the past few months. As of March 2015, however, a little over 600 problem reports were still not resolved, including several hundred that must be addressed prior to the KC-46 first flight, currently planned for June 2015. Many of these problems are related to the military subsystems and either adversely affect the accomplishment of an essential operational or test capability or increase the project’s technical, cost, or schedule risk—and no workaround solution is known. Additional problems may be identified as Boeing integrates the last two software modules related to aerial refueling. Boeing expects to fully integrate these software modules in April 2015, about 10 months later than originally planned.

• Flight test cycle time assumptions: The program may not be able to meet the established time frames, or cycle times for flight testing. Both Boeing and the program office regard maintaining the planned flight test rate of 65 hours per month for the 767-2C aircraft and 50 hours per month for the KC-46 aircraft’s military tests as one of the program’s greatest risks. DOD test organizations have shown that the planned military flight test rate is more aggressive than other programs have demonstrated historically.

10 10 According to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s FY 2011 Annual Report, military testing experience with aircraft including the P-8, C-17, C-130J, C-27, and C-5 reflects fewer than 30 flight hours per aircraft per month on average.

·      The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation also reported that the test schedule does not include sufficient time to address deficiencies discovered during tests. Despite these concerns, Boeing predicts that it can achieve the flight test rates as it has local maintenance and engineering support and control over the flight test priorities as testing is being conducted at Boeing facilities. Deviations from its proposed flight test cycle times could pose risk to the program’s ability to capture the knowledge necessary to hold the low-rate production decision in October 2015. 

Page 16 GAO-15-308 KC-46 Tanker Aircraft Boeing provided an updated schedule to the program office in January 2015 that may address some of the risks we highlighted. 

·      As part of the updated test plan, the program office and Boeing also revised their approach to conducting operational test and receiver aircraft certification. The new approach re-phases some receiver aircraft certification and shifts test execution responsibility for 10 receiver aircraft from Boeing to the government. This approach may result in adding additional risk to the program should the Air Force fail to complete the testing on time. The new schedule and associated contract modifications are expected to be approved by early 2015. Program officials stated that they are reviewing the information to determine whether they need to further adjust milestone dates, including the low-rate production decision and the start of operational test. That analysis has not yet been completed.

The GAO survey team that studied the feasibility of opening an office in Europe in 1952 Note: Ted Westfall is no longer fourth from Left and is missing from the European Junket. The stiffs were not included in photo.

...and you thought I would feature a KC-46 Tanker Picture. It’s always been about auditing and not aviation! 

The Marquis of Queensbury rules says these are friendly slaps of encouragement administered to Boeing. The real rubber meets the pavement event, arrives during October 2015, when it is determines if Boeing can actually start its slow build rate for the KC-46. If it does not gain approval in October 2015 for an initial build rate, it means it did not solve many of the critical problems found within the program during the interim time, as suggested with the GAO summary report.  

Part I: Boeing KC-46 Takes Write-off for stock holders, Fixes found during phase 1.

Part II: Develop, Determine and Deliver The KC-46 Phase II

Either by Hose and Drogue or by Boom, KC-46 Scores Success.

The news is when "another GAO interim report is due", as it comes before the decision to proceed is granted for Boeing. This is an important news event for the KC-46 program, which all aviation outlets should be tuned-into, as part of the running up to the "October’s Build Status" announcement. 

Part II: Develop, Determine and Deliver The KC-46 Phase II

With the recent write-off of $536 Million on KC-46 Tanker (767), Boeing has moved into phase II or what I call it the "Determination" Phase II through its flight validations. All ground tested systems are now loaded up after all its quirky non-conforming items have been ironed out. The ground development phase should be whole at this time. The main mission is refueling and Boeing just wrote the corporate check on the fuel management solutions found during phase 1. All other systems are ancillary to that main mission. The defensive systems, multi role capability and electronic warfare elements incorporated into the frame are generally tested, and applied through other aviation platforms.  The over-all risks of the KC-46 development aircraft are generally risk averse at this time. 

Boeing Defense Space and Security 

The door remains wedged open a crack for any unforeseen risk going into phase II "Determinations Phase", or otherwise its avionic realm for validation. It has to fly integrating all its systems under operational stresses. The last minute tweaks will run into the future and beyond, since it’s the always improving model for the military.  Systems integration should have been run and completed, during the last eighteen months of this project. The radar, communications and computer management all should have worked together while functioning as a simulation in some Boeing building used for applying the KC-46 operational capability. The complete integrated management systems are now installed on the first fully loaded test frame, awaiting its initial flight testing, validating its over-all integration of its systems and avionics in flight. The KC-46 battle promise and bid proposition, must come to fruition, since Boeing was awarded the KC-46 Tanker bid now rest with Boeing's reputation on the "flight line". 

July 20, 2015 stock Analysis Quotation: From "Financial News" . co . uk

"Increased company investment in the program primarily is being driven by required rework on the airplane´s integrated fuel system that was identified as Boeing prepared for and conducted test and verification of that system during the second quarter. The added investment will support the engineering redesign, manufacturing retrofit and qualification and certification of the fuel system changes, and the conclusion of ground and flight testing on the program. 

Paraphrased by Winging IT Below : continues the quote...

The KC-46 fuel system is a complex, integrated system that provides fuel to the aircraft´s engines and advanced capabilities to refuel other aircraft in flight. It is also the final major system road block under scrutiny as it is also the primary objective for the project during the KC-46 development program. Non-fuel related system qualification testing is now more than 90 percent complete, and the overall ground and flight test program continues to progress melding together both environments in a test framework. Looking at initial airworthiness flight tests successfully completed in the second quarter, the KC-46 is almost ready to come out and play for Boeing.

Is Boeing nervous? A certain degree of uncertainty is hidden by thinkers at Boeing, and its subcontractors who think, "We’ve got this covered!" The worst case scenario is nothing works during the first fully implemented/loaded aircraft. The most optimal experience is everything really works fantastic. Somewhere between these two bookend outcomes, is the truth. Boeing believes the outcome will always need improvement to some degree. If in fact by proving a systems concept, it now enables the contractor or Boeing to go further from its early success with testing. They are now assured of the next progression step for the military. The "what we've learned" curve starts climbing rapidly. The military could become giddy over tests results and order additional add-ons based on flight tests. Or Boeing could bog down in the developmental swamp of despair, since it’s on Boeing head to make it right with the military. The latter is unlikely since the 767 is a marvelous flying machine for the last 30 years. Fueling was always the crazy card not yet played. After-all fueling is its main mission for multiple customers at the same time. Freight a second mission Boeing has in spades. Defensive systems is always a works-in-progress venture. By the time the KC-46 serves one year in the field, new updates to its capabilities will be on the way. The battle field doesn't stand still nor do its adversaries.

Getting it right in flight testing with a fully implemented KC-46 tanker is the big show. It means so much for the home team awardee and its military. Anything short of meets expectations is a failure for the procurement process and Boeing. Exceeds expectation is truly a time to celebrate both the contractor and process was absolutely correct.

In order for Boeing to exceed expectations it must accomplish all its talking points found in the bid process. It must deliver its vision for the KC-46. The range, the systems and its capability must be spot on. The fueling boom (s) must work right out of the wrapper, when installed and as advertised. The convertibility to medical or evacuation missions must be flawless. In all, the concept actually works well and the military can go forward with all its lessons learned.

If Boeing meets expectations, Boeing will need spending more money than what it intended for the project. It will fix everything not meeting expectation during tests to a final solution for meeting expectations. It will cost them.

However, a does not meet expectation conclusion will devastate the program and the bid process. Everybody has skin in the game. It meant, Boeing could not get one or more features working as required. If the fueling booms need extensive redesign or even additional adjustment beyond original expectations, it is a failure for the contractors, and will cost them significant money. If the complex fueling software codes are in a severe rewrite mode, it also becomes a program failure. If the KC-46 has an inadequate mission capability for its ancillary purposes, such as fright, troops or medical missions it becomes a does not meet expectations.  Boeing got beyond all these outcomes in phase I. Risk is now low for the program. The GAO wants a proof of concept before production starts for the delivery phase. It is a SOP compliance request and gets the GAO off the hook if production models are flawed. (See link at bottom of page for full GAO report)

Part I: Boeing KC-46 Takes Write-off for stock holders, Fixes found during phase 1.

Part III: Key Aerial Refueling Capabilities Should Be Demonstrated Prior to the Production Decision

Either by Hose and Drogue or by Boom, KC-46 Scores Success.

Having any low rating, compromises all of the acquisition processes, contractor, and military, where it ends up loosing, and most of all this nation looses. 

Winging Surplus Item: It's Free therefore surplus if you click on the below link.

GAO Report KC-46 April, 2015

Seat / Range: Measuring A Hidden Airline Capabililty

The Seat Range is a combination of many factors. Starting with the most influential affect, the airline payload weight. Most 777-300-ER's are constrained by how far it can travel, and how many people can it seat for that distance. The 777-300-ER is champion on that mater. Weight and distance are the underlying factors for finding the airline loads with maximum efficiency. Then comes the ticket price off that number of seats sold on a particular route. All routes are not equal on ticket prices. All passenger loads are not equal on routes.

The problems are enumerated by these simple factors:

·                Fuel Load

·                Passenger Load

·                Direction

·                Distance

Longer routes have an exponential growth of fuel loads. This insidious weight factor becomes exponential for every mile traveled. For every pound of fuel loaded, it needs more pounds of fuel to carry its own base fuel load as needed for the journey. The regression analysis is required within this formula as the weight diminishes for every mile traveled. The aircraft will need less fuel during the 2nd half of the journey, than it required during the first half or during its take-off. Fuel weight is burned off at a higher rate at the start. Call this formula #1. 

This is a function of diminishing weight variable. (d)

The passenger load is dead weight staying constant throughout the flight. It can be formulated for every pound of associated passenger weight (luggage, passenger, and airline services/supplies). This also determines how much fuel it will need loaded from the fuel required formulation, going on the stated route and distance? It is a simpler formula #2, for the math minded analyst. However, that constant dead weight is added into the exponential formula for its over-all fuel requirement using a regression based formulation. 

This is called a function of constant Weight (w).

The fuel line on a graph will have a downward swooping graphic from its start, demonstrating first fuel load weight burn-off during take-off, and then the fuel consumption curves gradually until it will flatten out on the graph slope before its landing, representing the fuel is expended during the trip at a diminishing rate conserving an  intact fuel reserve. An optimized fuel load represents pounds of fuel required for safely making the distance given all the factors.

Direction is important as trip East bound from Australia to the US burns a different amount of fuel than its return trip West Bound back to Australia from the US. The seat capacity for airplane types is mostly constant number for long thin routes. Seats are what an Airline controls in the variable formulation as what it would be choosing for its best choice of airplane manufacturer considering its own routes and seats. 

It’s all about wind drag at this point contained in formula #3. (h) coefficient for heading.  

Then it becomes the  Lift & drag coefficients applied considering resistance variables according to its speed requirement and FL,  when applying factors against its opposing forces (such as: wind direction and atmosphere density per ceiling FL). 

Finally, distance is the most import aspect of the airline strategy. Getting your paying customer to the location they want in high numbers for its Airline financial reward. First you need the aircraft capable of doing that for the smallest costs while giving customers the most competitive ticket price offered. Aircraft Weight and Heading, affects the distance traveled for the passengers, this requires a formula #4. 

Range is the variable (r) solution based on all other functions of (d) variable, (w) fixed, and (h) variable.

ANA fixed its 787-8 seat numbers with under 200 seats and eight across seating. It sells its 787-8 seats as the most comfortable airplane of its type. Good move ANA! When in fact it looked at its routes, direction, and fuel prices, during this time before conducting its Boeing discussions and ordering, it probably had not thought about its over-all passenger comfort first, since it needed to apply its long routes to the ANA travel model first, it then could propose how to configure its 787-8 with passengers. The seating step was an out growth of optimization with the 787-8 abilities in 2007. 

ANA crunched its numbers in a varying degrees of optimization. They were the first customer, and had no competition for the 787-8, and it was about to order. ANA provided no showmanship through placing 334 seats on the 787 -8, as Jet Star has done with its 787-8 order. They shot for the sweet spot of 186 seats on the 787-8, and then advertised how comfortable the 787-8 would be. Perhaps ANA may opt in the next round of 787 orders by going with a configuration of 330 seats on its next batch of 787's ordered. It would complete its first contemplation it had for the 787-300 of a regional people mover.

Now comes market maturity for the 787 family where some buyers of the 787-9 are going with 216 seats, BA is the customer example in mind, while other airlines are stuffing the 787, as if it were a passenger buffet in the Jet way.   

Boeing 777-300-ER in PA's Livery

Philippines Airlines (PA) is considering the 787 family or having the A-350 as its only WB child at this time. Yes, it has a step child called A-330 NEO (Range?) for offering on PA's regional routes. The big question is who will win the order, Boeing or Airbus? PA wants to replace its aging fleet of six A-340, as it would have a leg up over Boeing since it’s an Airbus replacement. However, PA also owns 6, 777 300-ER’s. Giving Boeing back a leg up over Airbus for that consideration. The A-350-1000 doesn't compete with the 777X. The 787-10 could easily fly PA's routes to North America, and may not need any additional seat number adjustments when configuring a Boeing product for the range proposed. Boeing is competing against the A-350-1000, as its expectation from any Airbus offer. This is truly a key decision, for best fit that an airline needs for the direction they want to head. And yeah, PA is looking for a giveaway price.

One rule of economics, is having a finite resource directs a price variability (supply) during demand periods. The fuel price is the critical variable going forward from having fuel as a finite amount, Even though the economic engines of the world are in a constant hunt for alternative fuels, oils and better technology. The end of cheap motive power for the airplane jet engine is in sight. However, a Boeing silver bullet has emerged from the "efficient" operative word. It's up to Boeing Marketing to make it more "effective" in the market place.

The PA dilemma is choosing what will be the most efficient for its own purpose of competing, and satisfying its customers. Boeing puts a premium on its techno efficiency, and Airbus covers its own short falls against Boeing, with a slant on size and opulence, as its only and main talking values. Manufacturer separation will occur when operational and fuel resources tighten. Boeing is positioned well for natural economic rule of supply and demand when fuel markets return to its former levels of expense. When would PA get its fleet renewal airplanes, is the important question, for which becomes a sensitive fuel price or operational expense confinement at that time?

Using the top four bullet points in PA's decision making process, they must consider the direction they want to go in first. The fuel burn points becomes a constant, while the direction the company needs to travel, becomes its primary decision point. The weight factor constantly drags the airplane down on the route chart. Does PA go with the ANA model or the Jet Star model? As always, its somewhere in between. I believe it will be the 787-10 for six ordered and the 777X model for six. 

The A-330-NEO doesn't have its distance chops when PA aspires towards more North American routes and its winds. Hang in there 787-8, PA is looking. 

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

Winging It needs to go on a tangent. Making sense out of useless factors.

Number of seats= n
Distance Traveled=nm or (k)
Fuel Required per seat (f)
Load Factor (.85)

Word problem: If airline X needs to go from Manilla to LA it will need 35,000 gallons to fly 280 (nth) passengers. What is the gallon to passenger relationship using these conditions.

It would take 125 gallons for each passenger to get to LA The fuel bill for each passenger is $3.19 US per gallon x's $125= $399 US. A direct fuel cost is represented in the airline ticket price. However, it gets complicated rapidly after that. 

If the load Factor (L) is @ .85 on a given day for passengers. (.85 X's 280P = 235(P)) passengers ticketed on average for its route. The load factor (w) is reduced as will the (d) fuel load will be reduced. But by how much? That is the manufacturer's talking point through its marketing teams presentations. The .85 passenger load factor is pretty much standard number for most airlines. If it goes below .79 then the airline starts to bleed profits out. 

The fuel load requirements become a direct calculation on a fixed passenger weight established with its modeling aspects from airline's own calculations. The computer optimizes fuel load and weights instantly as you stand in-line checking in for a ticket. What an airline wants to know before buying its new aircraft are the proposed model's metrics found within its own operational scenarios or with its current direct competitors or potential future competitors. If a competitor operates Airbus equipment, Boeing must demonstrate how a potential customer will come out using real data from actual operational data without disclosing the source. let the Games begin with PA.

Ryanair Is Beating Airbus The Old Fashioned Way

Its doing it with one 737 at a time in Europe. In a place, where often a plan does not come together. Airbus says its A320 NEO is better than, well just about anything Boeing has tried. Then here comes Ryanair on the A-320 heels throughout Europe.

WILL RYANAIR HOLDINGS PLC (NASDAQ:RYAAY) SURPRISE THIS QUARTER?

Quote: Investor's News

"Most recently for the quarter ending on 2015-03-31, Ryanair Holdings plc (NASDAQ:RYAAY) posted a surprise factor of 140%. The company reported actual earnings of $0.12 which was $0.07 away from what analysts were projecting on a consensus basis.

“Ryanair Holdings plc (Ryanair Holdings), is a holding company for Ryanair Limited (Ryanair). Ryanair operates a low-cost, scheduled-passenger airline serving short-haul, point-to-point routes between Ireland, the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, and Morocco. As of June 30, 2012, the Company offered approximately over 1,500 scheduled short-haul flights per day serving approximately 160 airports largely throughout Europe with an operating fleet of 294 aircraft flying approximately 1,500 routes. Ryanair sells seats on a one-way basis. The Company also holds a 29.8% interest in Aer Lingus Group plc. As of June 30, 2012, Ryanair’s operating fleet was composed of 294 Boeing 737-800 aircraft, each having 189 seats. Ryanair’s fleet totaled 294 Boeing 737-800s at March 31, 2012. As of June 30, 2012, Ryanair owned and operated four Boeing 737-800 full flight simulators for pilot training.”

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

No matter how much Airbus touts its aircraft the bottom line speaks louder. A 140% increase in financial performance is shared by the 737 performance. Ryanair has made inroads into the European market that Boeing itself has not made through its marketing. Ryanair is simply slamming the Region's market with the 737-8 NG. What's up next does not bode well for operator's of the A-320 NEO. Ryanair is coming to play with its huge 737 Max-200 order. You may say, "what's a Max 200"?

Here it is with its 197 seats

The Max 200 is the consummate people mover at 522 MPH. It will go three thousand miles from where you will be standing in the Jet Way. The "I want outa here", appeal at a discounted price, targeting the central demographic of the traveling public. 

Wiki Table

Part I: Boeing KC-46 Takes Write-off for stock holders, Fixes found during phase 1.

Boeing has taken a $536 Million after Tax write-off on the KC-46 project as it completes loose ends on the project. It will affect share prices for 77 cents per share on Boeing stocks this quarter. It also directly affects total earnings for the year. Boeing sees the tanker business as an $80 Billion business, and has expected some write- downs on this project from its corralled bidding parameters. The US Defense Department has a stop loss of 4.9 Billion capped on the project. Boeing must take up the slack for anything past the $4.9 Billion it spends. Hence, the $536 Million after Tax Boeing write-off.

Part II: Develop, Determine and Deliver The KC-46 Phase II

Part III: Key Aerial Refueling Capabilities Should Be Demonstrated Prior to the Production Decision

Either by Hose and Drogue or by Boom, KC-46 Scores Success.

Optimism for stock holders comes from the knowledge of project progression. It's approaching the 90% line of completion for all systems for the aircraft. The remaining 10% typically is the testing and successful installation of integrated systems. The important point here includes its main purpose of refueling management and it is nearing completion for a refueling tanker mission. The integration of its fueling system for multi type aircraft and its situational applications for all warfare environments. The 1.2 billion added charge-off is before the tax amount. It also represents a financial recognition of a phase completed, otherwise Boeing would have not written it off at this time.

The write -off is a turning point for the program, as the most complex part of the program is gaining readiness for real operational testing. This check list item is important to the program as it is the integral functionality of the aircraft's mission scope. I would not expect another write-off or additional cost of this stature in the future for the KC-46, unless the military makes an addendum RFP on the project, or Boeing encounters a program altering road block during the last test phases it is about to enter. To put it simply, the write-off represents Boeing as having its ducks in a row for the KC-46 project. Full flight tests is the final phase as its conclusive testing phase begins, using all its integrated systems flying and working while meeting those expectations established during the development's ground phase. 

Boeing Rendering

On time delivery for Boeing is important as it opens more opportunity with other customers, once it delivers the first batch of 18 KC-46 by August 2017.

Boeing Books 50 737 Unidentified

50 Unidentified 737 orders have been noted on the Boeing Book. I will take a stab at it, and call them China Eastern's Order, in hiding, which was announced by Winging It on July 9, 2015 call out.

Boeing Orders and Deliveries

"Adding the fifty to last year’s 80 single aisle also confirmed, it brings China Eastern's organization with 130 Boeing single aisle ordered in two years."

I will be excited if Boeing can announce another 50 767 freighters by Fedex before long. By years end, Boeing will have a decent order book comparable to Airbus in some cases and exceeding it on several class types which signal Boeing has come back, making a feisty competitor customers love to do business with. 

A 2014 "Winging It" Feature Explains The China Syndrome of Orders.

It’s all “unannounced enigma Customers” making up "The China Syndrome" of Single Aisle !!!