Then there was Block 10 F-35's

The attempts of the going against  F-35 becomes a possibility of success using currently built 4th generation fighters, which makes a "golden shot" or uses "silver bullets". Tests evaluation has enumerated 270 deficiencies most notably centered on its super computer capability. It sounds like a Windows 95, 7, and 10 progression which Microsoft wrestled with over the last several decades for all its business suites and operating systems it had developed.

The Windows program story is replicated in the F-35 program development. A measurement starts with what is flying and what is envisioned to be flying later in the development. The testing office says, "It’s inadequate until 270 deficiencies are solved and that will take until 2019 to resolve the F-35's combat capability and programming installations. The current block 2F installed and 3i testing of its flying capability relegates the F-35 to America's backyard over vast empty spaces.

It is not war ready, but is ready to give a lot of people something to think about. It only has Block "3P" installed at this time. "P" for possibilities referencing the original vision. Currently, it is just a paper money shredder at this time. Fly it in combat and every copy will sink another $120 million into the ground if it fails, as it is not even ready for 4th generation fighters having upgrades.

The Block 10 contract is on the verge of signing, making more production copies performing at version 3i. The block 3F-4F versions will fight and not remain in the national scabbard as the former block 2F and 3i must do. The best way to look at the progression is to simplify the how this works out in functionality progression.

• ·      2F- Base testing model: Quote: "It Flies like a fighter" 2011
• ·      3i- Development testing Quote: "It has so many options (270 errors) so little time" 2015
• ·      3F  Program execution Quote:   "It will mop up the skies" by 2019"
• ·      4F  Program enhancements Quote: "I always knew you would amount to something" 2021

The F-35 4F brain is the quest and everything before it is the journey. So when the program tester, Says it has, "270 problems", he is doing his job well because the program chief has found enough flaws validating the process going towards its excellence of its vision.

The most expensive and most complex fighter in the world can't be matched by 2021. Other nations do not have the resources, capabilities, or expertise to make an F-35. They have the know-how for building pilot centered great aircraft, but not a smart aircraft which carries a pilot as the US is currently building. Contract Block 10 is a measure of the F-35 progressions. Lockheed would build 90 more follow-on supported by Block 3F  development, once Block 10 is signed.

It has been stated the score card as follows:

• ·      Block 10- 3F 3i
• ·      Block 1-12 2F-3i-3F, 490 cumulative F-35's
• ·      Block 12-14 3F 452 additional F-35's

By 2021 a total of 942 F-35's having brains of Block 2F through 4F capabilities. The program will be go time unless world war strikes first. I do not want war for the sake of any pride or inventions, but America will be well defended if something terrible does occur.

Japan Airlines 787-9 Strategy Reveal

THE JAL GROUP WILL: FROM JAL’s WEBSITE

"Pursue the material and intellectual growth of all our employees; Deliver unparalleled service to our customers; and Increase corporate value and contribute to the betterment of society."

The top 79 seats is all about the above corporate mission as stated through its seat pitch and seating arrangements.

Business class suggest no need for a "First class" offering, as it will provide: 1.88 meter (74 inches) lay flat having a private compartment with a sliding privacy screen. It is a six seats across business space.

JAL Business Class 787-9

Premium Economy provides seven across 42" pitch ("snap" or cool) with 19.5 inch of seat width causing shins to heal on the flight from the prior premium premium economy flight going to and fro from Australia on a competitor airline. The 35 seats is more than adequate for long distance meeting the corporate goal:

“Deliver unparalleled service to our customers; and Increase corporate value and contribute to the betterment of society.”

JAL Premium Economy 787-9

The dreaded economy environs is up next on JAL's 787-9 having 116 weight paying customers seated in a 19" W by 33" pitch. Shins are spared and seat reclined becomes appropriate for each seat's tail gunner. By-The Way, it's eight across gaining the extra width and space.

JAL Economy 787-9

JAL only has to work backwards with its math assigning the price as it starts with a profit derived from various sources of less fuel burn per mile from having less weight and having a money relation with added passenger space. In a Crammit-Up Airline they will have close to three hundred seats so costs penalties of weight are assigned on each ticket. Space becomes an option. If the Crammed airline sells ticket at a rate 50% cheaper than JAL's offering then a proportional pay per quality issue arises.

The "Crammit-Up Airline" sells an economy seat going to Japan for 1,000 dollars where JAL will go $400 higher at $1,400. Therefore, in this example, the JAL seat price ratio is set at 1.4 over the medium seat price of any cut rate ticket price found within any prescribed route. The .4 revenue increase for JAL per seat makes far more money than a crammed full airline charging prices close to a profit margin. Less weight gives more money to JAL going to the US or Europe. The economy airline has a passenger boat anchor with full loads and it must remain risk adverse only by finding 300 customers for each trip.

When going with fast foods or going to Ruth Chris Steak House there is a great quality variance between the two types of food purveyors.  JAL hopes to exceed a Ruth Chris type experience from the above corporate mission culture and not seek Big Mac customers. There are enough customers out there for both types of airlines who prefer the cheap or going in style having long range space provided with its corporate style since it is trying "to contribute to the betterment of society".   

Article Reference Material Ausbt.com

Waning Sales for Mega Builder?

Despite competition between mega builders of aircraft and inspite of active sales efforts a waning of the order book is predicted for 2017. Boeing and Airbus both have a trend breaking scenario thrown in the way. The trend is for quiet sales placed during 2017. The best way of analyzing the  2017 projection is to go model by model pass fail grading or assigning a letter grade for each class and a certain indicator is giving a P/F designation with a dashed letter grade.

737 Family     P-C+

767 Freight     F-D

747 all            F-F

777 ER or X   P-C-

787 Family     P-B-

GPA= 1.6 (probation)

Boeing is facing mediocrity of a classic nature. Those class of aircraft on a life line will implode and those aircraft that are the "stars" will fight to stay awake. There are a few surprises coming in 2017 and a few disappointments coupled with having a wake for the 747.

The 737 family will continue to pop corks with cheap wine in break rooms around the Boeing world. The 767 freight division will go zip for half the year and then the KC-46 comes out to play receiving its well earned D and a Failed order book.

The 747 is dead on arrival as the backlog evaporates during 2017. Even a lucrative AF-1 contract with the US government is a fitting farewell as Trumps looks at the last big American show goeing by the way of  the Barnum and Bailey Circus.

777 is the poster child for the buying appetite of great airplanes during 2017. It will have a "meah year", as the big players have weighed during the last three years. The 777X could be a second year no-show while the 777-ER should pick up all the leaner's from last year.

The 787 is an order book juggernaut. It took in about 68 orders in 2016 and it has possibilities to exceed that number for 2017. A wishfully optimistic prediction is a 100 787's or a more cautious sane view is for 40 in the upcoming year grading out at B-.

The GPA is probationary and it represents the buying sources to be maximized from the last five years. This hold true for Airbus since it is difficult to find who would place an order that hasn't already placed an order. Only successful customers from the last two years have incentive to buy its favorite aircraft going forward. 

The year 2017 may become a C- year and a Pass for Boeing.

Here are Wild Analytical Guesses (WAG) or orders for the line-up.

2017 WAG:

737 Family     550

767 Freight        6

747 all               0

777 ER or X      20

787 Family       40

Total              616

Single Aisle Wars Charted

The single aisle airplane war in numbers between Airbus and Boeing show a status quo relationship with year over year orders, has become a dog fight. The lower flat lines in the graphs below demonstrate the year to year dual in figure 2.

Figure 1 is a blow by blow count of orders taken since Airbus order announcements during 2010. Boeing started its order announcements in 2011.

Fig. 1

The top two graph lines (in Fig. 2) below depict the market share growth between the NEO and the Max. A gradual widening between Airbus and Boeing continues for single aisle NEO/Max units ordered, even though the orders made for both are in a dead heat for orders taken during 2016. The bottom two lines below show a market dogfight.

Fig. 2

Market share percentages found in fig.3 below maintains about a sixty-forty split with Airbus having the lead. If taking the A-321 out of the data it would be a fifty-fifty market in the single aisle division. Boeing has failed to stem the A-321 market with its 737-Max-900 offering.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Sunday Morning Boeing Read

Occasionally, Winging It stumbles upon something interesting in the written press worthy of separate attention. Today an article has reached that thought provoking standard coming clear from London England's, "The Telegraph".

Photo from Seattle Times

'It doesn't matter who is flying higher out of Airbus and Boeing – as long as they are both healthy'  by  Alan Tovey  15 JANUARY 2017 • 8:44PM

The link above proposes what is the best position whether to book orders at some enormously discounted price or build said airplane at some enormously costly venture?

World's largest airline builder becomes lost in the numbers. Are "we" big because we sell more discounted airplanes or our "we" big because we deliver a greater volume of aircraft? The two edge market sword is discussed by the Telegraph. An investor should not look at the size matters equation like its an A-380 double-deck, but should look at the over -all proposition for its airplane health.

As a tease here is one of the article quotes for your reading motivation:

"Airbus reported last week it had taken 731 orders worth $104.9bn in 2016, slightly ahead of Boeing’s 668 orders worth $94bn. (These are list prices: manufacturers offer hefty discounts to secure sales)."

Boeing's Financial Backlog Shrinkage

A little publicized topic in the financial press world is how much has the built value shrunk or increased? In Boeing's case it’s on a slide using the Book to Bill measures for determining the future health of its backlog versus the production pace. Billing or the delivered aircraft is the economic engine driving long range aspiration for any company.

The booking factor is the level of fuel in its tank for the journey. Currently Boeing delivered 115 billion in aircraft during 2016 and booked about 92-94 billion at list prices. Thus sinking the backlog by another 11 billion dollars at list prices for both orders and delivery.

Fortunately for investors the airplane industry is known for cyclic surges for booking and billings where deliveries are more constant than orders. When Boeing maintains a production and delivery pace of about 748 aircraft it must sell about 748 aircraft for backlog replacement in both number and value. This year it shrunk numerically the backlog by 80 units’ over-all. It can be a healthy numerical reduction but it could also indicate it has a thin margin for production goals from having too small of a backlog. The question is, what is the optimal backlog for an industry for assuring financial success?

At this time, Airbus has increased its single aisle backlog beyond a reasonable production capability for its division. It also has a finite duo aisle production future having a static wide bodied order book. Boeing on the other hand is rapidly reducing its backlog while generating cash from its production surge. In time Boeing will need big ticket orders in number and value recovering its lost backlog. The Boeing strategy is two-fold. Give the customer’s timely deliveries and they will order more. Secondly, inflow the cash for building an array of new aircraft for which the customer will again order more. Once again orders are the fuel for the delivery engine and Boeing is running at half tank. 

Airbus has a full tank and sluggish A350 delivery engine. It becomes complicated sorting out whose correct in this situation. Having too little or too much backlog. A smaller backlog reduces production and reduces cash inflows. An over abundant backlog becomes a customer concentric inefficiency and indicates lost financial opportunity for Airbus. 

Somewhere in the middle of all this is the optimal position for any manufacturer’s backlog and production capability. Boeing has run its backlog to optimal without having a strong forecast for orders but this can all change with orders from one airshow.

This is an opinion and does not suggest investment advice for either mega builder of aircraft. The main thing is that both builders find themselves wrestling with different problems before reaching a condition of having the perfect backlog stream of inflows and outflows in a very inconsistent booking market.  The only thing certain is the capability for delivering aircraft at a constant rate. Airbus is struggling but recovering with its production rates as its backlog grows beyond a customer's liking.

World's largest Airplane Builder Is....?

Boeing once again is the World's largest airplane maker and here is the Winging It data from the both framers, Airbus and Boeing: More comment to follow on another post. List prices used as basis.

Data wars below shows Boeing having more units and value at list delivered than  Airbus.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2: Sales Using Best Information becomes an estimate only as both framers keep actual dollar values internal to its accounting.

The F-35 May Undergo Adjunct F-18 Therapy

Everyone who follows military things knows the F-35 costs are too high and the F-18 may lack F-35's multiple attributes. That isn't a bad thing. The F-35 in military parlance, needs a "Wing Man". The F-18 is auditioning for that position. A "wing man covers another aircraft's blinds spots. In this case its money and development failures over the last years. Some think the F-18 is a mission missile that will bring down the F-35.

President elect Trump is swinging his pre-inaugural power using the F-18 as a tactic to bring down cost by suggesting a competition between the two. This is a brilliant idea where a test of the best on best settles why America should spend so much money on the F-35. The outcome of the tests should put naysayers back on the road out of D.C.

The F-18 makes a brilliant wing man. The fourth generation fighter is needed to mitigate the risk of spending so much on something unproven in its whole of concept. It can defeat all known adversaries, not withstanding any new stuff Russia and China are musing with at this time. The F-18 is a force multiplier of the F-35. The F-35 Multi Costs Fighter enhances all fourth generation fighters found in the US arsenal by making them into Multi Role Fighters. The US should not diminish the F-18 capabilities by canceling the F-35 program. President elect should know this and if he doesn't, he is missing the point.

The US will build a better F-18 by partnering with the F-35 in airspace. Most of future conflicts can be won with the F-18 on its own and it will only win all conflicts as an F-35 Wing Man. Both are needed as layers upon layers of defense are needed. The F-18 is needed to transition the US from dogfight conditions to the F-35's battle space capability while it becomes a command and control monster. The day will come where the F-35 is capable of all it has promised, but it needs a bridge getting there using a fourth generation knife during a fifth generation gun battle.

The Iconic 747 Gave Us How Many Seats?

The 747 was an over built giant that determined how many seats is needed for almost every route it flew and sometimes on routes it shouldn't fly. Its 400 seat range on four engines, sometimes didn't fill up the cabin for the fuel that was loaded, and then airlines wanted something better by going with less than 400 seats on just two engines. Then came the wide bodies. The 777 and 787 were more fitted for having less than capacity of tickets on routes that sometimes would become awkward to the financial bottom line. By having twin engine mid-bodies, the empty seat risk on having a four engine 747 was averted. First the 777 XWB and then the 787 came to the rescue, and now United Airlines will retire its 747's in 2017.

The two engine vs four engine and the 250 vs 450 seat strategy is settled. Some like it cold and some like it hot. There is a time and place for the right size and a seat number on every route, and every situation while not cramming 550 in an Airbus A-380 with so many is not the answer, and was a bad business decision because the 747 already answered how many seats is needed.

Boeing as an irritation and a stumbling block for the A-380, introduced the 747-8 on the cheap since it wasn't a clean sheet design and didn't experiment with new technology, but used the already proven and "paid for" 787 technology. The A-380 though, was a clean sheet design trying to beat a 1960's Boeing Idea, the 747.

Boeing had long researched out how many seats for a given route is best for a customer and came up with... well what they came up with was a twin engine wide body. Then United Airlines just announced its retirement of the venerable 747 during 2017. Perhaps this is the customers answer to Boeing's decision of faking out Airbus and then it stumbles into Boeing's trick of playing off the Euro's arrogance when it builds the world’s largest at something. 

Billions invested in the behemoth and so few on backlog. In fact there are more A-380 cancellations than orders over the last few years.  So many Airbus orders lost is an unintended consequence played out when introducing the 777X and the 787. Maybe Boeing research was right when planning only 250 seats taking off twice a day giving passengers a choice of when to depart and having so many choices of where to fly. The common sense of it all beats getting-on only once a day during rush hour at unprepared terminals.

The seat spot was not consulted with when conceiving the A-380 own conventional wisdom. The 747 already had explored the seat potential and then encouraged Airbus to keep up the good work when announcing once again, its 747-8i. At that moment, the A-380 was doomed as Boeing mopped up all its leftovers the Airbus clan had hoped to capture. It lost the freight concept to the 747-8F. It lost out to Boeing customers who would rather not have a double Airbus on the side. It just lost out when pushing forward with some sort of mental momentum, and now this, United retires its 747's!!!. The B team, "loves it when a plan comes together". The newly renamed A-380 relishes in its moniker, "The White Elephant". The soon to be renamed concept, "night-mare liner" reaches the Airbus bottom line as it can't complete its current backlog. 

Most books count 319 A-380's ordered and it has delivered 200 of its type. The backlog stands at 119 by most books tracking this disaster in the "making". The 747 smiles on, "Been there, seen it, and done that". It’s so 1970's, Airbus you rascal. Perhaps Airbus is a quick study since they came out with Rolex (Rolodex) knock-offs called the A-350 800, 900, 1000,1100, 2000, "getting the picture of what it looks like to grasp at straws". An American Indian customer named, "Tonto", would not trade for plastic cutlery like the A-350, kemosabe.

Wikipedia:

"Ke-mo sah-bee (/ˌkiːmoʊˈsɑːbiː/; often spelled kemo sabe or kemosabe) is the term of endearment and inventive catchphrase used by the fictional American Indian sidekick Tonto, in the American television program The Lone Ranger. ... In the 2013 film The Lone Ranger, Tonto states that it means "wrong brother" in Comanche." 

Airbus has underestimated Boeing at every turn with its own air of incompetence. Meanwhile back at the Boeing ranch, United Airlines will receive more 787-9's this year and the 747 makes room on the flight line by retiring. Having your seats in a row before you build something, is more important than just being big.  

"Winging IT" Scrapbook Redux

Going back almost four years is an exciting adventure. The Earth Wind and Fire edition is poetic and so seventies, it has become a classic assembly of metaphors put to music coming from a Chicago theme.

Redux: May 13, 2013

787 Returns On Investment Earth Wind and Fire Edition