[blackwasp]

Aircraft makers Boeing and Airbus are facing hurdles in the production line. While Airbus has fallen back on the delivery schedule by a few months, Boeing has not rescheduled deliveries despite suffering delays from suppliers.

Wing and fuselage maker, Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. has fallen behind due to internal production issues. The company supplies components to both Airbus and Boeing. Boeing has planned to deliver more than 800 units this year, with an increase to more than 900 by 2020.

For 2018, Airbus had promised 80 more jets than last year, but the total aircraft number of aircrafts delivered so far is less than last year's number for the same period. The Airbus A321neo and the A320neo are on hold due to the lack of engines. The A321neo gets its engines from CFM International, a joint venture between General Electric and Safran Aircraft Engines. Earlier this year, Airbus had over 100 finished aircrafts waiting for engines. Boeing has also faced delays due to engine supply issues for its 737 Max planes.

The delay is also affecting airline customers. Primera Air and British Airways (BA), who had placed orders for the A321neo and A320neo respectively, had to make alternate arrangements. While Primera has postponed plans for trans-Atlantic flights, BA resorted to renting some jets and using older and less efficient planes till the new aircrafts arrive. Airbus also sources its engines from Pratt & Whitney, who were also delayed due to a design issue causing premature failure on certain components. Airbus, who had planned around 800 deliveries this year, claims that Pratt & Whitney are now delivering as per schedule.

The surge in aircraft orders is mostly due to the increasing demand for air travel. 2018 is expected to be the ninth year in a row showing an increase in the number of air passengers. Operators also want to use the latest fuel-efficient jets for reduced operating costs.



Source: WSJ

Link to the Team-BHP News

[sri_tesla]

Indian aviation is growing at a record pace for the last 4 years. Passenger growth is more than 20% for the last 4 years. Indian carriers ordered hundreds of jets in the last few years. All major airports are facing slot issues, especially Mumbai and Delhi. New airports at Jewar and Navi Mumbai need to be built as soon as possible along with expansion of existing airports.

Jet orders by Indian airlines:
Indigo: 437 (Airbus A320neo, A321neo LR, ATR 72-600)
Spicejet: 200 + 100 options (Boeing 737 max 8, Bombardier Dash 8 Q400)
Jet airways: 230 (Boeing 737 max 8)
Goair: 127 (Airbus A320neo)
Vistara: 56 (Airbus A320neo, Boeing dreamliner)

Indigo will receive one new plane every 9 days for the next 10 years. Same with Spicejet, Jet Airways, Goair as they will receive new plane every 15 days for the next 9 to 10 years based on current order book.

Central govt along with state govts need to improve infrastructure (new airports and expansion of existing airports), connectivity to airports at a much rapid pace.

[SmartCat]

Meanwhile, there is consolidation in aircraft manufacturing industry and is slowly moving towards duopoly.

Boeing is acquiring Embraer for $4.75 billion
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1K61D6

Airbus will be selling Bombardier jets as their own. Eg: Airbus A220
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

[Sutripta]

^^^
Boeing and Embraer had a close working relationship. But Bombardier was a fire sale. Will we interesting to see how well the two gel.

Regards
Sutripta

[V.Narayan]

Sutripta’s statement, above, says it all. Airbus has the advantage of being free of the baggage of a joint venture/merger though the ex-Bombardier team will need to be integrated and the Canadian 49% shareholder managed. Boeing & Embraer have so far the more sucessful product but they have a marriage to sort out which can be very heavy in consuming management bandwidth. Under Bombardier the C-series stood less of a chance to become a world beater. Under Airbus the sky is the limit.

The regional jet space has suddenly exploded in the last 10 years due to the confluence of –(1) greater traffic point to point between Tier III towns amongst themselves and between Tier IV to Tier III and above. (2) the engines have got more fuel efficient to a point where a small jet can fly 70 pax 3500 kms and make a profit at reasonable break-even load factor (3) Small jets can now fly 4000 - 5000 kms with full reserves. In some ways for shorter routes 100 kms to 400 kms turbo-props still are more fuel efficient but a new longer range market is being catered to by these small regional jets – Gauhati to Bhubaneshwar, Rajkot to Chennai, Amritsar to Vizag. This could have been done by turboprops like the ATR too but I think the average flying customer views turboprops as old world even though they are not.


The E-Series from Embraer spanning different variants from E170 to E195 seating 65 to 100 in a 2 class configuration. Effective range in the 3000 to 4000 kms category. Went for a 2+2 seating arrangement which gives a slimmer fuselage cross section -less drag. Sold 1400+


The C-series of Bombardier now sold as the A220-100. Seats 100 odd in 2-class. Flies 5000 kms+. Has opted for a 5 abreast seating which while it means a wider fuselage gives greater room per pax for overhead cabin baggage – very important today and allows the airline to configure the cabin more flexibily. Order book 400+

Both Airbus and Boeing will come with variants to go down to as small as 60 seaters and as large as 130 seaters. This segment will dominate in the years to come at least where number of aircraft built are concerned.


But there is competition on the horizon ….. Chinese COMAC ARJ21


The Mitsubishi MRJ


The Sukhoi Superjet 100

Prior to this current line up we had the Fokker 100, BAe 146 Avro as regional jets but they were a little ahead of their time. The original regional jets were two:-


The Fokker 28 that entered service in 1969...a very smart design that could carry 65 passengers from Rajkot to Calcutta or Madurai to Chandigarh. It was a commercial success despite a very small home market.


And the Russian Yakolev Yak-40. Introduced in 1968. Over 1000 were built. Still in service. Those were the days when the Russians built passenger airplanes by the hundreds. Sigh. Unusual for jet airliners its wings were unswept and it was designed for routinely operating out of short unpaved mud and gravel airstrips that abound in Siberia.

I suspect the Mitsubishi and the ARJ21 can be serious competion to the Big 2

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

And the Russian Yakolev Yak-40. Introduced in 1968. Over 1000 were built. Still in service. Those were the days when the Russians built passenger airplanes by the hundreds. Sigh. Unusual for jet airliners its wings were unswept and it was designed for routinely operating out of short unpaved mud and gravel airstrips that abound in Siberia.

An 148 is the successor of Yak 40. Can take off and land anywhere in Siberia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_PmAYF8FbQ

By the way, all the chota mota aircraft manufacturers of erstwhile USSR (Sukhoi, Illyushin, Antonov, MiG, Tupolev, Yakovlev) have combined forces, and is now called United Aircraft Corporation.

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The Fokker 28 that entered service in 1969...a very smart design that could carry 65 passengers from Rajkot to Calcutta or Madurai to Chandigarh. It was a commercial success despite a very small home market.

There isn't really a home market in the Netherlands. The Netherlands are so small we have no planes flying within the Netherlands. Only to and from.

Most of these F28 were sold to carriers outside Europe, let alone the Netherlands.

Although the F28 did ok-ish commercially, it could not match the success of the F27. Many felt at the time Fokker should have stuck to rugged turbo props, which they eventually did with the F50. . A lot of their F27 customers simply did not require a twin jet.

Fokker had some pretty innovative ideas at the time. They more or less pioneered the use of glue in aircraft construction. Quite a radical idea at the time. I used to live about 6 km from the Fokker HQ and main factory. i have visited their factories numerous times in those days.

Jeroen


In the end Fokker went bust.

Jeroen

[adi_gt]

Brexit is going to further dent the profits and add more headaches for Airbus with their Wings manufacturing facilities in Bristol and Filton. It can have severe catastrophic effect on the whole of European aerospace industry. PnW engine issues turning the a/c into gliders waiting for engines at Airbus FALs is a big contributor to present woes but it can be mitigated but Brexit is the real deal.

[Sutripta]

Fokker were pushing the Fellowship hard here. I remember seeing full page ads. (The innocence of the times - thinking ads in mainstream papers would have any effect on fleet purchase decisions).

Misubishi must be very worried.

As a passenger, I found Embraers to be more than acceptable. (For sometime in India, Paramount used Embraers). But any reports from the airlines PoV?

Re. the jets vs props debate:- As a passenger, given an option, I would avoid the ATR. Slow, noisy (with a fatiguing thrum), very little carry on luggage space. The Bombardier Q400 are much better, though still slow. So depends on the aircraft.

Regards
Sutripta

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

As a passenger, I found Embraers to be more than acceptable. (For sometime in India, Paramount used Embraers). But any reports from the airlines PoV?

The Embraers are generally more reliable and have a better desptach record. The Bombardiers especially the CRJ series that preceded the C-Series (now Airbus A220) had too much of overly complex avionics that were a maintenance nightmare and a source of grief. Those family traits spilled over into the Q400 family too. In the early years the Q400 also picked up a sorry reputation of landing gear failures (!!)

Re. the jets vs props debate:- As a passenger, given an option, I would avoid the ATR. Slow, noisy (with a fatiguing thrum), very little carry on luggage space. The Bombardier Q400 are much better, though still slow. So depends on the aircraft.

That is a oft held passenger view. Personally I don't feel that way on the thrum or the props but I might be in a minority of two - though I agree on the cabin baggage nuisance. The Q400 was designed to climb fast and cruise faster (~650 kmph) than a usual turbo-prop (450 to 500 kmph) to make its route timings competitive with jets on legs below 500 kms and its fuel efficiency much better.