Odds and Ends: A320 Sharklet tests better than forecast; Emirates and A350-1000

Back to work:

Airbus flight tests reveal that its Sharklet is one-half percent better on long-range operations than had been forecast.

.

The company revealed that the A320 Sharklet 4% better fuel burn than the current airplane on long-range flight tests, vs. the 3.5% forecast. EIS is next month.

.

The company also had the maiden flight of the A319 Sharklet on November 23. EIS is second quarter 2013.

.

Airbus Photo

.

Emirates and A350-1000: Aviation Week has this piece about the A350-1000 and Emirates Airlines. We’ve also been told the aircraft is overweight at this stage and field performance is a concern, we’re confident Airbus will be able to address the issues. (We’d note that field performance for the Boeing 737 MAX has also been a concern, but we also believe Boeing will overcome this. The point is that weight and performance are also concerns of new airplane programs, including the Boeing 787 and 747-8.)

.

EasyJet looks at Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier: easyJet is considering all three OEMs for its next round of aircraft, considering the A320, the 737 and the CSeries.

Odds and Ends: Puzzling math remains puzzling in 737 v A320 debate

Puzzling math remains puzzling: Boeing has said for the better part of two years that the 737-800 is 8% more economical than the Airbus A320 and the advantage translates into leads it claims for the MAX over the NEO. With the addition of the Advanced Technology Winglets (BATW), Boeing now claims the 737 MAX will be a whopping 18% more economical than today’s A320 and up to 10% better than the NEO.

Such claims make Airbus almost apoplectic. Airbus rejects outright Boeing’s 8% claim and further said its own analysis on the MAX (pre-BATW) indicated the best improvement Boeing could get was 8%, not 10%-12%. Airbus also sniffs at the new BATW. Airbus evaluated the design before settling on the sharklets as more advantagous.

We’ve always been skeptical of numbers advanced by Airbus and Boeing because, after all, they are hardly objective. We’ve placed more weight in analyses offered by customers, for obvious reasons: they are the ones who have to operate the aircraft and truly know theory in real life.

We’ve previously written that Lufthansa concluded the 737 MAX will have a 2% advantage over the A320neo (also pre-BATW), which returns the competition to the “status quo.” This means that in Lufthansa’s analysis, today’s airplanes are only 2% apart, not Boeing’s claim of 8%.

Now comes information to us that Qantas–which operates both types through its own airline and the JetStar subsidiary–finds its operating experience to be so close as to be indistinguishable.

So we asked Boeing about that, and about how its methodology comes up with the numbers it advertised. Here’s the response, foregoing addressing the results of the airlines, citing long-standing policy of not commenting on customers. As for the methodology:

[Our analyses] are based on our average vs. Airbus and not individual customer statistics. There are too many variables to be able to address specifics and details.

Our numbers are cost per seat and are based on a 500 nm mission using typical European economic rules for airplanes with two-class seating giving the Next-Generation 737-800w (with PIP – Performance Improvement Package) 162 passengers and the A320 150 passengers.

Fuel burn values are Boeing tested values for the Next-Generation 737 and Boeing estimates for the A320. Maintenance costs are estimated using Boeing methodology which takes into account industry reported data from the FAA and IATA for both manufacturers. Same crew cost, landing and navigation and passenger handling cost models are applied to both airplanes.

We’ll note from our previous discussions with Boeing that Boeing acknowledged factoring in 737 PIPs (as cited above) but not factoring in A320 PIPs. Airbus claims Boeing uses the CFM56 as the base engine for the A320, rather than the V2500, which is 1.5% more efficient. Airbus also claims that Boeing uses older versions of the CFM56 as the A320 base engine rather than the newer, more efficient model. Airbus also uses 800nm vs Boeing’s 500nm for its analysis. (AirInsight’s analysis of US operation confirms that A320s and 737s tend to fly, on average, around 1,100sm, concluding that the longer range assumption is indeed a fairer data point.)

So the puzzling math used by Airbus and Boeing remains puzzling. The airlines say the airplanes are very close. We believe the airlines.

ExIm Bank: Just when we thought this was over, it turns out the Republicans in the US Senate Wednesday blocked a vote to approve reauthorization of the US ExIm Bank and a hike in its ceiling to $140bn. This story has additional detail. Boeing and GE take a hit on this.

Emirates to Boeing on 777X: Get a move on. You’re taking too long.

Do airframers listen to customers?

Aviation Week has an interesting story asking whether airframers truly listen to customers when designing airplanes.

The question is not an idle one. Airbus and Boeing constantly say they do, but Airbus is getting loads of flak from Qatar Airways and Emirates Airlines (both of whom like to negotiate in the press) over the revamped A350-1000 announced at the Paris Air Show. Qatar says the changes came as a surprise (we were told otherwise at the time by Airbus).

Airbus CEO Tom Enders since said Airbus won’t keep changing the A350′s design in response to customer comments. One can appreciate how he might be tired of this. The A350 went through five or six iterations in response to customer comments, a somewhat awkward display.