A319/A320/A321 NEO Partie 1

Le président d'Airbus prudent sur la remotorisation de l'A320

Le projet de remotorisation de l'A320, le moyen-courrier vedette d'Airbus, est justifié d'un point de vue stratégique mais il faut s'assurer que les ressources en ingénieurs sont suffisantes pour qu'il ne menace pas d'autres programmes majeurs, déclare le président exécutif d'Airbus Thomas Enders.

Une nouvelle version remotorisée de l'A320, qui vole depuis 1988, permettrait de prolonger la durée de vie de ce programme en réalisant notamment d'importantes économies de carburant.

"Si nous décidions in fine de ne pas faire l'A320 Neo, pour ne pas mettre en péril les programmes en cours, le ciel ne nous tomberait pas sur la tête", déclare-t-il dans un entretien publié mercredi dans l'hebdomadaire L'Express.

Airbus, filiale du groupe EADS, doit faire face simultanément à la production de son très gros porteur A380, à celle de son futur moyen-porteur A350 XWB et au développement de son avion de transport militaire A400M, autant de programmes qui mobilisent de nombreux ingénieurs.

"Il faut donc évaluer très sérieusement si nous sommes capables, en parallèle, de travailler sur un A320 remotorisé", souligne-t-il. "D'un point de vue stratégique, cela se justifie, mais en tant que patron d'Airbus, je dois m'assurer que nous avons les moyens de le faire."
...

In the past few days there seems to have been a distinct chill in the Airbus A320 NEO plan. We had heard with some confidence things were coming along for a mid-October announcement. Now it was being delayed for later in the year.
Reading Robert Wall's story here seems to indicate that perhaps the company is not quite convinced of the NEO idea yet. Another data point would be from our colleague Scott Hamilton "According to a survey by UBS Securities, 70% of airlines questioned want a new single-aisle aircraft and not a re-engined product. Only 46% would switch their current orders for an re-engined aircraft, the survey reports." Finally there was that voice which Airbus always listens to – Steve Udvar-Hazy. He seems less than convinced of the need for the NEO.
Well do the airlines want this or not? In the second link (Andrea Rothman's story) Airbus' Leahy is quoted as saying “almost all airlines are requesting” the NEO. Something does not compute.
The lack of enthusiasm for the NEO is easy to understand. Boeing has signaled Airbus its intent not to do a 737RE. It has been a signal loud and clear enough for any observer to understand. Moreover, Mr Gallois is right to mention engineering resources – the lessons from the A400M, A380 and A350 are fresh. The 787 lessons are also taken to heart. If there is any chance to remove risk, OEMs are wise to do it.
Is Mr Leahy's voice then to be ignored? We'd say no. The green movement has its claws into the EU airlines. For every ton of fuel they buy, airlines will need to buy three tons of carbon credits. Noise is going to be the next frontier. EU airlines need to come up with something quick. Flying an MD-80 profitably in the EU will soon be just about impossible. We think that given this environment ignoring the opportunities NEO offer might be too hasty. Slowing down the evaluation process makes sense – if Boeing won't go for it that buys some time.
But only some time. Airlines are loyal to OEMs up to a point. Meaning relationships are somewhat sticky – switching fleets is a serious decision. But even as Airbus seems to be slowing the NEO train, we now are in a more complex environment. Take a look here. If you translate the last few words ascribed to AF-KLM's Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, he says "But nothing prevents us from turning to Bombardier if their planes are more effective".
Now of course these could be idle threats. But what if they are not? What if Mr Leahy's conversations with airline fleet managers are leading him to conclude the CSeries is no small threat? We think it better to consider Mr Leahy as not the lonely voice in the wilderness – the man is arguably the world's top airplane salesman. If he thinks NEO is needed, then Airbus had better consider this and sort out the engineering resources. Because Airbus is stuck between Boeing on the one hand Bombardier on the other. Boeing is undoubtedly working on a clean sheet design (even as they also struggle with engineering resources) and Bombardier is pressing its case to every airline that will listen to them.
NEO is actually a positive move for Airbus because it strikes at CSeries even if Boeing has no easy response. NEO might still be a good card to play – after all, what is the value to Airbus of hobbling Bombardier? Because if they don't, Bombardier is only going to grow much stronger.
In the past few days there seems to have been a distinct chill in the Airbus A320 NEO plan. We had heard with some confidence things were coming along for a mid-October announcement. Now it was being delayed for later in the year.
Reading Robert Wall's story here seems to indicate that perhaps the company is not quite convinced of the NEO idea yet. Another data point would be from our colleague Scott Hamilton "According to a survey by UBS Securities, 70% of airlines questioned want a new single-aisle aircraft and not a re-engined product. Only 46% would switch their current orders for an re-engined aircraft, the survey reports." Finally there was that voice which Airbus always listens to – Steve Udvar-Hazy. He seems less than convinced of the need for the NEO.
Well do the airlines want this or not? In the second link (Andrea Rothman's story) Airbus' Leahy is quoted as saying “almost all airlines are requesting” the NEO. Something does not compute.
The lack of enthusiasm for the NEO is easy to understand. Boeing has signaled Airbus its intent not to do a 737RE. It has been a signal loud and clear enough for any observer to understand. Moreover, Mr Gallois is right to mention engineering resources – the lessons from the A400M, A380 and A350 are fresh. The 787 lessons are also taken to heart. If there is any chance to remove risk, OEMs are wise to do it.
Is Mr Leahy's voice then to be ignored? We'd say no. The green movement has its claws into the EU airlines. For every ton of fuel they buy, airlines will need to buy three tons of carbon credits. Noise is going to be the next frontier. EU airlines need to come up with something quick. Flying an MD-80 profitably in the EU will soon be just about impossible. We think that given this environment ignoring the opportunities NEO offer might be too hasty. Slowing down the evaluation process makes sense – if Boeing won't go for it that buys some time.
But only some time. Airlines are loyal to OEMs up to a point. Meaning relationships are somewhat sticky – switching fleets is a serious decision. But even as Airbus seems to be slowing the NEO train, we now are in a more complex environment. Take a look here. If you translate the last few words ascribed to AF-KLM's Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, he says "But nothing prevents us from turning to Bombardier if their planes are more effective".
Now of course these could be idle threats. But what if they are not? What if Mr Leahy's conversations with airline fleet managers are leading him to conclude the CSeries is no small threat? We think it better to consider Mr Leahy as not the lonely voice in the wilderness – the man is arguably the world's top airplane salesman. If he thinks NEO is needed, then Airbus had better consider this and sort out the engineering resources. Because Airbus is stuck between Boeing on the one hand Bombardier on the other. Boeing is undoubtedly working on a clean sheet design (even as they also struggle with engineering resources) and Bombardier is pressing its case to every airline that will listen to them.
NEO is actually a positive move for Airbus because it strikes at CSeries even if Boeing has no easy response. NEO might still be a good card to play – after all, what is the value to Airbus of hobbling Bombardier? Because if they don't, Bombardier is only going to grow much stronger.

1. Are there internal doubts about NEO?
   
2. Is there a delayed decision?
   
3. ALC’s Steven Udvar-Hazy opines
   
4. Air France-KLM’s Pierre-Henri Gourgeon also opines
   
5. Airbus’ Tom Enders opines
   

1. Are there internal doubts about NEO?
   
2. Is there a delayed decision?
   
3. ALC’s Steven Udvar-Hazy opines
   
4. Air France-KLM’s Pierre-Henri Gourgeon also opines
   
5. Airbus’ Tom Enders opines
   

Airbus chief executive Tom Enders says the airframer still intends to decide by the end of the year whether to offer a re-engined A320 family, a timescale he announced at July's Farnborough air show.

"We are confident that within the next eight weeks we will make a decision," he told an Aviation Club luncheon in London today.

Enders also said that Airbus's order intake "is better than we expected at the start of the year", but he would not commit to a final 2010 prediction. The last few weeks of the year are traditionally when Airbus records a large proportion of its sales. Last year's net-order tally was 271.

In a speech covering a number of areas, and later in response to questions, he repeated the call for the US government to give up its pursuit of the European Union through the World Trade Organisation over launch aid to Airbus, and for a new consensus to be agreed. He described the ongoing dispute as "absurd" at a time when other countries were muscling into the Airbus and Boeing duopoly in large commercial airliners.

"The simple truth is that neither of us has been doing without government support. Does anyone seriously think China or Russia will accept WTO rules," he said.

Two more months is the decision window given the end of year holidays, he told the U.K. Aviation Club in London. “I’m confident we will be able to decide.”
As to the substance of the discussions, not much seems to have changed in recent weeks. Enders notes the business case is “convincing” and it makes strategic sense, but the sticking point remains the engineering wherewithal. “We are struggling with critical resources,” he notes, pointing to the heavy engineering workload associated with the A350XWB twin-widebody, the A400M military airlifter, and finishing activities on the A380.
Pratt & Whitney has been lobbying Airbus heavily to make a decision, with teams having recently been dispatched again to Toulouse to make the case for the geared turbofan.

Beochien a écrit:Bonjour !
Bruno Trédévic, est un peu plus clair dans les Echos, sans révéler ses sources ...

Bien , c'est un peu plus développé ! l'affaire du NEO, et chacun à sa place !
John Leahy qui pousse !
Et Tomas Ender qui freine à fond !
Mais ... ramener le PB à une histoire de capital risque à partager à la dernière minute... Ne pas prendre les gens pour des idiots SVP !
- Personne et aucune alliance ne remplaceront les heures d'ingés si ils ne sont pas disponibles ... pas de génération "spontanée" possible sur le sujet ni d'externalisation ce sont les équipes qui sont sur les "Sharklets" et les ailes, qui doivent s'en charger !
- Et si UN motoriste se lance dans le projet en capital-risque ... ben que fera l'autre motoriste ???
- Ce ne sont pas un milliard d'€ qui vont arrêter Airbus ... l'enjeu est infiniment plus grave et important !!
- Et mettre en place une usine à gaz contractuelle, avant la fin de l'année, à partir du scratch ... mon œil !

Donc, la vérité SVP ... même à travers l'écran de fumée généré par Airbus, ils y vont ou pas ... le reste c'est de la daube ...
Et tout ça, ressemble de plus en plus à du cinema pour expliquer dans 2 mois, que l'on a pas pu y arriver pour xx raisons, alors que c'est déjà décidé !
On se fout du monde gratos, chez Airbus !
Et les âneries lancées par les Echos sont bien loin de me convaincre ! Info-Intox sais pas ... mais ça ne sonne pas juste ...


----------------- Le lien !-----------------
http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/air-defense/actu/020882469953-airbus-cherche-un-allie-pour-lancer-l-a320-remotorise.htm

JPRS

Les Echos has a great story here. It appears Airbus is still interested in the NEO but wants to offset the risk by bringing in a partner. It seems Airbus thinks an NEO will require five years of engineering to the wing box and landing gear. This is because both the LEAP-X and GTF are heavier engines.

The risk of the NEO seems to be holding Airbus back. None of the items mentioned are insurmountable. However, the delays experienced with other programs have clearly left their mark. There is a real fear that extending resources is just too much. It may be that Boeing has come to the same conclusion.

However the decision to delay re-engine plans also carries a risk. Which is why the whole story is fascinating. If Airbus and Boeing decide to do nothing, they are essentially going to have to concede precious market share built over decades. Bombardier is going to pick up critical mass and then is likely to develop an even bigger version of its CS. The question facing the OEMs is this; what costs more, developing an NEO or doing nothing? In truth doing nothing needs to be qualified – it means doing nothing to current programs even as they start work on replacements set for 2025 to 2030.

If you give Bombardier a two decade window, what happens? Boeing seems to be willing to take the risk that they can close that gap well before two decades and hold off Bombardier in the interim. Airbus seems less certain about this and wants an engine maker to help reduce the risk and development cost. This is a clever strategy – but who are they wooing? Pratt & Whitney and CFM obviously. P&W has an engine but may not be so keen to invest in Airbus's program. CFM might be more interested but still has a long way to go to get an engine ready. CFM might have its hand forced though, it has an engine on the A320 and is exclusive on the 737. For them the risk is losing this status – does it have the resources Airbus needs?