Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Udvar Hazy Clashes With J.Leahy On Re-engining  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10351 times:

Aerospace personalities Udvar Hazy and John Leahy exchange some one-liners on narrowbody re-engining.

Udvar is owning an orderbook of current gen aircraft, John trying to sell an better version, devaluating the older version.

  

.

“There I see some PR benefit to the outside world, but in terms of bottom-line benefit to owners of the aircraft, to operators of aircraft, it’s a very slim margin.”



“If we followed the advice of some leasing companies, i.e. ‘No Change’, we would still be flying 727s and consuming twice as much fuel,”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...y-clashes-with-airbus-on-a320.html

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10292 times:

Isn't this the same SUH who led the charge against the original A350? He maybe worth listening to.

User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10155 times:

Interesting article. Let oil hit 140$ again, then we'll see how many airlines will change their mind.

User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think both have a valid point and unfortunately without a crystal ball we may not know which is most correct until after the fact.....

User currently offlineFoxThree From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9982 times:

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 1):
Isn't this the same SUH who led the charge against the original A350? He maybe worth listening to.


I would agree. IIRC, the A350 didn't have a single "firm" order until Airbus unveiled the version that's now under development. The very next day (or it might have been the same day) Singapore announced a firm order for 20.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2):
Let oil hit 140$ again, then we'll see how many airlines will change their mind.


If it's a race between when the technology matures to make a new narrowbody economically feasible vs. oil hitting $140 again, I'd put my money on the new airplane. Between the economic recovery slowing down, OPEC's "target" price of (IIRC) $85/barrel, and new curbs on the speculative trading of oil, I don't think we'll see $140/barrel again anytime soon.


User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9932 times:

Quoting FoxThree (Reply 4):
IIRC, the A350 didn't have a single "firm" order until Airbus unveiled the version that's now under development.

You don't recall correctly  . Air Europa ordered 10 frames end of 2004 and Qatar ordered 60 during Paris air show 2005, and IIRC there were others as well. The current iteration of the A350 was offered from 2006 onwards.



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2616 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9892 times:

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 5):
You don't recall correctly  . Air Europa ordered 10 frames end of 2004 and Qatar ordered 60 during Paris air show 2005, and IIRC there were others as well.

I think Finnair was one of the "others" if I'm not mistaken.

Quoting FoxThree (Reply 4):
I don't think we'll see $140/barrel again anytime soon.

I can only hope that's true.   


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9777 times:

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 5):
You don't recall correctly . Air Europa ordered 10 frames end of 2004 and Qatar ordered 60 during Paris air show 2005, and IIRC there were others as well.

I think Finnair was one of the "others" if I'm not mistaken.


Indeed.And if Airbus had re engined the 330 and got it out 2 years ago?Who knows how many 787 cancellations we would have seen.Anyway Airbus surprised everybody and did a little jink to the right with the XWB pitching it against the 772er/773er.Can't remember SUH advising that - can you? I think he is the last person Airbus needs to listen to actually.

There is more than likley going to be a 10 year gap between Leap-X EIS and any OR engine (I say this as Airbus refers to advanced engines - and materials in this future time frame, what other engine could they be refering to).

I am sure he has - but I can't remember him criticising Boeings decisions on new aircraft types. Has he spoken on the 748i or the 737 replacement timetable?


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9514 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 7):
I think he is the last person Airbus needs to listen to actually.

Interesting approach.

Nonetheless, both really need to do what is best for their respective businesses, even if it is not the same outcome or desire as the other.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9500 times:

Could Airbus actually offer a new-engined A32X and still offer the current version, too? If yes, they could do it and let the market decide what it wants.

Quoting FoxThree (Reply 4):
I would agree. IIRC, the A350 didn't have a single "firm" order until Airbus unveiled the version that's now under development. The very next day (or it might have been the same day) Singapore announced a firm order for 20.

It had around 200 orders. But what does it matter? The original A350 was competing against the new 787, a re-engined A320 would compete against the rather old 737 for now. Different situation IMHO. We will see what the new competition to the A320/737 market by Bombardier, China, Russia, and likely Embraer will do to the market. But I am grateful they are coming. It seems Boeing and Airbus would continue with their current models until 2050 otherwise.

Quoting FoxThree (Reply 4):
If it's a race between when the technology matures to make a new narrowbody economically feasible vs. oil hitting $140 again, I'd put my money on the new airplane. Between the economic recovery slowing down, OPEC's "target" price of (IIRC) $85/barrel, and new curbs on the speculative trading of oil, I don't think we'll see $140/barrel again anytime soon.

The race is rather improved efficiency of airplanes, cars, etc. against the rising number of airplanes, cars, etc. I wouldn't rule out anything when it comes to the oil price.

Quoting parapente (Reply 7):
I think he is the last person Airbus needs to listen to actually.

He has bought many many airplanes both from Airbus and Boeing. Why not listen to him when he gives free advice??


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9167 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 7):
Indeed.And if Airbus had re engined the 330 and got it out 2 years ago?Who knows how many 787 cancellations we would have seen.Anyway Airbus surprised everybody and did a little jink to the right with the XWB pitching it against the 772er/773er.Can't remember SUH advising that - can you? I think he is the last person Airbus needs to listen to actually.


SUH was Airbus largest customer when he ran ILFC. Had he not supported Airbus and the A330, sales would have looked very much like the A340 vs the 777. He drove the change in the XWB and in the end the A350 became relevant. Had Airbus not listened the A350 would have been an afterthought (200 or so frames versus the 400 to 500 lead of the 787). Respecting your right to have an opinion, but please have your facts right before taking such a strong position. I don't know what a A330 re-engined would have looked like and whether it would have sold well or not, but what facts say is that Airbus CHOSE to take the original design off the table and move to the XWB. Mr UH drove and led that change. He bought the XWB and did not buy the first A350. Should they listen to the man that buys major quantities of Airbus a/c, and is able to place them with airlines around the world?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9151 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
Could Airbus actually offer a new-engined A32X and still offer the current version, too? If yes, they could do it and let the market decide what it wants.

I don't see why not, but CFM and P&W both want to be on new-builds so such a program would not appeal to them as it could dilute potential sales, which they need to hit their RoI targets. Airbus, also, might not want to offer such an option depending on how much they have to spend to adapt the A320 family to work with the new engines and how many frames they need to sell to meet their own RoI targets.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9019 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 10):
Mr UH drove and led that change. He bought the XWB and did not buy the first A350.

Don't want to complicate things further, but he did  http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...viationdaily&id=news/ILFC11235.xml

After the A350 mk1, both the A330 un-re-engined and A350 XWB sold very well. So something inbetween possibly also..


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2858 posts, RR: 49
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8995 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 8):
Quoting parapente (Reply 7):
I think he is the last person Airbus needs to listen to actually.

Interesting approach.

Nonetheless, both really need to do what is best for their respective businesses, even if it is not the same outcome or desire as the other.

-Dave

Dave:

You are exactly correct. Both are protecting their own self-interests. If SUH doesn't like the re-engined product, he doesn't have to buy it. Airbus (EADS) can and should do what they think is best for Airbus: obviously they believe that re-engining is a viable (and likely) proposition.


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8838 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 12):
After the A350 mk1, both the A330 un-re-engined and A350 XWB sold very well. So something inbetween possibly also..


Okay so the SUH stance on the programs was good for Airbus, right? Which is my point about the influence Mr SUH has had on the industry and Airbus specifically. What he forced was beneficial to Airbus, and the A350 went from 100 frames to the current orders seen today. I stand corrected on the ILFC purchase, which I did not remember were consummated. Check this site out for more info on the change from the A350 to the A350 XWB.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=comm&id=news/aw121106p3.xml

Thanks Keesje for your feedback!!!


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1629 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8169 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
It had around 200 orders. But what does it matter? The original A350 was competing against the new 787, a re-engined A320 would compete against the rather old 737 for now. Different situation IMHO. We will see what the new competition to the A320/737 market by Bombardier, China, Russia, and likely Embraer will do to the market.

This is what needs to be watched closely prior to anxiety over $140 a barrel oil. Bombardier, and Embraer most notably.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6828 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
We will see what the new competition to the A320/737 market by Bombardier, China, Russia, and likely Embraer will do to the market.

CSeries had their chance, the gun was loaded, ready to fire, and the gun powder was wet. Poof and we're back to the 3-5% improvements until the technology is ready for prime time. A famous a.netter comment now, "nothing else to see here" expect how Mr Leahy uses this to his marketing advantage.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25707 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6142 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 10):
I don't know what a A330 re-engined would have looked like and whether it would have sold well or not, but what facts say is that Airbus CHOSE to take the original design off the table and move to the XWB. Mr UH drove and led that change.

I don't remember that. I do remember that by the time Udvar-Hazy made the speech at Istat, the revamp of the A350 was already under consideration.

I remember it was propelled by the CEO's of Singapore and Qantas, and - particularly - the Qantas 787 order the previous year. This led to the then CEO of Airbus, Dr. Humbert, making the statement that Airbus listens to its customers.

Many believe that Udvar-Hazy was aware of the potential redesign and simply jumped on the bandwagon. Others embrace a conspiracy view that John Leahy nudged Udvar-Hazy into making the speech, to push the wobbly Dr. Humbert over the edge to full commitment.

Udvar-Hazy's speech at Istat was in March 2006 and the XWB was announced in July 2006. For SUH to have led and propelled it, would mean that the aircraft was totally redesigned in four months. I suppose that might be possible.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently onlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1745 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6032 times:

737/320 have evolved to do so well for their typical mission that it has become really hard to improve. IIRC about every 3 years they add 1 or 2% efficiency. Mathematically this improvement becomes impressive, even awesome over a couple decades. And it is done with minimal capital costs. It has hugely raised the bar for re-engining or new build.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20365 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5969 times:

I'd like to point something out:

SUH's point of view on this is not irrelevant. The man knows a thing or two about airplanes and the airline business.

BUT... he is not an airline CEO. The airline CEO's are the ones who know what they want. And, if I understand correctly, although IFLC places the orders, the airlines place the orders through them.

So I'd be much more inclined to listen to the likes of Smisek, MOL, Kellner, etc. They're the ones who have to make the decisions as to the fleets they'll fly.


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3403 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 1):
Isn't this the same SUH who led the charge against the original A350? He maybe worth listening to.

Yes but he never did order the 50 that he promised too if they redid the plane with a larger fusealge (which they ended up doing), Wasn't there a famous bet between SUH and JL written on a $100 bill?


User currently offlinemdword1959 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 17):
For SUH to have led and propelled it, would mean that the aircraft was totally redesigned in four months. I suppose that might be possible.

The "XWB" went from being an AL-LI design when first announced at Farnborough in July 2006 to CFRP, along with a brand new industrial process, when the A350 program was industrially relaunched in December 2006. Considering the Airbus leadership declared at Farnborough 2006 that the only thing about the "XWB" not on the table was the AL-LI design, fairly sweeping changes are apparently possible in a relatively short amount of time.

[Edited 2010-10-13 06:12:26]

User currently offlinemdword1959 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4177 times:

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 20):
Wasn't there a famous bet between SUH and JL written on a $100 bill?

More of a down-payment than a bet.

See: WSJ: Airbus Redesigns The A350 - Mr. U-H's C-note (by Leelaw Jul 14 2006 in Civil Aviation)

According the WSJ article cited in the 2006 a.net thread, reconsideration of the A350 design/concept didn't begin in earnest until March 2006, essentially contemporaneous with Udvar-Hazy's speech at ISTAT 2006.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mariner (Reply 17):
Udvar-Hazy's speech at Istat was in March 2006 and the XWB was announced in July 2006. For SUH to have led and propelled it, would mean that the aircraft was totally redesigned in four months. I suppose that might be possible.

The A350 itself was not very well-defined (Airbus was spitballing numbers much as Boeing did at the 7E7 launch), so I could see Airbus "totally re-designing" the plane in four months because they simply just replaced one Photoshop picture with another and then started the real work on defining the plane - now with larger dimensions and higher MTOWs.


User currently offlinemdword1959 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
The A350 itself was not very well-defined

The pre-XWB A350 was somewhat beyond the "photoshop phase" because it was "industrially launched" by Airbus in October 2005 and soon had about 100 firm orders on the books as well as a 50+ plane "commitment" from Qatar. The concept quickly began to lose traction in the marketplace after Boeing announced in November 2005 that the 787 fuselage would require less insulation than they initially thought and as a consequence the usable cabin width would be significantly greater.


25 parapente : RE Reply 24. As I recall.The 787 started out life as an XWB 2-4-2. Then when they showed it's ability to do 3-3-3 at 17" the economics beat anything t
26 mdword1959 : I believe it was November 2005 as I indicated in my post #24.
27 Stitch : And the 7E7 launched with 50 orders from NH and quickly wracked up a bunch more, but the design changed significantly between that "industrial launch
28 Post contains images mariner : Mr. Leahy gave some quite specific details at the Istat Conference - March 23 (?), 2006. It was his speech in defense of the A350 that caused Mr. Udv
29 Post contains links jdevora : That is actually the plan :Airbus aims to 'keep it simple' with A320 NEO
30 Post contains links and images Revelation : Hurray, we're back to taking about the NEO again! In this thread, we can see that SUH is afraid that the NEO will devalue his current portfolio In Is
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Udvar-Hazy Warns Boeing, Airbus On Rivals posted Wed Mar 14 2007 09:03:54 by Sangas
Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB posted Tue Jun 19 2007 17:22:20 by Lumberton
Udvar-Hazy On The 748I posted Mon Mar 26 2007 14:52:29 by 2wingtips
Udvar-Hazy Comments On A350XWB At Farnborough posted Wed Jul 19 2006 17:38:42 by Leelaw
Udvar-Hazy New Company, Air Lease Corp. posted Tue Apr 27 2010 07:13:05 by fxramper
ANA Dash 8 With A.net On Engine? posted Sat Apr 10 2010 14:01:08 by gdg9
Easyjet: Re-engining A320/737 Not Good Enough. posted Mon Mar 22 2010 04:49:26 by keesje
AN-24 Fuselage Touches Runway With 42 On Board posted Thu Feb 4 2010 02:19:48 by Severnaya
AA with 777 on MIA-JFK - Summer 2010 posted Sun Jan 31 2010 16:45:12 by Flyguy1
Udvar-Hazy Replaced By D Steenland! posted Sun Jan 24 2010 19:30:45 by Flighty