Reuters report that SpiceJet is in talk with Boeing and Airbus for another 100 narrowbodies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...cejet-orders-idUSL3N1092KX20150729

It will be interesting to see if another airline will defect to Airbus.
SpiceJet has some 16 B737's in its fleet and another 50 on orders.

I really hope this order goes 737MAX given their existing and currently ordered frames. It will be a great plane for them in India.

Is Spicejet in financial shape to place this large an order?

Lightsaber

I didn't know Spicejet had any Airbuses in their fleet. Apparently this is very recent.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Atamvir

Weren't they on the verge of bankruptcy a few months ago?

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 1): It will be a great plane for them in India.

As will the A320 NEO.  

Quoting bgm (Reply 4): Weren't they on the verge of bankruptcy a few months ago?

Yes but they've really turned things around since then. They've been growing quite nicely.

Quoting rta (Reply 3): I didn't know Spicejet had any Airbuses in their fleet. Apparently this is very recent.

Spicejet are leasing 2 A319 from CSA Czech Airline for 3 months IIRC.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 6): Spicejet are leasing 2 A319 from CSA Czech Airline for 3 months IIRC.

Only 3 months? I guess they want to see how it stacks up against the 737.
Not a bad idea, good for them.

Spicejet is doing very well for last couple of months. Their load factor is around 93% for this period. Indigo was next in mid 80's.

They are trying to find suitable used aircraft to expand their services. 100 seems to be too large for them at this time but may be they will spread them out enough to make sense.

They already have 42 MAX 8 on order so one would think the MAX would have the inside line unless they're looking at the upper end of the size range (MAX 9 / A321).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): unless

Or they want to split orders between Boeing and Airbus to accelerate deliveries.

Quoting Falcons023 (Reply 8): Spicejet is doing very well for last couple of months. Their load factor is around 93% for this period. Indigo was next in mid 80's.

SpiceJet isn't good at making money, however, while IndiGo is.

Quoting Falcons023 (Reply 8): Spicejet is doing very well for last couple of months. Their load factor is around 93% for this period. Indigo was next in mid 80's.

Load factor tells us nothing about the company's profitability.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10): Or they want to split orders between Boeing and Airbus to accelerate deliveries.

Will they replace the Q400 with A or B or are the Q400 staying? Some reported last year that they had issues with the Q.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12): Quoting Falcons023 (Reply 8):Spicejet is doing very well for last couple of months. Their load factor is around 93% for this period. Indigo was next in mid 80's. Load factor tells us nothing about the company's profitability.

Spicejet has turned 6 consecutive quarters of losses into profit for last 2 quarters.

From Reuters:

"Mumbai, July 28 -- SpiceJet Ltd reported a second straight profitable quarter as India's second largest low fare airline managed to increase its seat occupancy while airline management termed it as turnaround of the cash-strapped airline.


SpiceJet reported a net profit of Rs.71.84 crore for the first quarter ended 30 June compared with a loss of Rs.124.10 crore in the year-ago period. The airline had swung to profit in the preceding March quarter after six straight quarters of losses.


The airline, which briefly grounded its fleet on 17 December owing to financial issues, reported a revenue of Rs.1,106.30 crore for the reporting quarter against Rs.1,678.58 crore in the year earlier."

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10): Or they want to split orders between Boeing and Airbus to accelerate deliveries.

I considered that, but I believe Boeing has better delivery positions than Airbus due to the depth of the order backlog. So I am not sure SpiceJet could get A320neos any earlier than they could get MAX 8s.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 14):

Is two quarters of profit enough for this size of order? I'm happy when any airline turns around and expands. But are they ready for this level of expansion?

G'day

With SpiceJet having an all 737 fleet operating and on order, including the MAX what sense does it make to also order A320 NEO's?

Sure Airbus will do all to spoil the day for Boeing. Boeing have previously neglected airlines with a bleak or unknown future, decisions that cost them dearly. SpiceJet may do a Thai (TG) and order some of everything available on the planet, highly unlikely I guess.

This order is definitely Boeing's to lose


Cheers

Peter

What I understand was that after couple of the aircrafts were repossessed by the leasing firms they were having a tough time to negotiate a lease for replacement 737,s which they badly wanted. Unfortunately I understand that leasing an 737 is a more expensive affair versus A320 (Not sure on this though). Hence they had wet leased 2 A319,s. Although they want to order more aircrafts. I wonder where they will get the money from?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 16): Is two quarters of profit enough for this size of order? I'm happy when any airline turns around and expands. But are they ready for this level of expansion?

No, it is of course not enough at this stage. Spicejet is hence looking for new investors to take a stake in the airline in order to bring in more capital.

From Reuters:
"NEW DELHI: Dubai government-owned low-cost carrier (LCC) flydubai has re-entered the fray to pick up a stake in budget airline SpiceJet. The Gulf LCC's move comes at a time when its neighbour Qatar Airways is in initial talks with SpiceJet owner Ajay Singh for a possible investment.


Singh had told TOI in April, about two months after he had re-acquired SpiceJet from the Sun Group, that foreign airlines had approached him for investment. "Dubai-based flydubai was in talks with SpiceJet soon after Ajay Singh took control of the airline in February. However given the precarious state in which the previous owners had left SpiceJet, those talks did not materialize as SpiceJet was not offered a good deal then, " said a source.


Now, with SpiceJet scripting a dramatic recovery under Singh and Qatar Airways pursuing him vigorously, flydubai has re-started talks with the Indian LCC. Singh will opt for the airline that offers a better deal in terms of pricing and future growth prospects of SpiceJet, which he launched in 2005."

I believe Boeing also loaned some money to SpiceJet from the payments they made on the MAX when they needed the cash. I'm sure that could help sway them towards their partner Boeing.

This article seems to suggest that the order will be split between MAX and neo and not be finalized till Mar 2016.


"SpiceJet intends to buy Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo in a deal which is expected to be completed by the end of Mar 2016. Management said that once the number of airplanes to be bought is decided, it may raise fresh equity or debt to pay for the same."

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/1843...g-spicejet-order-along-with-airbus

[Edited 2015-07-31 12:05:40]

Since it was only the end of 2014 when lessors tried to reposses Spicejet aircraft, prior to the change of ownership, I seriously question if Spicejet has the credit to buy this many frames.

The GoI must create laws to align with the Capetown convention to bring down Indian airline leasing costs.

With the bloodbath that is Indian aviation (partially due to AI), this large an order seems unwise.

Lightsaber

At some point Boeing will have the edge do to availability of delivery slots. Airbus is not doing much to eat into it's huge backlog of narrow body frames.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 23): At some point Boeing will have the edge do to availability of delivery slots. Airbus is not doing much to eat into it's huge backlog of narrow body frames.

Let's wait and see...

Quote

Airbus is still aiming to reach a decision by the end of this year on a possible further production rate increase for the A320 line.

Unquote

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...20-rate-hike-decision-this-415260/

Quoting mffoda (Reply 21): This article seems to suggest that the order will be split between MAX and neo and not be finalized till Mar 2016.

Maybe 737MAX8s or MAX200s plus A321neos/neoLRs... Could SpiceJet use neoLRs on overseas routes?

Cheers,
Bunumuring

Quoting SQ22 (Reply 24): Quote Airbus is still aiming to reach a decision by the end of this year on a possible further production rate increase for the A320 line.

Going to 50 frames in 2017 is keeping up with Boeing and do nothing to eat into the 1,000 frame backlog difference. Sooner or later something will have to give. I see some future narrow body orders going to Boeing or third parties simply because Airbus wait times will be too long.

I have always said too much attention was being given to sales, it's deliveries and the value of those deliveries that count.

Boeing won't reach 50 frames per month until 2018, i.e. a year behind Airbus.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27): Boeing won't reach 50 frames per month until 2018, i.e. a year behind Airbus

That accounts for less that 100 planes - the Airbus backlog is 1,000 greater. They would need to raise monthly deliveries to 80 frames a month to make a difference. Unless their orders are so stretched out into the future that I would question the strength of the order book.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 26): Going to 50 frames in 2017 is keeping up with Boeing and do nothing to eat into the 1,000 frame backlog difference

Going to 50 per moth by 2017 will be creating *a lot* of new slots that have not yet been sold (how could they, if they were not yet available). While I'm sure that new slots will mean some reshuffling of existing and mutually agreed (by contract) delivery sequences, and some of those slots may be used to speed up deliveries to existing customers, I would not be surprised if most slots will become available for new/additional sales in the 2017/2018 time frame.

Rgds,
PW100

Quoting PW100 (Reply 29): Going to 50 per moth by 2017 will be creating *a lot* of new slots that have not yet been sold (how could they, if they were not yet available). While I'm sure that new slots will mean some reshuffling of existing and mutually agreed (by contract) delivery sequences, and some of those slots may be used to speed up deliveries to existing customers, I would not be surprised if most slots will become available for new/additional sales in the 2017/2018 time frame.

Sorry but 100 open slots a year is not that much. Something just does not jive here. The Airbus order book must be extended out a lot more years than Boeing.

The fact remains, Airbus has close to 1,000 more narrow bodies in backlog than Boeing and yet is really not delivering many more planes. That has to effect future ordering based on availability.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 30): Sorry but 100 open slots a year is not that much. Something just does not jive here. The Airbus order book must be extended out a lot more years than Boeing. The fact remains, Airbus has close to 1,000 more narrow bodies in backlog than Boeing and yet is really not delivering many more planes. That has to effect future ordering based on availability.

Airbus has been trying to increase production to 630 per year. The issue is CFM 'pushed back.'
http://www.seattletimes.com/business...le-jet-engines-or-get-left-behind/

In an interview, Leahy rejected Joyce’s caution. “I’m confident before the end of this year we will announce a ramp up,” Leahy said. “If that means I can only offer airplanes with Pratt engines, then I only offer airplanes with Pratt engines.”

Doesn’t he need GE to supply half his neo fleet? “Not if they can’t supply (enough) engines. Maybe they end up with substantially less,” Leahy said. “I hope they find a way.”

Leahy was reacting not only to Joyce but to CFM executives who said this weekend that LEAP production was geared toward the current set production targets of 50 neos and 52 MAXs per month and that there were practical limits to going higher anytime before 2020.

CFM's/GE's issue is they need to switch from producing CFM-56 to LEAP engines for the A320 in order to free up CFM-56 production for the 737NG ramp increase. They then need to *really* ramp up LEAP engine production to phase out the CFM-56 new build production for both narrowbodies.

My own opinion: Airbus is trying to ramp to the 630 A320NEO per month and it is an issue for the supply chain. Pratt seems to be in a better position as the only other V2500 airframe in production is limited volume (it is easily in the typcial contractually allowed +/- 15% of production demand rate). With the A321 becoming more popular, Pratt could offer V2533s to tide production to ramp PW1135s at a later date. This would keep the V2500 supply chain happy and ensure further future sales of the PW1100.


So Airbus will ramp production. Right now they are being 'held hostage' by CFM who is in a pickle as the 737 ramp is straining their resources as is. Is Pratt/IAE able to provide? I think so. But it would be via delaying the ramp down in V2500 production. The question is can the casting and forging vendors keep up? (The rest is manageable). The casting vendors would have to ramp up quickly and they are already strained... But Pratt has more room than CFM (due to the 737 ramp currently in process).

Yes, I'm well aware Airbus' ramp to 500 A320s per year was 'put on hold' after the 2013 ramp due to the transition to the NEO. Airbus didn't want to increase production until after the shift to the A320NEO, but there are too many (future) orders at risk if they do not ramp up production. But with airlines willingness to take A320CEOs, in particular a shift to more demand for the A321CEO (post sharklets and V2500 engine PIP), I think the increased production rate ramp will occur. I'm expecting Alabama to come on line as fast as possible.   
The shipset of the first U.S.-produced Airbus A320 family aircraft has left Europe, and assembly of the A321ceo, destined for delivery to JetBlue in 2016, will begin this summer as scheduled.   

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-sh...irbus-us-ready-first-a320-assembly

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31): Leahy was reacting not only to Joyce but to CFM executives who said this weekend that LEAP production was geared toward the current set production targets of 50 neos and 52 MAXs per month and that there were practical limits to going higher anytime before 2020.

Supply for 50 A320NEO aircraft or 50 A320NEO engines?

The former would be no problem for Airbus. In fact it would be too much...

The later would mean that only 26 MAXs would be build in 2020 per month...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 32):

Airbus will increase A320 production to 639 per year from the current 500. The NEO ramp is very aggressive, but since Airbus oversold the CEO, the initial ramp would be effectively slowing the CEO ramp down.

CFM is using the CEO ramp down to support the 737NG production rate increase. CFM is effectively holding at current CFM production. The have no desire to further ramp up CFM-56 production as the increase will be for less than 3 years and thus would incur vendor penalties. CFM tried to get vendors to pay for a ramp up and they laughed due to the known impending ramp down.

Pratt has no 'ramp up' in V2500 demand, so the could slow V2500 ramp down to allow Airbus to maintain CEO production while ramping the NEO. But I'm only talking 12 to 18 months of extended CEO production before a switch to the NEO. However, the quirks of vendor contracts would grant that extra 130 shipsets to the winning team until 3 years *after* all the NEO ramp up. Or about 2022... So supplying these near term slots ensures a huge number of engine sales. Starting in 2023 the contract provisions would expire and each engine would compete on its merits instead of a pre-assigned production slot.

Currently the transition to the NEO will be complete (IIRC) by end of 2019 at the 500 per year rate This production ramp would be to 630 NEO per year by 2021.

I am avoiding using per month as Airbus uses a 10 month year versus Boeing's 12 month year. But if it helps, the added 13 per month will transition from CEO to NEO in 2020 and 2021.

But there will still be fewer CEO in 2016 and 2017. The currently planned NEO ramp would hold, just more years of transition from CEO to NEO.

IIRC, the 52 per month (520 per year) is 2016. I thought Airbus was still at 50.

As soon as Airbus lines up the engines, they will ramp up production. All the other shipset parts are lined up. Pratt/IAE is willing. Will CFM forfeit their half of the added 130? That is the only question....

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31):

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 32): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31): Leahy was reacting not only to Joyce but to CFM executives who said this weekend that LEAP production was geared toward the current set production targets of 50 neos and 52 MAXs per month and that there were practical limits to going higher anytime before 2020. Supply for 50 A320NEO aircraft or 50 A320NEO engines? The former would be no problem for Airbus. In fact it would be too much... The later would mean that only 26 MAXs would be build in 2020 per month...

No it would not. Unless I'm not understanding you?

52 MAX's per month times 12 months = 624 MAX's or 1248 Leap engines per year.

50 NEO's X 11 or 11.5 = 550 or 575NEO's = 1100 or 1150 neo engines if they were all CFM engines?

But, presently CFM only has a 54% market share advantage over P&W GTF.

So .54 times 1100/1150 = 594/621 CFM engines vs. .46 506/529 P&W engines.

A better way to describe CFM's predicament.

They must supply Boeing another 240 CFM-56 per year quickly. To minimize costs, CFM is holding CFM-56 production steady, gaining the new engines from Leap powered NEOs that free up CEO engines. Then CFM will continue a fast LEAP production increase to support the MAX.

CFM will go from full CFM-56 production to just supporting the fleet (no more new) in just 2 years. Since the vendors know this... No freebies for CFM. The parts for the LEAP are new materials and thus new machine tools.

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):

I understand that CFM is dealing differently how the shift to the new engines will take place.

But I did not understand the statement from CFM executives that before 2020 LEAP production would be restricted to "50 neos and 52 MAXs".

Did they mean aircrafts or engines? Because IMO both way it does not make sense.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 34): 50 NEO's X 11 or 11.5

Why not 12? I think Airbus is always talking about the average monthly output.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 23): At some point Boeing will have the edge do to availability of delivery slots.

That is the case already since a long time. Without changing the big picture at all.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 26): Sooner or later something will have to give.

Yes, Airbus will adjust the output to match demand.

After product is leading in sales for a number of year you can rest assured that production capacity will adopt. This is always true. In any market. Maybe Airbus will try everything to not keep production as steady as possible. Maybe they will leave some demand uncovered for some time, maybe they will suppress demand somewhat by charging higher prices but over the time the real strength of a product will show up in market share.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 30): The fact remains, Airbus has close to 1,000 more narrow bodies in backlog than Boeing and yet is really not delivering many more planes. That has to effect future ordering based on availability.

Studies for a rate of 60 jets per month are underway.

See Monthly A320 Output Could Reach 60 From 2018 (by art May 28 2015 in Civil Aviation)

It takes time to increase production rates, the supply chain always is the biggest struggle and some aircraft parts have a lead time of more than one year.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 36): Maybe Airbus will try everything to not keep production as steady as possible

Should be written: Maybe Airbus will try everything to keep production as steady as possible...

100 new narrowbodies for SpiceJets seems like too much, given their financial state. What with Indigo (180 orders), GoAir (72), SpiceJet (53), Air Asia India, JetKonnect and Air India Express (19), the Indian LCC playing field seems very crowded.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 23): At some point Boeing will have the edge do to availability of delivery slots. Airbus is not doing much to eat into it's huge backlog of narrow body frames.

In a thread less than two months ago about WizzAir ordering 110 A321neos you said:

Quote: I have read in several industry articles about the general lower quality of orders this year such as Garuda. But the Whizz order takes it to a new level. Whizz operates a fleet of 61 aircraft with an average age of 3.1 years and now has 150 frames on order. What a joke

Wizz Air Buying 110 A321neos (by Cassi Jun 18 2015 in Civil Aviation) (reply 41)

WizzAir current narrowbody fleet = 63
WizzAir recent order = 110
SpiceJet's current narrowbody fleet = 19
SpiceJet's rumored order = 100

Given:
1) WizzAir's narrowbody fleet is much closer to the size of their order (110/63 = 174%) as compared to SpiceJet and their rumored order (100/19 = 526%).
2) WizzAir has been profitable for the last five years while SpiceJet has incurred significant losses including a fleet grounding due to unpaid bills.
3) WizzAir has never had aircraft repossessed by lessors, while SpiceJet did as recently last year.

can I be assured that you also think that this SpiceJet order for 737MAXs is a joke? Assuming of course that the details as reported are true.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22): Since it was only the end of 2014 when lessors tried to reposses Spicejet aircraft, prior to the change of ownership, I seriously question if Spicejet has the credit to buy this many frames.

My thoughts also. Who would finance it? Given the recent repossessions SpiceJet has experienced as well as the debacle of what Kingfisher did to leased aircraft, lessors would be very wary.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22): The GoI must create laws to align with the Capetown convention to bring down Indian airline leasing costs.

I wonder what the difference in lease rates would be for the same aircraft (737-800) between an airline such as SpiceJet, who has had a subpar credit history, and a carrier like SilkAir, who has a very good one. The difference between them must be fairly substantial, I would think. This in turn would have an effect on how cheaply the respective carrier could price airfares.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31): In an interview, Leahy rejected Joyce’s caution. “I’m confident before the end of this year we will announce a ramp up,” Leahy said. “If that means I can only offer airplanes with Pratt engines, then I only offer airplanes with Pratt engines.”

The Pratt engine is generally considered to be the superior one isn't it? As such, it's not like customers are losing out. From Pratt's point of view, this is a very good situation to be in.  

Quoting zkojq (Reply 39): In a thread less than two months ago about WizzAir ordering 110 A321neos you said:

And your point is?

Both posts support the same idea. That maybe the Airbus backlog isn't very strong and that's why they are not rushing to eat up the backlog.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 36):

Ahhh... Now I understand. Before 2020, CFM is not ready to support more that 26 A320s per month with Pratt supporting the other 26 to make 52. Or CFM is not set up to supply no more than 52 engines per month to Airbus due to Boeing commitments.

Airbus is going to 63 per month or what should be 63 engines per month CFM and 63 per month Pratt/IAE. Since CFM is going to be 11 engines short per month, Airbus has an issue.

By contract, both CFM and Pratt are allocated 50% of the production slots until 3 years after the production ramp or NEO transition (whichever happens later) or 2023 if the production ramp is supported, 2021 if not.

But CFM is on record saying they will not support beyond 52/month which is 52 CFM engines. CFM will get 50% of what they support (NEO transition through 2018). If CFM chooses not to supply the additional 11 engines per month, then Pratt/IAE has the option to supply them. Pratt would also have protected slots for 2 years when CFM wouldn't...

Since the PW1100 uses 'old materials,' there should be capacity freed up by the CFM-56 to LEAP-1A/1B transition. So Pratt should be able to deliver the needed 220 engines (CFM is signing up to supply 40 more per year or 20 shipsets). This would result in 63 A320 per month or:
26 CFM powered and 37 Pratt/IAE powered. Since the contract states 50% for CFM, CFM is protesting Pratt would be awarded 59%. But if CFM does not support the proposed ramp, Airbus may award the production slots to Pratt/IAE.

CFM is stuck at 52 combined NEO/CEO until 2020 due to the MAX. Pratt could additional V2500s by not reducing production as much and in 2018 and 2019 convert to all NEO.

All signs point to Airbus increasing production to 54/month in 2016 (some of ramp late in year), 56 to 57 by end of 2017, and achieving 63 by start of 2020.

The only question is what CFM will do. Airbus will accelerate production. There will be surplus CFM-56 in 2019, so I personally do not fully understand CFMs 2020 comment.

But engines in 2020 do not support the Airbus' production ramp. A pickle for CFM.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 39):

I'm with you on not understanding how Spicejet gets the credit... Does not compute.

Lightsaber

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 36): Quoting mffoda (Reply 34): 50 NEO's X 11 or 11.5 Why not 12? I think Airbus is always talking about the average monthly output.

That can't be true.

For the last two years Airbus has had the official production rate for A330 at 10 per month. But, delivered 108 A/C per year. That equals 9 A/C per month in a 12 month calendar year, not 10.

Also, the A320 official production rate is said to at 44 A/C per month now, up from 42 last year. 42 A/C x12 months = 504 A/C and 44 A/C x 12 A/C = 528. And they delivered 490 A320 A/C last year.

In addition, through the first six months of this year, Airbus delivered only 238 A320's. Lower then last years total.

And there's this from Leeman News comments section today:

"Bjorn Fehrm
August 3, 2015
The production of A350 has gone reasonably well but not as well as Airbus (Evrard) has postulated over the last quarters and years. We have simply recognized that Airbus has a production year of 11 months (shut production line in August and December of total 1 month) and that our average estimated OUTPUT of the FAL is 4 per month. One has to understand that all discussions from Airbus in their presentations is around FAL starts, ie input, not output. Through flow time for the FAL is approx 7 months, so it takes time before an increase in FAL starts rattles trough into increase in deliveries."


http://leehamnews.com/2015/08/03/air...roduction-gap-for-a330/#more-16801

First we have to note that production rate ≠ delivery rate. So almost your whole post was not about production rate.
The only aircraft where production rate should match delivery rate is the A320 because the production rate is stable since a long time.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): Airbus has had the official production rate for A330 at 10 per month

Has not the transition phase to the NEO already started?

Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): through the first six months of this year, Airbus delivered only 238 A320's

Midyear checks are not reliable. IIRC there are typically peak months in the second half of the year.

You can also see in the diagram above: there is significant production activity for the NEO already ongoing in 2015.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): And they delivered 490 A320 A/C last year

As hinted above this view does e.g. not count the A320NEO prototypes. There is a significant number NEO prototypes and first production aircraft in various stages of being produced. So obviously the available production rate "is consumed" to somed degree by those aircraft (which obviously do not show up on the list of deliveries).

IMO this easily explains the ~10 missed A320 to get the 42/month full year average.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): production of A350 has gone reasonably

The A350 production can hardly be judged at the moment because (as Ferpe says) every parameter is evolving.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43): First we have to note that production rate ≠ delivery rate. So almost your whole post was not about production rate. The only aircraft where production rate should match delivery rate is the A320 because the production rate is stable since a long time.

Now your just being silly...

Boeing's production rates closely match their delivery rates. Particularly in the NB field. And petty much dead on in their WB's.

Airbus, not so much...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43): Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): Airbus has had the official production rate for A330 at 10 per month Has not the transition phase to the NEO already started?

No, not for 2013 & 2014 when they said the production/delivery rate was 10 per month. Yet delivered 108 A/C per year.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43): Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): through the first six months of this year, Airbus delivered only 238 A320's Midyear checks are not reliable. IIRC there are typically peak months in the second half of the year.

Sure they are, even when considering the production ramp-up from 42 to 44 A/C this year. The second half of the year spells volume's about recording in January deliveries in December. I'm fairly certain both OEM's do it.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43): Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): And they delivered 490 A320 A/C last year As hinted above this view does e.g. not count the A320NEO prototypes. There is a significant number NEO prototypes and first production aircraft in various stages of being produced. So obviously the available production rate "is consumed" to somed degree by those aircraft (which obviously do not show up on the list of deliveries). IMO this easily explains the ~10 missed A320 to get the 42/month full year average.

What all 3 or 4 A320NEO prototypes... Really? The number missed is more then 10

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43): Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): production of A350 has gone reasonably The A350 production can hardly be judged at the moment because (as Ferpe says) every parameter is evolving.

Then you must have missed Frepe's reply regarding Airbus' production rates...


Here you go:

"Bjorn Fehrm
August 3, 2015
The production of A350 has gone reasonably well but not as well as Airbus (Evrard) has postulated over the last quarters and years. We have simply recognized that Airbus has a production year of 11 months (shut production line in August and December of total 1 month) and that our average estimated OUTPUT of the FAL is 4 per month. One has to understand that all discussions from Airbus in their presentations is around FAL starts, ie input, not output. Through flow time for the FAL is approx 7 months, so it takes time before an increase in FAL starts rattles trough into increase in deliveries."


http://leehamnews.com/2015/08/03/air...roduction-gap-for-a330/#more-16801

I'll pull out the key line for you...

" We have simply recognized that Airbus has a production year of 11 months (shut production line in August and December of total 1 month)"

This has been discussed many times before on this forum, Airbus France has a production year of 11 months, not 12.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): For the last two years Airbus has had the official production rate for A330 at 10 per month. But, delivered 108 A/C per year.

Taking the knowledge above into account, 11 months * 10 per month = 110 maximum. Hence 108 is pretty close.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): That equals 9 A/C per month in a 12 month calendar year, not 10.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 44): No, not for 2013 & 2014 when they said the production/delivery rate was 10 per month. Yet delivered 108 A/C per year.

The monthly production rate is based on the production year, not the calendar year (see above).

Quoting mffoda (Reply 42): Also, the A320 official production rate is said to at 44 A/C per month now, up from 42 last year. 42 A/C x12 months = 504 A/C and 44 A/C x 12 A/C = 528. And they delivered 490 A320 A/C last year.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 44): Sure they are, even when considering the production ramp-up from 42 to 44 A/C this year.

No, the A320 production rate is still 42 per month and will be increased to 44 in Q1 2016 followed by 46 in Q2 2016.

See http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...oduction-to-46-a-month-by-q2-2016/

Also, the A320 line in France has a production year of 11 months. So:

> France: 13 per month x 11 months = 143
> Germany: 25 per month x 12 months = 300
> China: 4 per month x 12 months = 48 per year

Total: 491 (and delivered 490 last year).

You have to ignore the calendar year and work with the production year.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45): Airbus France has a production year of 11 months, not 12.

No doubt about that. But that does not mean that when Airbus quotes a monthly production rate of X it does not mean "monthly production rate" actually but "1/11 years production rate".

Quoting mffoda (Reply 44): Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):First we have to note that production rate ≠ delivery rate. So almost your whole post was not about production rate. The only aircraft where production rate should match delivery rate is the A320 because the production rate is stable since a long time. Now your just being silly... Boeing's production rates closely match their delivery rates. Particularly in the NB field. And petty much dead on in their WB's.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 44): Then you must have missed Frepe's reply regarding Airbus' production rates...

Why silly? It is obvious that output only matches production rate if quite some parameters are stable: mean elapsed time per unit, constant throughput rate in every position, no ramp up or ramp down, customers picking up any finished aircraft immediately...

Quoting mffoda (Reply 44): What all 3 or 4 A320NEO prototypes... Really? The number missed is more then 10

Many more A320NEOs are already being built. So the production system to some degree is already charged with building NEO parts. Without reflecting that activity in "deliveries".

Quoting mffoda (Reply 44): Then you must have missed Frepe's reply regarding Airbus' production rates...

No, see the first remark in this post...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45): Hence 108 is pretty close.

It's also worth pointing out that some A330s are not delivered as soon as they're built. Freighters and MRTTs require post-production conversion. In the case of the MRTTs, there can be quite a delay between rollig off the production line and being delivered to the customer.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45): No, the A320 production rate is still 42 per month and will be increased to 44 in Q1 2016 followed by 46 in Q2 2016. See http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...oduction-to-46-a-month-by-q2-2016/

I read that Feb. 2014 release too, but over at Leeham news they're saying this:


"Airbus has already to increased production rate from the present 44 aircraft per month to 50 which will take effect during 2017. One is also studying rates as high as 60 per month and expects a decision before the end of the year."

http://leehamnews.com/2015/08/03/air...roduction-gap-for-a330/#more-16801

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 38): Should be written: Maybe Airbus will try everything to keep production as steady as possible...

This seems wise. No point in going to the expense of ramping up production (which involves a lot of support for suppliers) if you have to reduce production shortly afterwards.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 40): And your point is?

In the previous thread you made a fanboy comment about the WizzAir order being a joke. You refuse to call this one a joke also, despite the order being much larger relative to the size of the carrier's existing narrowbody fleet* and despite the airline being far less creditworthy. This affirms my suspicions that the 'joke' comment had more to do with you disliking the OEM rather than anything to do with the actual order.

Even if SpiceJet's order was for 50 NEOs/MAXs, I would be very suspicious/curious about where the financing is being sourced.

*If the WizzAir order was of the same magnitude relative to the existing narrowbody fleet of SpiceJet, it would be for 330 aircraft.  

Quoting racercoup (Reply 40): That maybe the Airbus backlog isn't very strong and that's why they are not rushing to eat up the backlog.

It depends on the order horizon. LCCs often cycle through their fleet much quicker than legacies and consequently their orders often include aircraft that will replace yet-to-be-delivered aircraft. Examples would be Indigo, WizzAir and RyanAir.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41): By contract, both CFM and Pratt are allocated 50% of the production slots until 3 years after the production ramp or NEO transition (whichever happens later) or 2023 if the production ramp is supported, 2021 if not.

Oh. That must be a real pain for Airbus.