Comment: November 2012 Archives

The US Marine Corps has stood up its first Lockheed Martin F-35B squadron at MCAS Yuma, Arizona, and during the next year the fleet will grow to 16. But although the Marines are adamant that VMFA-121 is an operational unit, it is not operationally capable.
The aircraft are early production models with a basic Block 1B configuration. They fly a limited flight envelope and cannot even fly during instrument meteorological conditions. Moreover, as currently configured, they have no combat capability.
Operational testing is years away, but the Marines say they may not wait for the evaluation to be completed. They might declare the F-35B operational the moment they have 10 deployable interim-configuration jets and enough equipment and trained maintenance crews for two shifts. It is not unusual for a weapons system to be declared operational with known deficiencies and before testing is finished, the USMC argues.
This line of reasoning is all too familiar. In years past, when the Bell Boeing MV-22 Osprey was entering service, the overzealous USMC rushed the aircraft into the fleet without proper testing and with multiple known design flaws. In their zeal, some USMC units even falsified maintenance records. The result was the loss of almost two dozen lives. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself; the Pentagon must ensure the USMC does not prematurely deploy the F-35B.

(This first appeared as a leader in 27 November 2012 issue of Flight International)

US aerospace companies have seldom seen better market conditions than in 2012. There is much talk of spending cuts on the military, but the reality is the base defence budget has never been higher - at least until the "fiscal cliff" expires. Business jet sales have not recovered to pre-2009 levels, but galloping production rates in the commercial aviation sector have more than compensated for any weaknesses elsewhere.
Yet, many US-based chief executives seem not to be revelling in the industry's hard-won prosperity. The announced intention of Spirit AeroSystems chief Jeff Turner to step down early in 2013 is only the latest example of a leadership change at the highest levels of the US aerospace and defence industry.
The chief executive churn started in June with the unexpected resignation of Jim Albaugh. Jim McNerney is Boeing's chairman and chief, but Albaugh has headed either Boeing's defence or commercial sectors for a decade. At Lockheed Martin, Bob Stevens is departing in a process that has grown complicated. His appointed heir, Chris Kubasik, had to step down after admitting an improper relationship with another Lockheed employee.
The result is one of the most significant leadership transitions in the US aerospace industry in more than a decade, and it comes at a pivotal moment. Today's industry leaders face the certainty of a declining defence budget, a structural change requiring different management skills than the kind exercised in relative prosperity.
On the civil side, booming output and complex supply chains create their own management pressures. No company was more exposed to such risks than Spirit, and the $590 million write-down recorded in the third quarter offers a glimpse of the potential pitfalls.
Leadership turnover can be traumatic, but also a sign of a healthy industry. Change at the top appears to be occurring more rapidly across Fortune 500 companies. A study earlier this year by The Conference Board found that the tenure of chief executives in 2011 declined by a year compared with the 10-year average. Perhaps boards are getting tougher, learning from the financial crisis that their accountability role cannot be ignored. Another healthy sign is the ascension of Marillyn Hewson (above) to the CEO suite at Lockheed's headquarters, becoming the first woman to lead one of the big-five aerospace and defence contractors in the USA. As she is rightly welcomed, she should also be warned. For her, like the rest of her chief executive colleagues, the job is harder and riskier than ever.

(This first appeared as a leader in the 27 November 2012 issue of Flight International)

This week's Flight International (27 November) has a special feature on Swedish industry, with a particular focus on Saab Aerospace and its flagship Gripen combat aircraft. The single-engine jet marked a significant change for the country's foreign policy when it performed reconnaisance services as part of the 2011 NATO campaign in Libya. Craig Hoyle looks at its role in a significantly reduced Swedish air force inventory.

We also interview Saab bosses about the company's new focus on international markets - the company now makes 70% of its revenues from overseas and just 30% from Sweden, a complete about face from a decade ago. And Dan Thisdell examines how the acquisition of Volvo Aero will help the UK's GKN create a globally-competitive engine components business.

In a special feature package on military training, Dave Majumdar asks whether simulators can ever replace real aircraft when it comes to teaching pilots at the sharp end. As a senior US navy training officer says: "You can't put the fear of dying in the sim." Meanwhile, Zach Rosenberg gets an update on how the US Army is training staff to fly unmanned air vehicles.

In news this week: Eurocopter sets a February deadline for the EC225's return, ICAO warns of air traffic management paralysis, and US Marines stand up the first F-35B unit.

One senior Airbus executive, during a dinner in Toulouse in May, seemed aghast at the suggestion the airframer might view the A350-800 as the runt of the litter: "That's like asking which of your children you love the least!"
But even Airbus must be struggling to suspend disbelief regarding its public insistence that the -800 has a future. Because it's hard to imagine that, given the choice, the airframer really wants to divert resources to the cut-and-shut version of the -900 when the challenge of the -1000 is looming, particularly given the uncertainty of Boeing's schedule for the upgraded 777X and the pressure of -900 production ramp-up.
By prying Qatar Airways away from its launch order, the airframer has halved the number of -800s that once featured on its books and taken the backlog down to double figures. Psychological barriers aside, Qatar's defection also removes a lynchpin order for the type and undermines the economic case for satisfying the remaining customer base.
Aeroflot and US Airways have been left to defend the -800's position but their collective orders look increasingly exposed, especially given that some of the outstanding customers have already partly converted, while others have undergone significant changes in circumstances. Don't be surprised if, like Boeing with the 787-3, Airbus rethinks its family values.

For this week's cover story, reporter Dave Majumdar has been getting a little upset - undergoing upset recovery training over the Arizona desert with training company APS. Although it was a lot of fun, it had a very serious side. Loss of control - often a failure to recover from an in-flight upset - is the biggest factor in commercial aviation accidents.

Also as part of the pilot training package, David Learmount also looks at the lessons to be learned for the pilot community from the Air France 447 crash over the Atlantic in 2009 - and in particular whether pilots need to be trained in a different way.

Finally, Learmount asks whether the airline industry can recruit and train the new pilots it needs for a predicted doubling of the world airliner fleet by 2030.

In news, we have a report from the Zhuhai air show in China, where Comac set out its ambitions for the single-aisle market and local manufacturer CAIGA unveiled the country's first home-grown business aircraft. We find out why Boeing is intensifying its 787-10X sales pitch and what the prospects are for the Airbus A350-800 following the decision by two more airlines to swap commitments for the larger -900 variant. Plus: what now for Europe's landmark aviation environment initiative after the ETS is put on hold for a year?

It would be hard to dream up a more soul-sapping experience than flying commercial in the USA: demeaning security checks with their bewildering rules, flight attendants who are in an even worse mood than you, and hub-and-spoke networks that require two or more connections to reach your destination.
That - simply - is why business aviation exists. While sheikhs and oligarchs may treat corporate jets as status symbols to fly for family holidays to the Maldives, in the industry's biggest market the vast majority of business aircraft trips are for just that - business.
Whether it is the self-employed architect flying himself to a client in a Cirrus SR22 or the corporate financiers jetting in on a Gulfstream to hammer out details of a billion-dollar acquisition, business aviation oils the gears of America's economy every day.
It may be more tolerable than being herded through bowels of sprawling airports to sit surrounded by fellow sufferers in a long tube. But, by providing a means of getting from A to B without going through C and D, business aviation's real unique selling point is time - time that can be spent creating jobs and wealth.
That is why the National Business Aviation Association is right to keep pressing this message in its No Plane No Gain campaign and why - despite its glamorous image - the real point of business aviation is to give business people more hours to do what they do best.

(This first appeared as a Flight International leader in our 6 November issue)

Ask Comac about the delivery schedule for its ARJ21 and C919 aircraft programmes and there is a good chance you will not get a reply. Go a step further and question how the C919 will compete against the re-engined variants of the A320 and Boeing 737 and it will be made clear that you have touched a nerve.
When Flight International had an exclusive tour of the Comac facilities in Shanghai, one thing was obvious: the four-year-old rookie is tired of being "unrealistically compared" to Boeing and Airbus, which have several decades' worth of experience in airliner programmes.
Not many seem to grasp that the Chinese state-owned airframer does not live in a bubble. It knows that the world is watching China's civil aircraft programmes, and that many doubt they will be successful.  
What it wants them to understand, though, is that the C919 is not meant to be a game changer. It is a state-run programme that is meant to give them experience in developing an aircraft from scratch, and eventually bring a competitive edge to future programmes. Getting the C919 flying and certified is but a first step towards their ambition of becoming a world-class airframer.
But Comac is realistic. It knows it is too far behind to see itself as competing with established players. Its inexperience shows in the ARJ21 programme: it appears not to fully understand certification processes and requirements. It lacks the equipment needed for tests, leading to the delays in getting the regional jet to market.
But the aim is not as much to compete against the A320 and the 737 as it is to get a Chinese-built commercial aircraft flying. Aware of its limitations, Comac has engaged many foreign companies as suppliers for the C919.
Have no doubt, however, that China has set its sights on becoming an aerospace power.  From what Flight International saw, no expense has been spared in building assembly lines and research centres. Those employed at joint ventures with Western suppliers are also accumulating precious knowledge and experience that can be brought to bear in future programmes.
There is an energy within the organisation that is hard to ignore. The employees, a number of whom have been with the company since its formation in 2008, seem to have been inspired by its vision of getting Chinese-built commercial aircraft into the skies.
Comac may not be competitive at this point, but one official put it succinctly when he told Flight International: "This is not a 100 metres dash." Playing the long game may well be Comac's path to success.

(This first appeared as the main leader in Flight International 6 November)

Weather changes spectacularly on the Great Plains. A flood disappears as fast as the next drought arrives. So it is with the Wichita aviation cluster. This, community, nearly a century old, has wondered if the post-2007 downturn is the hardest yet.
Severing a relationship dating from 1929, Boeing's brand will withdraw from Wichita in 2014. Meanwhile, Hawker Beechcraft is struggling to redefine itself before it is too late. The iconic Beech brand may still endure, but in what form nobody is certain.
Yet hope remains. Aerostructures specialist and Boeing spin-off Spirit AeroSystems now dominates the cluster's fortunes - and this is one of those cyclical "better" times. Wichita's entire aviation community rises now on the strength of Spirit's fast-growing backlog from an increasingly diverse mix of aircraft. Wichita's plan to survive is no longer dependent solely on the whims of any single aviation market. And when the business aviation market recovers, Wichita will be better prepared than ever. Unhealthy businesses have been shed and a training pipeline for skilled labour exists.
This is good news for the aviation industry as a whole. This medium-sized Kansas city has a depth of experience, skill and talent that cannot be transplanted to a lower-cost market, or replaced by new competitors with only a fraction of Wichita's lifespan. The winds in Wichita are changing - this time in the cluster's favour.

Embedded in the agreement that committed Singapore Airlines to acquiring five more Airbus A380s and 20 A350s was an undertaking by the airframer to buy back the carrier's five A340-500s. Embedded in the agreement that committed Singapore Airlines to acquiring five more Airbus A380s and 20 A350s was an undertaking by the airframer to buy back the carrier's five A340-500s. In the fuss created by blue-chip endorsements of flagship airliners, this detail may have been overlooked, but it heralds an important, if unsurprising, decision. Plainly, SIA has finally opted to throw in the towel on its ultra-long-haul transpacific experiment. That will happen at the end of next year - and comes as little surprise.
It was a bold attempt to open up a new frontier with nonstop connections between SIA's Changi hub and the USA, and the innovative carrier's perseverance is to be admired. However, it was an open secret that the five-strong A340-500 fleet was failing to turn a profit when deployed on flights of up to 19h, serving Los Angeles and Newark. Even a change of strategy to all-business-class service in an effort to boost yields failed to stem the flow of red ink.
Given that SIA is not alone in its desire to abandon the A340-500 for transpacific routes - Thai Airways is also retiring its four aircraft - there is less than robust demand for the type on the second-hand market. SIA has understandably jumped at the chance to cut its losses and hand the A340s back to Airbus in return for topping up its fleets of Airbus's newer widebodies.
So what of the future for the loudly trumpeted ultra-long-haul niche? Boeing's equivalent 777-200LR twinjet - which, unlike the A340, remains in production - has achieved a degree of success serving the needs of the rapidly expanding Gulf network carriers, as well as the likes of Air Canada, Delta Air Lines and Ethiopian Airlines. However, there have been misses, too, with Air India deciding to put the majority of its -200LR fleet up for sale.
Ultra-long haul has effectively become a niche within a niche, as relatively few routes have been demonstrated to be capable of commanding the ticket-price premium that is essential to offset the fuel penalties. The concept was marginal at best when fuel was as low as $40 a barrel five years ago. At today's price of $100-plus, sustainable profits seem utterly out of reach - perhaps forever.
Meanwhile questions remain over whether the travelling public has the stomach for remaining aloft for such a long time. The world may have to wait for a "son of Sonic Cruiser" before the ultra-long haul finds a strong foothold in the mainstream.

(This article first appeared as the leading article in the 30 October issue of Flight International)