On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:29:47 -0500, JF Mezei
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberAbandoned in the sense that the order book for it is pretty thin.
Basically it us unlikely that the engineering costs for the a318neo
would ever be recovered.
IF Aibus has lumped in the 318 into this NEO project, wouldn't there
have been much commonality on terms of enginering ?
Some, but there is a lot of paperwork and testing that is required for
each variant, and with the market (and backlog) so poor for the A318,
it just doesn't pay to invest the money.
Post by JF MezeiI can understand that by itself, the market just isn't large enough to
warrant the 318 getting new engines. But if it is being done in
cunjunction with the rest of the family, wouldn't this significant lower
the profitability threshold ?
Lower, but with the truly miserable demand for the aircraft,
significantly lower isn't lower enough..
Post by JF MezeiIt is obvious that the current 318 has not been a success. But if it
were outfitted with new engines, is it possible that the economics from
the point of view of the airline would become sufficiently palatable ?
Or is the extra weight per seat such a large issue for the 318 that it
really cannot compete ?
Here is how it works out
A318 OEW 86,000 pounds/100 seats =860 pounds per seat
A321 OEW 106,000 pounds, 185 seats= 572 pounds per seat
EJ190 OEW 61,000 pounds, 98 seats=622 pounds per seat
CRJ900 OEW 47,000 pounds, 86 seats=546 pounds per seat
CS3000 OEW (my estimate) 74,000 pounds, 130 seats=570 pounds per seat
Unless you have a mission that only the A318 can operate (like across
the pond), it is an exceptional unattractive aircraft. Not only do you
take a hefty hit on the fuel burn, you usually also have to pay
mainline wages and benefits if you are a legacy carrier. It is a
double whammy, and that's why you'll won't see many legacy carriers
ever operating the aircraft. They don't have missions where the A318
is a good fit, that cannot be flown at substantially lower cost with
something else.
How much demand is there for a 100 seat aircraft on mission that are
over 2200 miles?
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberThe second issue is that the A318 has a common type rating with the
A321. How do you justify paying the A318 crew less than you would pay
an A321 crew
Fair point. But if you have frequent weather related camcellations,
delays etc, having the flexibility of using a pilot that is fresh (just
got in to work) to operate a 321 instead of a 318 can save the airline
plenty of money compared to leaving that 321 stranded. (in such events,
you want to use the largest gauge you can to reduce backlog of passengers).
But perhaps this is stretching it quite a bit.
Operational flexibility at a high price. ALPA wants a direct
relationship between MGTOW and paycheck.
A318 MGTOW 149,000 pounds
A321 MGTOW 171,500 pounds
EJ190 MGTOW 105,000 pounds
CS300 MGTOW 132,000 pounds (published)
Just for good measure, in some countries, landing fees, registration
fees, and air navigation fees are tied to MGTOW.
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberThe A320NEO is an interesting creature. The A321NEO is likely to be an
attractive replacement for the 757. At the moment Airbus really
doesn't offer an aircraft with the capabilities of the 757.
Will the added range of the new engines allow the 321 to do missions
that a 757 could ?
Most of them anyway. The combination of the winglets and fuel economy
improvements should push the range to about 3400 miles.
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberThe A320NEO option is likely to be at least somewhat attractive for
existing A320 family operators.
If a new carrier is formed, the improved efficiency of the 320s will
likely give the 320 an edge over the 737. Whether many new carriers will
be formed in the next 10 years remains to be seen. I have a feeling that
we saw a LCC boom in recent years and the market will stabilise. And
with a few exceptions, you're not going to see an LCC switch from 737 to
320 (or vice versa).
With regards to existing 320 operators, sopme A320s are already over 20
years old. The increased efficiency of the NEO may make it easier to
justify replacing the older 320s in a fleet with newer ones.
It almost never pays to replace an airframe unless you have pretty
much reached the design life. Look at DL and the D9's they still fly.
Unpleaseant reality: Cost of a new A320 is about $300,000/month. That
buys a lot of fuel, and a lot of maintenance if you already own the
aircraft. You will see 'problem' aircraft retired, but if there isn't
an issue, keep flying it...
Post by JF MezeiAnd when you look at airlines like Delta or United that operate both
737 and 320s, this could become interesting when the time comes to buy
more narrowbodies. They may decide to grow the 320 fleet instead of the 737.
Not quite that simple. There are quite a few missions the 737 can fly
that the A320 has trouble with. This wasn't really an issue for NW,
since their hubs weren't really on either coast, but if have hubs at
EWR, IAD and SFO, there are lots of missions the aircraft cannot fly.
Transcon is challenge for both the A320 and A321, most versions of
the 737NG can in fact fly these missions without difficulty.
B6 ended up fitting aux tanks to their A320's at MGTOW to be able to
reliably fly trans-con, and even then they are sometimes forced into a
technical landing along the way.
Post by JF MezeiBetween now and when Boeing announces a full replacement for the 737,
this will give Airbus an edge. With Boeing mired in 787 problems for the
next few years (remember that it still needs to do the 787-900 which is
more popular than the -800), perhaps Airbus is betting that Boeing will
take 4-5 years before it is able to talk about a new reoplacement for
the 737.
And remember that Boeing will likely want to know how its revolutionary
changes on the 787 really perform before deciding on whether to build an
all electric carbon fibre replacement for the 737, or whether it will
remain with more conventional construction techniques and systems.
If it turns out that the 787 concepts don't really pay off, then
whatever Boeing builds might not outclass the 320NEO which could remain
in the game long enough for Airbus to develop new construction
techniques that do make the fancy new stuff become economically viable.
One needs to remember that early operators of A320s have already begun
to replace older 320s with newer 320s because early 320s are already
over 20 years old.
With mproved operating economics of the 320, this may lower the bar
needed to justify replacing older 320s with a new ones.
Not by much. Fuel is about 30% of ASM cost, so a 15% reduction is
only about 5% of total cost. Cost of the aircraft is generally around
10% of ASM cost on a new airplane...
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberFor legacy carriers, the A318 and A319 aren't all that attractive.
Air Canada seems to like its 319s. When it rationalised its fleet, it
was 320s that were sent back, not 319s. If 319s allow higher yields
because there are fewer empty seats, it may be more profitable for an
airline like AC that needs to serve cities smaller than Toronto.
Post by matt weberThe C-series allows legacy carriers to draw a line in the sand below
the A320 and 737NG, and with ALPA's desire to tie MGTOW to pay, the
C-series substantially lower MGTOW than the corresponding capacity
A320 products is a very real savings.
The sad reality is that the C Series isn't exactly a resounding success.
Is it because airlines don't have confindence in the plane until its
first flight ? Or because there isn't much demand for a new entrant's
plane that competes at the low end of the 737 and 320 ?
Note that AA is replacing its DC-9 class aircraft (MD-80s etc) with
737s. And Northwest (now under Delta) had been seen as an important
potential customer and was originally to be the launch customer. Yet, no
order from them.
Post by matt weberWhile Airbus is claiming the A320NEO will deliver about 15% better
fuel burn, the history of such claims is not pretty. In terms of real
world expereience both Leap-X and GTF are both vaporware.
What is Leap-X ?
Leap-X is the follow on to the Tech-56 program which made significant
improvements in the reliablity and fuel burn of CFM56. CFM publicly
committed to the Leap-X program for the C919. GE probably has a better
understanding of computational fluid dynamics as applied to aircraft
engines than anyone else in the world. The GE-90 has the lowest SFC in
the sky (and by a significant margin). For GE, LEAP-X is the
application of GE90 technology to smaller engines, just as the CFM56
was the application of CF6 technology to small engines.
Post by JF MezeiDo they have a fixed design/concept yet ?
They aren't saying much about it, but I'd be surprised if they didn't
already have a very good idea of what LEAP-X will look like.
see http://www.cfm56.com/leap
Post by JF MezeiThe GTF has
had flying experience on a 747 SP test bed since july 2008. Doesn't seem
too vapourware to me. Perhaps the GTF is experiencing problems during
testing. But P&W says that they are confident that they have fixed the
durability issues for the engine's design.
RR was also very confident about both The Trent 900 and 1000, and both
programs have quite literally exploded...
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt webersurprised is the actual fuel burn reduction of the NEO versus the
current aircraft exceeds 10%.
Those engines are about 25 years younger than the ones on the 320.
Shirley they should be able to get something better than 10% improvement ?
SFC improvements are very hard to come by.
Consider this:
The difference in SFC between an RB211-524G and a Trent 1000 is only a
little better than 10%, that represents more than 20 years and
literally billions of dollars spent.
Post by JF MezeiSince the A320 airframe is a known quantity and thet are just swapping
engines, it should be very easy to measure the improvement. This isn't
like the 787 whose claim to dramatic cost reductions was based on both
the engine and on airframe weight, the later not giving out the expected
weight savings.
It is too soon to know where the 787 will eventually end up on
Airframe weight. The 787 is very extensively instrumented and that may
allow considerable weight to be ultimately removed as loads turn out
to be less than were orignally expected. Computer analysis has its
limits....
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberSo While Leahy at Airbus claims the NEO kills the business case for
the C-Series, I think is a gross overstatement, as is Airbus's
forecast to sell 4000 NEO's...
The video I watched had Lehey speak about Boeing and the debate on when
there will be sufficient technooogical advancement to warrant building a
totally new plane.
Does anyone know if A320s built today are significantly lighter than the
ones built in the early days of "mass" production of the 320 ? This
could be part of the 15% claim (comparing against the first batch of 320s).
It is unlikely that the weight has changed more than a few hundred
pounds since the first A320-200's (remember there were a handful of
A320-100's). However both the CFM56 and V2500 have had continuing
small improvements, mostly in life on the wing, but some fuel economy
as well, and most aircraft undergo some aerodynamic improvements
during production as well. An improvement in L/D works just as well as
an improvement in SFC for driving down fuel costs...
There is unfortunately a long history of engines not performing as
well on the airframe as they did on the test stand, for whatever
reason.
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberIf you are an LCC or an operator who doesn't currently have the A320
family in the stable, the C-series is pretty attractive as a 100-150
seat aircraft compared the the A318 or A319NEO.
Considering neither Boeing nor Airbus bothered to better optimise their
smaller aircraft, isn't it just possible that the market doesn't really
need an aircraft that size ?
The market in the USA largely doesn't want it because of the 'Scope
Clause' issue. The rest of the world may be a different matter, but so
far hasn't been. The 100 seat market has in fact been a black hole for
decades (F28, F100, BAe146/RJ and A318 to name a few)...
Post by JF MezeiPost by matt weberThe durability of the GTF is open to question.
P&W seems to be aware of this image because their web site tries to
dispell this. If they started flight tests in july 2008, when would one
expect the engine to obtain certification ? Is it past due yet ?
(indicating they are experiencing problems) or is it still well withing
expected timeframe needed for proper testinfg ?
Post by matt weberAirbus has already commented on what they plan on charging for the
NEO, and it is going to be expensive.
A montreal newspaper mentioned that while Airbus promises 15% lower fuel
costs, Bombardier promises 15% lower total operating costs. Let the PR
games begin...
As I pointed out 15% reduction in fuel cost is only worth about 5% in
total operating costs. NO PR game involved.
Post by JF MezeiWill airlines with existing A320 fleets prefer to continue buying the
original engines for commonality with their fleet, or will they accept a
new engine type to reap the benefits of lower costs ?
It is going to depend upon the costs involved. At the price points
Airbus has suggested for the NEO, I doubt it is going to sell very
well. However the price book for commercial aircraft is cast in
Jello..
IF Airbus is going to sell these things in large numbers, they have to
abandon the idea that they want about 30% of the project fuel savings
over the life of the aircraft as a premium for the A320NEO.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.