Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
Used B777-200ER or A340-300?
Subscription required
By Bjorn Fehrm
Introduction
Nov. 26 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In recent articles we have latched on to the debate around the prices for used Boeing 777-200 aircraft. Contrary to the market appraising companies’ ideas about second hand values, our surveys show that not only the Airbus A340-300 is cheap in the market but the Boeing 777-200ER is also available at interesting prices.
This, coupled with sustained low fuel prices, makes for interesting opportunities. Charter destinations can be reached which were not possible with less competent aircraft and it is possible to lease or purchase these long range aircraft to backfill an expanding route network while awaiting or even postponing delivery of the latest technology aircraft.
We decided it was time to take a look at which of the two would be the better choice as a long hauler of 300 passengers to destinations of up to 5,000nm. We use our proprietary model to find out which one is the most suitable given different conditions, such as cabin makeover or not. We will also introduce aircraft deterioration to the calculations to map the reality of an older aircraft.
In this first article, we will establish the base values for the aircraft and find their cash operating costs. In a subsequent article, we will add capital costs where we will look at different purchase scenarios and refurbishing options and how these affect the overall direct operating costs.
Summary
- The 777-200ER and A340-300 are very close in most dimensions.
- The 777-200ER is the slightly larger and heavier aircraft. Thanks to more effective engines, it can compete on fuel costs.
- When the other costs are added to make up cash operating costs, the higher weight and more expensive engines start to eat up any fuel cost advantages the 777-200ER has.
Evaluating airliner performance, Part 2
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Sep. 24 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In the second part of our series about comparing and evaluating economic and operational performance of airliners, we look at the parts beyond fuel that make up the Cash Operating Costs (COC) for an airliner.
While fuel consumption, crew costs and aircraft maintenance costs can be evaluated in a way which closely resembles reality, other costs in the COC are too complex to model in their true form.
This is the case for underway or airway fees, landing fees and station fees. Here, just about every country/airport in the world has taken the liberty to invent its own charging principles and formulas. With several hundred different formulae for these charges, the way out is to use industry-accepted approximation for these costs.
Summary:
- We establish how crew cost are modeled for our evaluation missions, taking into account the complex world of work time regulations for pilots and cabin crew.
- We also describe how we handle airframe and engine maintenance costs and how these get allocated to our missions.
- Finally, we describe how the complex underway and landing/station costs are modeled with the accepted approximations these require.
Bjorn’s Corner: Engine efficiency
18 September 2015, ©. Leeham Co: The debate around the market’s two single aisle combatants is quite heated, with fans of the one side saying “the limited space for a high bypass engine on the 737 MAX will cripple it forever” and the other side saying “the tighter design of the 737 will make it highly competitive against the A320neo, it is the A320 which has a weight and size problem”.
One of the arguments is that each inch of engine fan diameter brings 0.5% in increased propulsive efficiency. Therefore the A320 with up to 81 inches fans will win against the 737 MAX, which has a 69 inch fan. Having all the tools to check out if this is really the truth, I fed our airplane model with all the facts and looked at the result. It’s not so easy, guys…
Boeing’s 767 revitalized as a MOM stop gap, Part 3
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Aug. 31 2015, ©. Leeham Co: After examining the characteristics of the Boeing 767 to serve the market segment that Boeing is studying for its Middle of the Market (MOM) requirement, the 225 passenger/5000nm sector, we will now finish the series by looking at how the 767 can be made economically more competitive.
We will study the influence of improved aerodynamics like Aviation Partners Boeing’s Split Scimitar Winglet for the 767. We will also look at what engine PIPs can provide and also look at what a re-engine could bring.
Finally we examine at what happens when we add crew costs, underway/landing fees and maintenance costs to form Cash Operating Costs (COC) followed by capital costs to form Direct Operating Costs (DOC).
Summary:
- Boeing’s 767 has the right cross section for passenger transportation in the 225 passenger/5000nm segment.
- Its wings and empennage are too large, however. We make them work harder by transporting the 767-300ER fuselage and passengers.
- We also introduce aerodynamic and engine improvements. Still, the fuel consumption per seat mile is considerably higher than modern alternatives.
- At a Cash Operating Cost and Direct Operating Cost level, the higher fuel consumption has less influence in today’s fuel prices. The result is that the 767-300ER becomes an interesting alternative as long as the fuel price stays low.
Boeing’s 767 revitalized as a MOM stop gap, Part 2
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
Introduction
Aug. 31 2015, ©. Leeham Co: Last week we started to look at Boeing’s 767 to see if it can serve the passenger and range space which is not well covered by modern aircraft: the 225 passenger/5,000nm sector. Boeing calls this the Middle of the Market or MOM. Boeing recently said that there is some increased interest for the 767. We analyze why and what can be done to increase any chances of it having a new life as a passenger aircraft.
We started with comparing the 767’s different variants to the most likely MOM aircraft from our series “Redefining the 757 replacement requirement for the 225/5000-sector”. We will now continue and look at the 767 in detail, its strong suits and its less efficient areas. We will also discuss what can be made to address the less efficient areas.
Summary:
- Boeing’s 767 has the right cross section for passenger transportation in the 225 passenger/5,000nm segment.
- It also carries cargo containers, not as efficiently this time. We show what the consequences are.
- Finally the wing is not the slender wing of the modern aircraft. We show what impact it will have on overall efficiency.
- Combined with engines from the 1990s, this gives less than stellar fuel economics. We investigate what can be done about this and how much of an impact it will have in today’s low fuel prices.
Rolls-Royce and Safran, major European engine OEMs with different fortunes.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Subscription required.
July 30, 2015 © Leeham Co. Rolls-Royce and Safran, the parent company of CFM partner Snecma, released their Q2 and first half 2015 earnings today. It is interesting to compare these companies as they are in different strategic situations in their dominant business segments, civil turbofan engines.
Civil turbofans constitute 52% of Rolls-Royce total business whereas it makes 54% of Safran’s turn over. Rolls-Royce’s focus has been widebody engines to the point where it exited its part of International Aero Engines, which makes the single aisle V2500 engine, three years ago. Safran on the other hand is heavily invested in the single aisle market through its 50% part in CFM through its Snecma subsidiary.
The present situation and the future outlook for these two companies are intimately aligned with this strategic difference. We look at why and how this will affect their immediate future.
Summary:
- Rolls-Royce is experiencing migration problems in its widebody turbofan business. Its bread and butter Trent 700 engine is on its way out and it takes until 2018 for the replacement, Trent 7000, to kick in.
- Other programs are only growing slowly: the Trent 1000 for Boeing’s 787 or Trent XWB for the Airbus A350.
- Safran civil turbofan business Snecma is enjoying record sales and deliveries through its CFM joint venture with GE.
- Despite sharing its revenue 50:50 with GE, the business turnover is the size of Rolls-Royce turbofan business today and larger tomorrow. Profit margins are three times higher.
Bjorn’s Corner: Weight or fuel limited, what is this all about?
By Bjorn Fehrm
24 July 2015, ©. Leeham Co: In recent articles around the Ultra Long Haul (ULH) needs of Singapore Airlines, there have been many references to aircraft being either fuel or weight limited. It is not so evident what this all means and what the practical consequences are of one or the other limitation.
Let’s go through what it all means with a practical example and show how it will affect the performance of the aircraft and what one can do about it.
As an example we will pick Boeing’s ULH 777-200LR. It is known as the Worldliner since it can connect almost any two cities in the world with its ultimate range of 9,300nm. In practical use, the Worldliner has often been configured for less range. In such configurations it runs out of fuel tank space before it reaches its Max Take-Off Weight. This is “fuel limited.” Here is how it works.