As some customers press Airbus and Boeing for a replacement for the Boeing 757-200W used on selected trans-Atlantic, long-thin routes, Flightglobal floated a suggestion that that the Boeing 767-300ER might be a possible replacement.
The last passenger 767 was delivered this month. The line remains open with the 767-300ERF and the early stages of the USAF KC-46A tanker. A cut-price 763ER might be cheap enough to offset the operating cost disadvantage, or so the theory goes.
The 763ER is the right size in a three-class configuration—218 seats–and will be in production for many years to come due to the KC46 production line. We know Boeing sold the 763ER for a very low price in connection with compensation for the 787 delays, and we know that at a very low price, the 763ER economics do match the 787’s operating costs. But how does this stack up against the 757 in Flightglobal’s hypothesis?
Not very well. We did a quick economical analysis with our proprietary model.
The National Transportation Safety Board released a report on its investigation of the Boeing 787 battery fire on the Japan Air Lines 787 and the smoking battery on the ANA 787 in January 2013. The Federal Aviation Administration grounded the 787s for more than three months while a fix was designed.
The NTSB press release summarizing its points is here.
The agency’s 12-page letter of Safety Recommendations is here. Additional information is here.
We’re at the Pratt & Whitney media days today and tomorrow. This is the Technology at PW panel. Participants are:
Alan Epstein, engineer and moderator. (AE)
Michael Winter, chief technologists (MW)
Graham Webb, MRJ, CSeries and EJet engines. (GW)
Jimmy Kenyon, advanced military programs. (JK)
All information is paraphrased.
GW: At $4/gal, over 60% of cost to an airline is for fuel. Engines must cut these costs. A380 and 787 consume less than 3 liters per passenger, about that of a compact car.
GTF is certified [on CSeries]. GTF now on five airframes with 12 sub-types. The engine reduces fuel and maintenance costs, reduced emissions. Fuel savings now demonstrated at 16% less than today’s engines.
Next generation of GTF will further reduce fuel burn by 10%-15%.
MW: The noise footprint will stay predominately within the airport boundaries, using 2,000 fewer foils, about half of our competitor’s engine. Emissions are about 50% below current regulations and working with NASA toward 88% below current levels.
Current bypass ratio about 13:1 and currently testing with NASA 15:1 and 18:1.
375% improvement in efficiency since the days of the Whittle jet engine.
We have the most advanced cooling system in the industry and we are exploring inserting advanced materials into the engines when there is real benefit to the customer.
JK: We’re seen similar trends to improve efficiency in military as with commercial. The Department of Defense is the biggest user of energy in the country, with about 80% in engines.
The military has seen really tight budgets in recent years. There is more than just a cost issue, it’s also an energy security issue (Iraq, Afghanistan challenges). There is a real interest in cutting energy usage and aviation being such a large part, it is a natural place to look.
The strategy considers places where you have to fly farther and/or stay on station longer. We’re working on technology to provide fuel management and efficiency to reduce costs, fly father and stay on station longer.
We’re working with USAF to obtain 25% improvement in fuel efficiency on next engines, and with Navy to also improve efficiency, and leveraging work in the commercial arena to improve thermal efficiency.
AE: Are you a one-trick pony? What have you got besides the gear?
GW: We have advanced fan module, bringing forward light weight fan cases, the next generation combustor, advanced core, state-of-the-art high pressure turbine and high speed low pressure turbine, all of which designed for the very high speeds. There are control system enhancements, working on next gen of the fan-drive gear system, short inlets for enhanced efficiency.
The ILA Berlin Air Show begins tomorrow. The Air Show is a poor cousin to the Farnborough Air Show (July this year) and the Paris Air Show (in odd-numbered years). We went to this show in 2006 and were more excited about returning to Berlin for the first time since before the Berlin Wall came down than we were about going to the event itself.
Boeing doesn’t place much stock in the show since it is viewed as an Airbus star vehicle. Best we can tell from the ILA website, Boeing isn’t even an exhibitor.
Airbus tries to have some major announcements for the show, although Farnborough and Paris–being the bigger draws and having greater international prestige–are clearly the favored forum.
What might Airbus announce at the Berlin show, other than a few orders? The aviation world is waiting and watching for what Airbus will do about the A330neo and, with it, the future of the A350-800. Airbus is sending the A350-900 to the Air Show for the first time–will this be the place Airbus puts the nail in the coffin of the A35-800? We have our doubts about that.
Could Airbus launch the A330neo at the ILA? We received an email over the weekend that an announcement could be forthcoming at this show, but the source is from outside Airbus (though information from this source is usually reliable). Expectations for the A330neo have centered on Farnborough, however. Our Market Intelligence tells us few potential customers have actually seen proposals from Airbus on the A330neo as yet, so we think it might be a bit premature to have a launch of the program. Information is also that Airbus has been looking at the “second half” of 2014 to make a decision (at least publicly). May isn’t in the second half–but July is.
Other than this suspense, if you can call it that, we don’t expect much out of ILA this week.