THE JOURNAL FOR COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT BUSINESS • ISSUE 121 • DECEMBER 2018/JANUARY 2019

AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
THE JOURNAL FOR COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT BUSINESS
www.aircraft-commerce.com

MAKING LIGHT WORK OF

HEAVY METAL
A350-900 & -1000 fuel burn &
operating performance
ISSUE 121 • DECEMBER 2018/JANUARY 2019

737 MAX family overview & preliminary analysis I Getting to grips with real-time costing
Size of the widebody base check market I Upgrade programmes for the CFM56-3/-5B/-7B & V2500-A5
The path to using big data & predictives in maintenance I 30-80 ton freighter market

www.aircraft-commerce.com
 www.aircraft-commerce.com
Editor’s Comment
DECEMBER 2018/JANUARY 2019 After receiving the good news of an order for 20 aircraft from Emirates in January 2018, it
seems that the A380’s woes may have returned. Emirates has 33 more aircraft on order
EDITOR
CHARLES WILLIAMS - CHW (+44 1403 230
from a previous contract in 2013. The airline also has 109 aircraft in service, taking its total
302) firm commitment for the type to 162.
charles@aircraft-commerce.com

CONTRIBUTORS
SANDRA EVEREST The airline is now, however, rumoured to be negotiating to cancel the order it placed for 20
GESINE VARFIS
SANDER DE MOOR aircraft, and replace these with the A350.
PRODUCTION EDITOR
GEORGIA BIRRI
The total outstanding firm orders for the A380 is 87, with 34 orders for aircraft from other
SALES DIRECTOR
KAT RONALDSON (+44 1403 213 117) operators and lessors. These 34 include orders for 20 from operating lessor Amedeo, and
kat@aircraft-commerce.com
Australian airline Qantas for eight. The Amedeo order was placed in 2014, and to date there
SUBSCRIPTIONS
ANNE AHIER (+44 1403 213 110) has been no firm indication of when these aircraft might be delivered. The Qantas aircraft
anne@aircraft-commerce.com
were ordered in 2006, and were part of a larger order. The airline has already taken delivery
DISTRIBUTION
ANNE AHIER (+44 1403 213 110) of 12 aircraft in 2010-2012.
anne@aircraft-commerce.com

PHOTOGRAPHY
AIRTEAMIMAGES The indications are that continuation of the A380 production line is highly dependent on
www.airteamimages.com
the Emirates order. A cancellation of 20 of its 53 aircraft could, therefore, threaten the
AVIATION IMAGES
www.aviation-images.com cessation of A380 production after just a few years, to allow time to fulfil the remaining
orders. The cancellation of orders by Virgin and Kingfisher, the early retirement by
Singapore Airlines, and the downsizing of the Air France fleet are indicators of airlines’
difficulty in filling the aircraft economically.

The A380 has had several difficulties to attend to. Its relatively high empty weight and its
engines resulted in the aircraft having a relatively high fuel burn, it having little
Aircraft Commerce (ISSN 1463-1873, USPS No: 023- improvement in burn per seat over the 747-400.
327) is published bi-monthly by Nimrod Publications
Ltd and distributed in the USA by Asendia USA, 17B
South Middlesex Avenue, Monroe, NJ and additional
mailing offices. Periodicals postage paid New The paradox of the situation is the continued annual growth in intercontinental markets,
Brunswick, NJ.
combined with the ever growing problem of airport and airspace congestion. It will be
POSTMASTER: send address changes to Aircraft
Commerce, 17B South Middlesex Avenue, Monroe, impossible for airline fleet plans on a macro level to maintain or increase aircraft size by
NJ, 08831, USA.
just a small percentage over the next 10-20 years.
Nimrod Publications Ltd
2nd Floor, West Point
Springfield Road, Horsham
West Sussex The past 10-15 years has seen airlines rationalise their long-haul fleets and operations to
United Kingdom, RH12 2PD
offering twice daily frequencies on most of their routes. This has been achieved through the
Subscriptions
Subscription enquiries should be directed to: use of smaller types such as the A330, 777 and A350. A factor in the background for most
sales@aircraft-commerce.com or to the offices of the
publisher above. carriers has been that the three big Middle Eastern carriers have taken most of the growth
phone +44 (0) 1403 230 110
facsimile +44 (0) 1403 230 525 in long-haul markets, so other airlines have only seen a very gradual increase in traffic
A one-year subscription to Aircraft Commerce is £197
including postage within the UK, Euro 290 for volumes. Average aircraft size on most routes has been steadily growing for most airlines,
countries in the Eurozone, and US$325 for all other
countries. however, and this will slowly but steadily increase demand for ultra large aircraft types in
Publication about 10 years.
Aircraft Commerce is a trade publication published
every two months and distributed globally. The next
publication date is 15th March 2019.
Which aircraft manufacturer will be best placed to serve this demand?
Copyright
Aircraft Commerce is the copyright of Nimrod
Publications Limited. This magazine may not be
reproduced, transmitted or stored by any means in
whole or in part without written permission from the
publisher.
Charles Williams
Readers should make independent enquiries before
entering into any financial arrangement on the basis of Editor
information found in this magazine. All care is taken
with facts and figures, but no responsibility can be
taken for information contained in Aircraft
Commerce.
Contents
MAIN FEATURES
737 MAX family initial assessment

4I
FLEET PLANNING The 737 MAX family was launched in response to the
4 The 737 MAX family: initial A320neo family. The aircraft’s design, fuel burn,
assessment. maintenance programme, technical features, and data
management capabilities are assessed.

AIRLINE OPERATIONS
12 A350-900 and -1000 fuel
burn operating performance. A350-900/-1000 fuel burn analysis

12 I
The fuel burn & operating performance of the
A350-900 and -1000 are compared with similar-sized,
12 Getting a grip on real-time
older generation aircraft, and the 787 family on
airline operations costing long-haul and ultra long-haul routes.
MAINTENANCE &
ENGINEERING
Widebody base check market

26 I
26 Size of the global
The widebody global fleet is more than 6,000 units.
widebody base check The fleet is a mix of legacy aircraft and new generation
market. aircraft. Global regional fleet sizes, age and forecast
annual base maintenance requirements are examined.
40 Major upgrade programmes
for the CFM56-3/-5B/-7B &
V2500-A5. .

CFM56 & V2500 upgrades

40 I
48 Preparing to use big data A series of upgrade and modification programmes for
analytics & predictives in the CFM56-3/-5B/-7B series and the V2500-A5 have
focussed on improving engine performance with
maintenance. enhanced airfoils and materials. The hardware
changes and cost of the programmes are examined.

FREIGHT BUSINESS
58 The market for 30-80 ton
Using big data in maintenance

48 I
freighters.
The use of Big Data analytics and predictive
maintenance by airlines is in its infancy. A key issue is
the ability to download the large volumes of
maintenance data at an affordable cost.

The market for 30-80 ton freighters

58 I
The 30-80 ton freighter fleet has grown at a high rate,
stimulated by e-commerce. High predicted growth over
the next 20 years and an ageing fleet profile indicate
more than 1,300 aircraft will be required over the next
20 years.
4 I AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS & FLEET PLANNING
The 737 MAX is the fourth sub-family in the 737
family. Launched as an alternative to the
A320neo family, the 737 MAX has won 5,000 firm
orders. The aircraft’s design, fuel burn, and
technical features are reviewed.
Overview of
the 737 MAX
family
T
he 737 MAX is the fourth
generation of the 737 family, and
has won more than 5,000 firm
orders since its launch in August
2011. The 737 family has exceeded 13,800
firm orders, making it the second most
successful narrowbody programme after
the A320. The 737 MAX has been in
service for almost two years, and will
remain in production for at least another
10 years.
The 737 MAX was launched on the
basis that it would provide a 15%
reduction in fuel burn and have lower
maintenance costs than its predecessor, the
737NG. The 737 MAX also offers other
technological features that previous
generations of aircraft did not. In addition
to operating cost efficiencies, three of the
four series of 737 MAX are at least the
same size or larger than their 737NG
generation equivalents. The four main
series are the MAX 7, MAX 8, MAX 9
and MAX 10. These have dual-class seat
capacities of 138 to 188 (see table, page 6).
What the 737 MAX offers airline
operators is examined here.
Main issues
The 737 MAX’s launch came about 20
years after the 737NG, and both families
have four main series. A main factor
behind the 737 MAX was the launch of
the A320 new engine option (neo)
generation, which was launched in
December 2010. The A320neo family has
won about 6,500 firm orders, about 1,500
more than the 737 MAX, over a period of
eight months longer than the 737 MAX
family. The A320neo family has therefore
sold at a faster rate.
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
The A320neo retains three of the four
best selling members of the A320 current
engine option (ceo) family: the A319,
A320 and A321. Fuselage sizes remain
unchanged, but improvements to cabin
configuration can realise a small increase in
seat numbers.
The A320neo’s two main features are a
choice of two new generation engines to
reduce fuel burn, and an optimised and
improved airframe maintenance
programme. The two engine choices are
the CFM International LEAP-1A engine,
and the Pratt & Whitney (PW) 1100G.
Both have high bypass ratios, which are the
main contributor to the large reduction in
fuel burn compared to the respective
A320ceo family members.
The 737 MAX was thus launched in
response. Boeing maintained its single
engine type with the 737 MAX, using the -
1B series of the CFM LEAP engine as the
sole powerplant. This has a bypass ratio of
9:1. Together with other improvements,
the 737 MAX generation members would
have about 15% lower fuel burn than their
respective 737NG aircraft. Lower fuel
burn would also translate into the benefit
of longer range.
Other potential areas for cash
operating cost reductions are maintenance
costs. A new optimised maintenance
planning document (MPD) for the 737
MAX is aimed at extending main airframe
check intervals, as well as combining tasks
and improving physical access to reduce
maintenance labour man-hour (MH)
requirements.
A second main feature is the increased
health monitoring data. This is described in
a later section. Like other new generation
Boeing types, the 737 MAX has an on-
board network server (ONS) in its avionics
architecture. An element of this is a
wireless data downloading function. This
will be used for transferring the large
volumes of maintenance-related data the
aircraft will generate.
In addition to reduced fuel burn and
maintenance cash operating costs, the first
three MAX family members have fuselage
stretches over their respective 737NG
predecessors, which increase seat capacity.
While lower fuel burn and maintenance
costs will result in lower cost per available
seat-mile (ASM) for the MAX aircraft, a
further improvement in cost per ASM will
be realised by the higher seat counts of the
MAX variants. The fourth and largest 737
MAX variant, the MAX 10, has the seat
capacity to offer airlines an alternative to
the A321.
Characteristics
The main characteristics of the 737
MAX series are listed (see table, page 6).
As described, the 737 MAX has four main
members; the MAX 7, MAX 8, MAX 9,
and MAX 10. The Boeing standard dual-
class cabin configuration gives business
class a four-abreast configuration at a seat
pitch of 36 inches. The standard economy
class in six-abreast has a 32-inch seat pitch.
These configurations make it possible to
make direct seat number comparisons with
the 737NG family, and A320ceo and
A320neo families. All three have
manufacturer standard dual-class cabin
configurations of four-abreast at 36-inch
pitch in business class, and six-abreast in
economy at 32-inch pitch.
The 5,000 firm orders for the 737
MAX are split between 63 for the MAX 7,
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

3,147 for the MAX 8, 126 for the MAX 9,
and 446 for the MAX 10.
In addition, there are orders for about
1,200 aircraft for unspecified series. A
minority of these are held by a small
number of specified airlines that include
AeroLineas Argentinas, Arik Air, Blue Air,
Spicejet and United Airlines. There are also
several lessors that hold orders for a few
hundred aircraft. There are, however,
orders for almost 900 aircraft from almost
50 unannounced customers.
737 MAX 7
The 737 MAX 7 is 10 feet longer than
the 737-700. This gives the MAX 7 a
capacity of 138 seats, with two more seat
rows and 10 more seats than the 737-700.
The MAX 7 has 10 more economy class
seats than the -700, the two aircraft having
equivalent toilet and galley layouts. The
737-700 is the same size as the 737-300, so
the MAX 7 also has a 10-seat advantage
over the -300. The MAX 7’s 138-seat
capacity also brings it closer to the 737-
400, which had eight seats more at 146.
A second standard dual-class layout for
the 737 MAX 7 gives it a high-density
economy-class cabin with a seat pitch of 29
inches. This adds three seat rows and 15
seats to the economy cabin, and takes the
total up to 153.
In addition to the 737-700, the A319 is
the closest competitor to the 737 MAX 7.
The A319ceo and neo have the same
fuselage, and the A319 has a standard
dual-class layout of 132 seats, six more
than the MAX 7. While the A319ceo sold
well, the A319neo has only gained 52 firm
orders since its first order in January 2012.
This is clear evidence that airlines have
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
5 I AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS & FLEET PLANNING
little appetite for derivative aircraft of this
size. The A220-300 (formerly CS300) is
slightly larger at 145 seats and has to date
won 452 firm orders, about 340 more than
the 737 MAX 7 and A319neo combined.
The first 737 MAX 7 was due for
delivery in January 2019. It had originally
only attracted 63 firm orders, mainly from
Southwest and Westjet. This small number
of orders makes the MAX 7 the least
successful MAX series. Southwest,
however, deferred orders for its 737 MAX
by up to five years, and Westjet delayed
deliveries of its first MAX 7s to 2021.
These developments have led to
speculation that the MAX 7 may not even
be built or delivered.
737 MAX 8
The MAX 8 has a dual-class seat
capacity of 162 (see table, page 6). The
aircraft has a fuselage 41 inches longer
than the 737-800. Despite this, the MAX 8
only has two more seats in the same
configuration standard. Both aircraft have
12 business-class seats at 36-inch pitch,
and 25 rows of economy-class seats at a
32-inch pitch. The 737-800 has a single
overwing emergency exit, and has a row of
four seats at this position. The 737 MAX 8
has two overwing emergency exits, with
two rows of six seats and increased seat
pitch. The MAX 8 is therefore still only
able to accommodate 25 seat rows of six
abreast seats, taking the economy cabin to
150 seats.
An alternative high-density economy
cabin with a 29-inch seat pitch and a
reduced amount of space for galleys and
toilets at the rear increases economy-class
seats to 166 seats, with 28 rows of seats.
The 737 MAX family has won more than 5,000
firm orders, about 1,500 fewer than the A320neo
family. The MAX 8 has won the lion’s share of
orders for the family, but there is a lot of interest
in the larger MAX 9 and MAX 10 versions.
One row at the emergency exit is reduced
to four seats.
A comparison of average airline dual-
class seat numbers and configurations gives
another indication of actual differences in
capacity between the two types. The 737-
800 is used by more than 50 operators.
Most have a two-class cabin, varying in
capacity from 138 to as many as 186 seats.
The average number of seats is 161.
The 737 MAX has so far been
delivered to more than 40 airlines,
including: Aerolineas Argentinas, Air
Canada, Flydubai, Icelandair, Jet Airways,
Oman Air, Turkish Airlines and Westjet.
Seat counts vary, with the average at 168.
The 737 MAX 8 therefore has a seven-seat
higher capacity than the -800, which may
be expected given the MAX 8’s 43-inch
longer fuselage.
The A320 is the MAX 8’s closest
competitor. The A320ceo is five feet
shorter than the 737 MAX 8, and has a
standard dual-class cabin of 157 seats, 11
fewer than the MAX 8. Although it is the
same length as the A320ceo, the A320neo
has a standard two-class capacity of 169,
12 more than the ceo. This is equal to two
more economy-class seat rows. The
A320neo is able to get more seat rows
because of a reconfiguration of its cabin,
including moving the location of toilets.
The MAX 8 has attracted more than
3,100 firm orders, making it the most
successful model. The largest orders have
been placed by AeroMexico (55), Air
Canada (50), American (100), China
Southern (60), flydubai (200), GOL (120),
Lion Air (200), Norwegian group (110),
Ryanair (135), Southwest (250), Spicejet
(125) and VietJet (100).
In contrast, the A320neo has won
4,179 firm orders. Unlike the 737 MAX
family, however, there are only a small
number of orders for undecided models.
The biggest A320neo orders are for
AirAsia (295), easyJet (117), Frontier
Airlines (182), GoAir (144), IndiGo (280),
LionAir (113) and an unannounced
Chinese airline (100). Other fleets of fewer
than 100 aircraft are on order for Avianca,
Avianca Brazil, British Airways, Lufthansa
and Wizz Air.
737 MAX 9
The 737 MAX 9’s fuselage is 43 inches
longer than the 737-900’s. The MAX 9 has
a standard dual-class layout of 178 seats,
one more than the -900’s capacity of 177.
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
6 I AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS & FLEET PLANNING
BOEING 737 MAX FAMILY FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS

Aircraft Type 737 MAX 7 737 MAX 8 737 MAX 8-200 737 MAX 9 737 MAX 10

Date Certified Mar ‘17 Mar ‘17 Mar ‘17 Mar ‘17 Mar ‘17
EIS Date Jan ‘19 May ‘17 Mar ‘18 2020
Firm Orders = 4,979 63 3,147 126 446

Standard Dual-Class Seats

Business Class @ 36-in 8 12 N/A 16
Business Seats Abreast 4 4 N/A 4 4
Economy Class @ 32-in 130 150 200 162
Economy Class Seats Abreast 6 6 6 6 6
Total Seats 138 162 178 178 188

Average Airline Seats N/A 168 N/A 185 N/A

Fuselage Length - feet 115.6 128.4 128.4 137.0 142.0

Weight Specs
MTOW - lbs 177,000 181,200 181,200 194,700 N/A
MLW - lbs 145,600 152,800 152,800 163,900
MZFW - lbs 138,700 145,400 145,400 156,500

Usable fuel - lbs 45,694 45,694 45,694 45,694 45,694

Usable fuel - USG 6,820 6,820 6,820 6,820 6,820
6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 0.00

Engines
Engine Type LEAP-1B27 LEAP-1B25/27/28 LEAP-1B25/27/28 LEAP-1B27/28 LEAP-1B28
Take-Off Thrust Rating - lbs 28,040 28,040 28,040 28,040 29,320
29,320 29,320 29,320
Fan Diameter - inches 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.4
Bypass Ratio 9:1 9:1 9:1 9:1 9:1

The MAX 9, however, has four seat rows
and 16 seats in its premium cabin
compared to the -900’s three rows. The
MAX 9 has 27 economy-class rows at a
32-inch pitch, while the -900 has a higher
count of 165 due to its smaller premium
cabin.
A more equitable seat number
comparison is made by comparing the
average of airline two-class seat layouts.
This is 185 seats for the 737 MAX 9
versus six fewer seats for the 737-900,
equal to an extra seat row for the MAX 9.
The A321ceo has a standard capacity
of 184, six seats less than the 737 MAX 9.
The MAX 9’s average airline configuration
of 185 and the A321ceo’s average seat
capacity of 184 suggests the MAX 9
matches the A321ceo.
The 737 MAX 9 has to date only
attracted 126 firm orders. Main customers
include Air Canada, AeroMexico, Alaska
Airlines, Copa, Turkish Airlines and
United.
737 MAX 10
The 737 MAX 10 is quoted as having
a dual-class seat count of 188, although no
details have yet been provided by Boeing.
With 16 seats in the premium cabin, it will
have 172 seats in the economy cabin.
The A321ceo has a standard and
average airline capacity of 184, but the
A321neo has eight more seats at 192, even
though it has the same fuselage length as
the ceo model. Like the A320neo, the
A321neo has a higher seat count than the
ceo variant because its cabin has been
reconfigured. The 737 MAX 10 is
therefore smaller than the A321neo by
four seats.
The MAX 10 series was launched in
2017, six years after the launch of the
original MAX 7, 8 and 9 series. The MAX
10 is a fuselage stretch of the MAX 9. The
MAX 10 has a fuselage length of 142 feet,
being the longest 737 model and five feet
longer than the MAX 9. It is also about
three feet shorter than the 707-300/-400.
This was the longest and highest capacity
version of the four-engined aircraft.
Moreover, the 737 MAX 10 is also 12 feet
shorter than the 757-200.
The MAX 10 was launched to provide
an alternative to the A321, although the
A321ceo/neo is four feet longer than the
737 MAX 10.
The MAX 10 has attracted 446 firm
orders to date, including a fleet of 100 for
United. Other large fleets include flydubai
(50), Lion Air (50) and GOL (30). Other
airline orders include Virgin Australia,
Copa and Westjet. Lessors Aviation
Capital, Avolon, CALC, AerCap and
GECAS have all placed large orders.
In contrast to the 737 MAX 9 and 10,
the A321neo has won 2,287 firm orders.
The 737 MAX 9 and 10 may catch up
with the A321neo partly from orders for
undecided 737 MAX models and from
new orders. The large A321neo orders
include AirAsia (100), American (100),
Delta (100), IndiGo (150), jetBlue (85),
(Turkish (92), VietJet (123) and Wizz Air
(184).
Interestingly, American, LionAir,
Turkish Airlines and VietJet have orders
for both 737 MAX and A320neo family
models.
Weight specifications
The main weight specifications of the
737 MAX family members are summarised
(see table, this page). The weights included
are the maximum take-off weight
(MTOW), maximum landing weight
(MLW), maximum zero fuel weight
(MZFW), operating empty weight (OEW)
and maximum structural payload. These
are given in imperial pounds (lbs). The
aircraft’s usable fuel capacity in US Gallons
(USG) is also given.
Additional information is given on the
aircraft’s fuselage length, range with a full
passenger payload in nautical miles (nm),
and on the aircraft’s engine.
Boeing provides a single set of weight
specifications for the 737 MAX and NG
models, while Airbus offers a large number
of weight options for each of the A320
family members.
The 737 MAX was developed to have
an engine that provided a double-digit
reduction in fuel burn over the 737NG and
competing A320ceo predecessors. This
mainly required an engine with a higher

AIRCRAFT COMMERCE ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

8 I AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS & FLEET PLANNING
bypass ratio and therefore fan diameter
than previous CFM56-7B, CFM56-3 and
JT8D Baby engines. The CFM56-7B
powering the 737NG has a 61.0-inch
diameter fan. This compares to the 68.3-
inch diameter fan for the CFM56-5B
powering the A320ceo family. Due to the
relatively small intake fan diameters of its
engines, the 737 was initially designed with
a relatively short landing-gear length, so
the wing is lower to the ground than the
A320’s. The 737’s inherent problem has
been the installation of a wide-fan engine
because of the increased risk of foreign
object damage (FOD). The clearance
between the ground and the engine nacelles
has to be kept at 17 inches.
The A320neo was launched on a
similar basis as the 737 MAX, and this
was to achieve fuel burn reduction of
about 15% compared to the A320ceo. The
V2500-A5 and CFM56-5B powering the
A320ceo have fan diameters of 63.5 and
68.3 inches, with bypass ratios of 4.9:1
and 5.4-6.0:1.
The A320neo’s 15% lower fuel burn
has been achieved by using the CFM LEAP
and PW PW1100G engines with bypass
ratios of 11.0:1 and 12.0:1. This is
achieved with fan diameters of 78.0 and
81.0 inches. These larger fan diameters
were not a problem for the A320, given its
longer landing gear struts.
The 737 MAX’s LEAP-1B has a fan
diameter that is 11.6 inches less than the
PW1100G’s on the A320neo at 69.4
inches. The CFM LEAP-1B fan is also 8.6
inches less than the LEAP-1A on the
A320neo at 78.0 inches. The -1B’s fan
diameter was limited by the 737’s lower
ground clearance and height of the wing,
so its bypass ratio is 9.0:1.
The issue of FOD and ground
clearance was partly overcome by
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
mounting the engine more forward and
higher than on previous 737 generations.
The 737 MAX has also had its landing
gear height increased. The nose gear is up
to eight inches longer, so an increase in
main gear leg length was also required. The
LEAP1-B engine is heavier than the
CFM56-7B powering the 737NG, and the
main landing gear and its supporting
structure all have to be larger and stronger.
The effect is to increase OEW by about
6,500lbs for a MAX 8 compared to the
737-800. The MAX 8 therefore requires an
increase in MTOW of 7,000lbs over the
737-800 to preserve payload and fuel
capacity when the aircraft is at or near
MTOW for longer missions.
While the high engine bypass ratios
account for most of the MAX’s improved
fuel burn performance, it has several other
features that contribute to overall lower
fuel burn. The 737 MAX has a split
scimitar winglet and a raked wing tip,
which account for 1.0-1.5% of the fuel
burn reduction over the 737NG. The
737NG has blended winglets as standard.
Fuel burn performance
The 737 MAX’s fuel burn performance
has had some initial verification when
compared to several competing types.
Clearly there are several variables that
affect an aircraft’s fuel burn, including
weather and atmospheric conditions,
payload carried, en-route delays and taxi
times, and operating factors of speed and
altitude. Despite all these variables, an
aircraft’s fuel burn and operating
performance can be compared with other
aircraft types on the same basis to show
the relative differences between types.
The fuel burn and operating
performance of the 737 MAX 8 was
The 737 MAX 8 has a 12-15% lower fuel burn per
seat-mile than the CFM56-5B- and V2500-A5-
powered A320ceo, and 3.4-4.3% more per seat-
mile than the A320neo.
compared with several variants of the 737-
800, A320ceo, A320neo, and the smaller
A220-300 (see 737 MAX 8 fuel burn &
operating performance, Aircraft
Commerce, August/September 2018, page
22). The comparison was therefore
between two new-generation types of
almost equal size: the 737 MAX 8 and
A320neo. Two older types of the same or
similar size were also added to illustrate the
relative differences in efficiency between
the two generations. A third type, the
A220-300, was added to illustrate how this
all-new but smaller aircraft compares with
the 737 MAX 8 and A320neo.
The performance of these aircraft were
compared on five routes of tracked
distances from 227nm to 1,821nm. A
range of different route lengths is required
to illustrate how an aircraft’s burn varies
with route length. Short routes will result
in aircraft not reaching the optimum
altitude for the lowest fuel burn in the
cruise segment. Aircraft will either fly a
ballistic flight profile or operate at a lower
and sub-optimum altitude, depending on
airspace and air traffic control (ATC)
constraints.
As route lengths increase, aircraft can
operate at optimum altitudes and cruise
speeds, and the cruise portion of the flight
increases as tracked distance and route
length increase. Fuel burn per mile reduces
with increased route length. An aircraft’s
fuel burn per seat will also reduce with
increasing route length, while larger and
more modern types have lower burns per
seat. An aircraft type’s profile of fuel burn
per seat-mile versus route length therefore
indicates its efficiency relative to other
types.
The analysis showed that in the case of
all five routes, the PW1127G-powered
A320neo was the most fuel-efficient
aircraft. It also showed that the LEAP-1A-
powered A320neo is closely behind. The
737 MAX 8 burns 3.4-4.3% more per
seat-mile than the PW1127G-powered
A320neo.
The A220-300 is then only a few per
cent less fuel-efficient than the larger 737
MAX 8 and A320neo. The MAX 8 burns
up to 4.6% less.
The A320ceo variants with either
engine option are consistently better-
performing than the 737-800 variants, but
both have higher fuel burn per seat-mile
than the new generation types.
The 737 MAX 8’s fuel burn relative to
the 737-800 variants is 13-17% over this
range of tracked distances; the actual
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
10 I AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS & FLEET PLANNING
difference depends on the respective 737
MAX 8 and -800 variants.
The 737 MAX 8’s fuel burn relative to
the A320ceo variants is divided between
CFM56-5B4-powered variant, and the
V2527-A5-powered aircraft. The CFM-
powered aircraft has consistently 7.5-9.0%
higher trip burn than the V2527-powered
aircraft.
In the case of the CFM56-5B4-
powered A320ceo, the 737 MAX 8
therefore has a 15% lower burn per seat-
mile than on the shortest route, and this
increases to 17-20% on the longer tracked
distances of 435-1,821nm.
The MAX 8’s fuel burn per seat-mile is
12-13% lower than the more fuel-efficient
V2527-powered A320ceo.
The 737 MAX 8’s fuel burn
improvement over the two main older
generation 737-800 and A320ceo models
is therefore higher than the general target
of a 15% reduction in many cases. It is less
than 15% in several cases. The first of
these is when the MAX 8 is compared to
higher weight and more capable variants of
the 737-800; with the difference being
lower at 12.5-14.0% in the MAX 8’s
favour.
Another scenario is the difference
between the MAX 8 and V2527-powered
A320ceo, which is only 12-13%.
Maintenance
The 737 MAX family has several
design features that have improved its
maintenance requirements over the
737NG. The MAX’s improvements include
a lower number of maintenance tasks,
fewer tasks that have deep access and so
heavy maintenance requirements, and
fewer ageing maintenance tasks.
The 737NG’s maintenance planning
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
document (MPD) has about 661 system
tasks, 7,651 structures tasks, and 213
zonal tasks. Of the structures tasks, 382
are ageing maintenance tasks which have
initial inspection thresholds of 50,000FC
and 56,000FC (see 737NG long-term base
maintenance assessment, Aircraft
Commerce, October/November 2016,
page 46). They also have short repeat
intervals, and so increase the aircraft’s
maintenance burden after it reaches the
50,000FC threshold.
The 737NG has a flexible MPD
without pre-defined intervals for base
checks. Nevertheless, many airlines have
base their base check maintenance
programmes around a base check interval
of 7,500FH and 24MO. There are a large
number of tasks that have multiples of
these intervals, and so can be grouped into
six checks. There are also, however, a large
number of out-of-phase tasks with
intervals that fall between these multiples.
These have to be brought forward and
performed early if they are to be included
in a base check. The sixth base check has
an interval of 12 years and 45,000FH.
The 737 MAX has an MPD with 697
systems and 235 zonal tasks; similar
numbers to the 737NG’s MPD. The 737
MAX’s MPD has 178 tasks, and this does
not include ageing tasks. These are bound
to be added later, and will be some time
after the oldest aircraft in the fleet have
been through their first heavy and
structural checks. A large number of tasks,
similar to 50,000FC and 56,000FC
structural tasks in the 737NG’s MPD, are
likely to be added.
Like the 737NG, the MAX does not
have pre-defined base check intervals. A
large number of tasks fall due, however, at
15,000FH and 36MO, and so is generally
used as the base check interval.
The 737 MAX has entered service with a
36-month base check interval. A base check
cycle can be four checks over 12 years, or eight
checks over 24 years. Deep access tasks include
the removal of the passenger cabin floor and
toilets and galleys to gain access for structural
inspections. Ageing tasks have yet to be added
to the MPD.
It is not yet clear how many checks
there will be in the full base check cycle.
Four checks will take the full cycle to 12
years (12YE), and eight checks will take
the full cycle to 24YE.
The 737 MAX overall appears to be a
maintenance-efficient aircraft. It has
entered service with a 36MO base check
interval, and so will allow higher rates of
utilisation due to reduced downtime for
maintenance.
These base check intervals are 12MO
and 50% longer than the equivalent checks
for the 737NG. This is likely to be related
to the system tasks having long intervals
because of technology incorporated in their
systems and components.
The structural and zonal programmes
in the MPD have several tasks that have
deep access requirements. These include
the removal of passenger cabin floor to
gain access for upper and lower lobe
inspections at 12YE interval, the fourth
base check. There are also the floor panels
at the wing centre section at the same
interval.
Various flight control surfaces have to
be removed at 6YE and 8YE, while there
are wet inspections for the passenger
compartment floor at 9YE in the galley
and lavatory locations. These inspections
then have repeat intervals of 6YE, and so
every second check will have deep access
tasks.
Data & management
As with all aircraft types, the 737
MAX is supported by a catalogue of
technical manuals and documents. These
include the aircraft maintenance manual
(AMM), structural repair manual (SRM),
fault isolation manual (FIM),
troubleshooting manual (TSM), illustrated
parts catalogue (IPC), aircraft wiring
manual (AWM), and several others.
The technical documentation and
manuals of Boeing aircraft types have been
kept in a variety of standards, which have
evolved over the past 10-15 years. Older
types that include the 727, 737 earlier
generations, 757, 767, 777 and 747 family
have changed from printed paper
documentation to the electronic format of
iSpec 2200, and are written in standard
generalised mark-up language (SGML).
SGML allows the electronic content to be
transferred between personnel and
departments, as well as from the
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

As with previous 737 family members, the MAX
series will have its technical documentation and
manuals in iSpec 2200 standard, and written in
SGML.
manufacturer to the airline customer, and
from an airline to a maintenance provider.
A new format has been developed for
the latest generation aircraft. This is
S-1000D, and is the standard for
documentation for the 787, A350 and
A220 (formerly CSeries). The
documentation for these new generation
types is written in the format of extensible
mark-up language (XML).
While the 737 MAX is a new
generation aircraft, its documentation will
be provided in iSpec 2200 standard. The
only exception is the FIM, which is
provided in hyper text mark-up language
(HTML) to render the pages viewable on
mechanics’ mobile devices while working
on unscheduled line maintenance tasks.
The documentation for older
generation aircraft, and the 737 MAX, is
written in SGML, but can be upgraded to
XML if the operator requires.
Boeing has for several years offered
various on-line services for airlines to
manage their documents and technical
manuals. The first of these is Maintenance
Performance Toolbox. This is an online
technical document management system
that uses visual navigation methods to
manage and locate the documents. The
system allows the aircraft operator to
troubleshoot aircraft systems when there
are technical faults, record structural
repairs that are performed on the aircraft,
and manage and write or edit maintenance
task cards. A fleet’s documents can
therefore be managed in Maintenance
Performance Toolbox, and so do not need
to be managed within the operator’s own
maintenance and engineering (M&E)
system.
In relation to Maintenance
Performance Toolbox, Boeing offers
Technical Authoring Services. This
provides another part of the airline’s
document management services. Boeing
staff can create customised technical
publications for aircraft configuration
changes for airlines.
There is also an Electronic Logbook to
replace the traditional paper logbook, and
record technical faults and defects as they
arise in airline aircraft operation. The
Records Module is an electronic repository
for digital maintenance records.
The second system is Maintenance
Turn Time, one of Boeing’s mobile
maintenance applications. It allows airlines
to quickly identify and resolve non-routine
defects while the aircraft is on the line,
during a turnaround. The Turn Time
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
11 I AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS & FLEET PLANNING
system is accessed by line mechanics from
mobile devices, making it easier to
troubleshoot defects and system
malfunctions. This effectively replaces the
traditional paper printed TSM or FIM.
On-board network server (ONS)
Like several other modern Boeing
types, the 737 MAX has been equipped
with an on-board network server (ONS).
This has multiple functions, including:
software and data loading; connectivity
management; transfer of internet protocol
(I.P.) and aircraft communications
addressing and reporting system (ACARS);
providing network security; hosting the
aircraft’s quick access recorder (QAR);
hosting the on-board maintenance
function, which is the modern system for
diagnosing maintenance faults and defects;
and an electronic engine controller
monitoring and reporting function.
There is also the option for the aircraft
to have a wireless data transfer system at
the airport gate, which can be either WiFi
or cellular.
Data capture
The 737 MAX captures flight
operations quality assurance (FOQA) data
and maintenance- and systems-related data
like other aircraft types. The 737 MAX,
however, has introduced 200 status
messages and 3,500 maintenance messages
from the on-board maintenance function
(OMF). There are also 30 maintenance
data pages that capture real-time system
synoptics from the display system, and also
electronic engine controller (EEC) files.
The previous generation 737NG family
has flight data acquisition units that
capture about 17,600 parameters. This
number has been increased to 25,000 for
the 737 MAX. All of the parameters on the
737 MAX are also available to the ONS,
and its applications. The aircraft condition
monitoring system (ACMS) data is also
available to the ONS.
The on-board maintenance function
(OMF) and network file server (NFS),
which is part of the ONS, supports the
monitoring of the aircraft while it is in
flight, and it can send status messages and
maintenance messages in real-time via
ACARS to engineering, line maintenance,
and maintenance control teams. This data
is processed and analysed by the aircraft
health monitoring (AHM) system. The
ACMS data is also used to analyse
technical problems, and in the overall
development of prognostics.
The 737 MAX generates a large
volume of maintenance-related data
compared to the 737NG. In a typical two-
hour flight the MAX is estimated to
generate about 33 times more data than
the 737NG, even though the MAX
monitors about 42% more parameters.
The larger volume of data provides the
operator with the opportunity to perform
big data analytics, using ground-based
systems with algorithms to investigate the
data, and to provide a predictives service.
This is to identify the source of technical
malfunctions and system faults in advance
of failure, and from this point send the
operator recommendations to performance
maintenance inspections and tests, or
component removals to pre-empt
unscheduled maintenance events. Boeing
regards the process as making better use of
the data.
To download 100s of articles
like this, visit:
www.aircraft-commerce.com
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
12 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Sander de Moor, director airline operational
efficiency at Aircraft Commerce Consulting
examines the fuel burn & operating performance
of the A350-900 & -1000. They are compared
with the 787 and older generation 777 & A330
families; and the 747-400.
A350-900/-1000 fuel
burn & operating
performance
T
he 787 and A350 families both
promised significant fuel burn
reductions over similar-sized,
older generation aircraft, as well
as more range with the same payload.
Examples of the realised efficiency gains
over older aircraft types are analysed here
across five long-range and ultra-long-
range transatlantic sectors between
London and points in North and South
America. These have tracked route
lengths ranging from 4,330nm to
6,450nm on flight times of nine hours
and 40 minutes to about 14 hours.
In this article we will run our
comparative fuel burn and operating
performance analysis on a suite of latest-
generation comparable aircraft in various
airframe-engine combinations. We will
also compare these modern types with
some of their previous-generation
competition. Fuel burn will be compared
on an absolute and per available seat-mile
(ASM) basis. As always, aircraft
performance and fuel burn analysis is
provided by Lufthansa Systems, and our
conclusions are our own.
Aircraft types & variants
All production versions of the two
main types in our evaluation were
included, meaning Boeing’s 787-8, 787-9
and 787-10; and Airbus’s A350-900, and
A350-1000. The Airbus A350-900ULR is
not included, because this aircraft type
falls outside our scope of a general
comparative evaluation.
As there are two engine manufacturer
options for the 787 family, both aircraft-
engine variants for each of the -8, -9 and -
10 series were included.
Last, two variants of the A350-1000
are evaluated, the difference between
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
them being the cabin layout and seat
numbers. There is a large discrepancy
between the Airbus standard cabin
layout, and airline cabin layouts. The
difference is large enough to warrant
inclusion of the two versions.
The three 787 variants and the two
A350 variants were compared with
several main types. The first is the 777-
200ER and 777-300ER, which are
included as examples of previous-
generation efficiency in this market. The
777-200ER competes most closely with
the A350-900 and the 787-10 in terms of
seat capacity, while the 777-300ER
compares closely with the A350-1000 on
the same basis.
The A330-200 was also included as a
similar-sized and previous generation
aircraft to compare with the 787-8, and
the A330-300 was included on the same
basis to compare with the 787-9.
Last, the 747-400 was included,
because it has been replaced by the 777-
300ER and more recently by the A350-
1000. The relative efficiency will be
shown of fuel burn per ASM of the twin-
engined configuration of these two
younger generation types against the
747’s four engines and configuration with
more seat numbers.
In total, 14 different aircraft variants
are included in this analysis, and their
weights, fuel capacities, engine types and
seat numbers are detailed (see table, page
14).
Comparison basis
This group of 14 aircraft was
compared at three levels. As described,
the first two were relative fuel burns on
an absolute basis, and then on a fuel burn
per ASM basis. The third comparison
would be the addition of the cost of
overflying countries (‘airspace access
costs’). These may be referred to as air
traffic control (ATC) user fees.
The number of available-seat miles
(ASMs) generated by each aircraft on
each route are calculated by multiplying
the number of available seats in the
aircraft (see tables, pages 18 & 19) by the
actual flown distance, the equivalent still-
air distance (ESAD). ESAD is the distance
travelled by an aircraft through the air,
rather than the tracked distance, and is
affected by wind and altitude. A relative
wind vector will make the aircraft cover
more or less ground distance per time
unit, while altitude influences the number
of tracked miles to be covered due to the
earth’s curvature, and whether an aircraft
travels a longer distance to cover the
same arc along the flight path between
two points on the ground. The ESAD of
each route used in the analysis is given
(see table, page 15). These vary slightly
by aircraft type because of flight profiles,
but range from 4,705nm to 6,941nm (see
tables, page 18 & 19).
It is important that ASMs are
calculated using the number of available
seats. If some aircraft seats are
unavailable for sale due to regulatory,
performance or technical reasons (such as
unserviceable seats, seats dedicated for
crew rest) then such seats cannot be
included in the ASM metrics of affected
flights. If the aircraft has a payload
restriction on a longer route, then only
the number of seats that can be used are
the same in the ASM calculation. This is
the case for a few aircraft types on the
longest route in this comparison, and
resulted in a high fuel burn per ASM.
On the London Heathrow (LHR) -
Rio de Janeiro (GRU) route, the A330-
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

300 had to surrender 27 seats; while on
the LHR- Buenos Aires (EZE) route
available seat count was lowered by 49
seats on the A330-200, 128 seats on the
A330-300 and 68 seats on the two-class
747-400. On the longest route, LHR-
Santiago de Chile (SCL), even the A350-
900 had to leave three seats unoccupied.
The chosen five routes include three
ultra-long-range sectors. All five routes
originate from LHR. Two are to points in
the US, and have tracked distances of
4,330-4,811 nm. The three longest routes
are from LHR to cities in South America,
and have tracked distances of 5,155-
6,450nm. These three longer routes were
included so that the relative performance
of each aircraft could be examined when
departing from an airport where there are
no take-off weight or performance
restrictions. This will illustrate the
relative economic feasibility of the 14
aircraft types on long-range and ultra-
long-range routes.
Aircraft performance and fuel burn
were not analysed in the opposite
direction, since SCL’s elevation could
cause performance restrictions or
limitations for some aircraft types, and so
influence the comparison.
The two destinations in the US are
Austin (AUS), Texas; and San Diego
(SAN), California. These two routes have
tracked distances of 4,330nm and
4,811nm (see table, page 15). They both
have headwinds of 39-49 knots and 37-
47 knots, and consequently have ESADs
of 4,705-4,813nm and 5,204-5,424nm.
The three South American
destinations are GRU, Brazil; EZE,
Argentina; and SCL, Chile. These routes
have tracked airway distances ranging
from 5,155nm to 6,449nm. When
combined with average wind components
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
ranging from -31 to -37 knots, these
routes have ESADs of 5,479 nm to 6,924
nm (see table, page 15).
Operating parameters
Aircraft performance was examined
using operating empty weights (OEW)
and zero fuel weights (ZFW) on the basis
of operating a typical two-class, full-
service operation. Aircraft configurations
vary from airline to airline, both in terms
of installed equipment and cabin
configurations, starting with the specified
manufacturer empty weight (MEW). It is
therefore difficult to select an OEW that
will fit all operators of each type for this
comparison. MEWs alone differ
significantly from operator to operator, so
the chosen weights may vary significantly
from what is found in a specific airline’s
configuration. As such, the chosen weight
may have an effect on the resulting fuel
burn computations or payload-range
capacity. Furthermore, the aircraft were
planned to operate with a full payload of
passengers, and an allowance of 231lbs
per passenger and associated baggage.
This resulted in relatively high passenger-
related payloads for each type. It is also
higher than most scheduled airline
operations are likely to experience in this
fashion. Lower deck cargo was excluded,
however, but the cargo payload that
would have been available is shown (see
tables, page 18 & 19).
Fuel and operational performance
numbers for the 14 aircraft variants were
generated by Lufthansa Systems, using its
Lido/Flight 4D flightplanning system. All
70 flight plans were produced based on
the same assumptions and inputs. These
are the baselines: European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) International
13 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
The A350-900 and -1000 series demonstrate
significant fuel burn reductions over previous
generation aircraft. The A350-900 has a 17.5%
lower burn per ASM compared to the 777-
200ER, while the A350-1000 has a 11% lower
burn per ASM than the 777-300ER.
Flight Rules (IFR) with alternate, 5%
contingency fuel; fixed-Mach cruise
(LRC), fixed routes, 0% aircraft
performance degradation, 85% average
winds for June, all-engine taxi operations,
normal standard operating procedures.
Lufthansa Systems’ Lido/Flight 4D
optimises climb, cruise and descent
segments of a flight based on
performance specifications (data files) of
the particular airframe-engine
combinations, as received from the
aircraft original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), as well as specific operating
philosophies (flight level caps,
performance degradation factors,
amended performance buffers in
planning, padding) as requested by its
customers. If not creating an optimised
route itself, once a route has been
decided, Lido/Flight will plan an
optimum vertical profile based on
parameters applicable to the aircraft and
its operator, achieving an overall lowest
total cost solution for the planned flight
by balancing cost of fuel burn, time-
related costs and airspace access costs.
Climb and descent profiles differed
per aircraft type of course. Cruise mode
for all aircraft types and variants on all
routes was at fixed-Mach LRC. More
operators are moving away from fixed-
Mach cruise modes, such as a specific
Mach number or long-range cruise (LRC)
in favour of Cost Index (CI) flying, which
is a more cost-conscious and economic
way of managing operating costs.
However, since CI flying relies heavily on
operator internal cost structures and fuel
prices, no two operators plan and operate
flights using the same CI. This in turn
would mean that a flight-for-flight
comparison would not be possible. For
this reason, fixed-Mach LRC speed was
selected.
Last, to create the same atmosphere
for all aircraft types to operate in,
statistical average winds and
temperatures were used. For the payload-
range evaluation we used a zero-wind,
ISA-standard day to assess the payload
carrying capabilities of our aircraft, one
range value for carrying maximum
payload, and one range value for carrying
passengers-only payload.
As stated, for the comparison, EASA
flight planning standards and rules were
used, and these were applied in a
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
14 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS & WEIGHTS

Aircraft Type A330-200 787-8 787-8 A330-300 787-9 777 A350 787-10 787-10 A350 A350 777 747 747
RR GE RR RR GE -200ER -900 GE RR -1000 -1000 -300ER -400 -400
3-cl 2-cl

Engine Trent GEnx Trent Trent GEnx GE90 Trent GEnx Trent Trent Trent GE90 CF6-80 CF6-80
772C -1B67 1kG 772B -1B74-75 -94B XWB-84 -1B74-75 1kJ3 XWB-97 XWB-97 -115BL C2B1F C2B1F

Engine bypass ratio 5.0 9.0 10.0 5.0 8.8 9.0 9.6 8.8 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.0 5.3 5.3
MTXW - lbs 515,661 503,500 503,500 515,661 561,500 658,000 592,824 561,500 561,500 698,645 698,660 777,000 877,000 877,000
MTOW - lbs 513,677 502,500 502,500 513,677 560,000 560,000 590,839 560,000 560,000 696,660 696,660 775,000 875,000 875,000
MLW - lbs 401,241 380,000 380,000 412,264 425,000 470,000 451,948 445,000 445,000 520,290 520,290 554,000 630,000 630,000
MZFW - lbs 374,786 355,000 355,000 385,809 400,000 440,000 423,288 425,000 425,000 491,630 491,630 524,000 542,500 542,500
OEW / DOW - lbs 273,400 257,500 257,300 284,400 267,800 317,000 308,700 281,100 281,000 352,900 352,900 375,000 414,500 414,500
Max payload - lbs 101,386 97,500 97,700 101,409 132,200 123,000 114,588 143,900 144,000 138,730 138,730 149,000 128,000 128,000
Fuel capacity - USG 36,744 33,340 33,340 36,744 33,399 56,516 35,772 33,399 33,399 41,211 41,211 47,890 57,065 57,065

Dual-class seat 248 220 220 274 266 304 318 337 337 327 367 367382 393 487
Passenger payload - lbs 57,288 50,820 50,820 63,294 61,446 70,224 73,458 77,847 77,847 75,537 84,777 88,242 90,783 112,497
Remaining cargo payload - lbs 44,098 46,680 46,880 38,115 70,754 52,776 41,130 66,053 66,153 63,193 53,953 60,758 7,217 15,503
Range with full passenger
payload - nm 6,050 7,650 7,450 5,250 8,250 7,300 6,850 7,050 6,900 7,600 7,250 7,450 6,600 6,150
MTOW/seat - lbs 2,071 2,284 2,284 1,875 2,105 2,158 1,858 1,662 1,662 2,130 1,898 2,029 2,226 1,797
DOW/seat - lbs 1,102 1,170 1,170 1,038 1,007 1,043 971 834 834 1,079 962 982 1,055 851

conservative way. We decided that
planning with an alternate was required
(as, under certain conditions, EASA
allows for planning without an alternate
as well).
Contingency fuel was set at 5% of
trip fuel (with a minimum amount to be
able to hold for five minutes over the
destination), taking the conservative
approach as opposed to the more
economic 3%+ ERA option, where a
suitable en-route alternate is planned, or
the 20-minute option of average cruise
fuel consumption, which results in a
lower amount of contingency fuel than
the EASA 3%+ERA option on flights of
roughly 11 hours or more.
Final reserve fuel was the normal
amount required to hold for 30 minutes
at 1,500 feet above ground level (AGL)
over the alternate aerodrome at planned
gross weight. These are standard
planning procedures.
Operationally, it was assumed that all
engines would be used for both taxi-out
and taxi-in. Taxi times from departure
point and at the five destinations were
taken from the Lido database, adding
500-1,200lbs of fuel per trip in auxiliary
power unit (APU) and taxi fuel burns;
depending on aircraft type, season and
city pair operated.
Lufthansa Systems’ LIDO/Flight 4D
flightplanning solution was fed with
simulated operational data. This is a mix
of real-world numbers and averages in
terms of weights and operating
philosophies in an effort to find common
ground amidst the variations in
operations observed around the world.
As such, the results generated by these
flight plans and additional calculations
performed by Aircraft Commerce
Consulting, should only be considered
within the context of these specific
assumptions.
The flight plans were generated using
a number of operating assumptions. The
simulated performance assumes that the
aircraft are operating under standard IFR
with reserves, diversion and contingency
fuel requirements based on EASA
standards. The aircraft were planned to
be operating at their long-range cruise
speeds (LRC) to optimise fuel economy.
Weather assumptions included
average temperatures for the month of
June, with 85% reliability winds. The
routes and flight levels (FL) flown were
optimised to achieve minimum cost,
while complying with airways rules and
restrictions. The minimum cost track
(MCT) is based on the optimum routeing
for each aircraft variant, taking into
account fuel, airspace access and
operational time costs.
The block time for each sector is the
sum of the trip and taxi times. The taxi-
out and taxi-in times are based on
realistic averages across a range of
operators for each airport. The block fuel
is the sum of the trip and taxi fuel burn.
The 747-400, 777 variants, and the
787 family in this article do not offer a
choice in operational weight
combinations. The A350s, however, come
with a choice of 17 weight variants (WV)
in the case of the A350-900, and a
further six options for the A350-1000
model. This provides operators around
the world with ample choice to select one
or more combinations of operational
weights that best works for them in their
networks, optimising cost and efficiency.
With the exception of the 777 variants in
this article and the A350 family, the
aircraft also have multiple engine options.
The 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10 models
powered by both the General Electric
(GE) GEnx engines and rival Rolls-Royce
(RR) Trent-1000 engines are all included
in the analysis.
The dry operating weights (DOWs) or
operating empty weights (OEWs) used in
this analysis are based on a sampling of
such weights used in service. Although
they should fit within a realistic in-service
range, OEW will vary per individual
aircraft as well as by average fleet for a
specific operator. These weights are
influenced by a number of factors,
including cabin configuration, engine
variant, crew numbers and associated
belongings, catering and cabin service
items. Also, manufacturers often find
ways to reduce OEWs for later
production line numbers of a particular
aircraft variant, and it is quite common
for early production aircraft to have
higher OEWs than later-built examples.
Aircraft capacity
Widebody cabin configurations vary
significantly from operator to operator.
There are many reasons for this, but
cabin layouts are mostly driven by
desired product differentiation between
airlines, which view the cabin layout of
their long-haul flagships as key product
differentiators. Aircraft cabin layouts
vary from highly specified and well-
designed four-class cabins, all the way
down to a single-class economy
auditorium. More airlines today are
opting for a two-class configuration,
either with a ‘real’ business class section
or with a premium-economy section, plus
the usual economy cabin. Increasing seat
count is one way to lower operating cost
per ASM, which has been necessary in
many cases where fares are under
pressure.
In some cases, an operator may
choose to fly with separate sub-fleets of
the same aircraft type configured with
different numbers of seats, depending on
the routes and markets the airline serves

AIRCRAFT COMMERCE ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019


in its overall network. This variation in
possible cabin configurations means that
it has become more difficult to identify a
typical capacity for each aircraft variant.
The evaluation also attempts to
demonstrate the potential payload
remaining for cargo for all aircraft types,
once the weight of passengers and their
baggage, as well as unit load devices
(ULDs) in the lower deck space have been
accounted for. Making use of available
widebody lower deck capacity for cargo
generates incremental revenue. Most
operating costs have already been
covered, and carrying additional cargo
only adds the cost of airport handling
plus an incremental amount of fuel. Since
the aircraft will be operated at an average
higher take-off weight, the engines will be
operated at a slightly lower de-rated
value, in turn possibly increasing the
operational cost over time. This can be
calculated and accounted for.
In identifying the potential remaining
payload for cargo a few steps were taken.
First, the remaining payload against the
maximum structural payload was
verified. The maximum structural
payload is found by subtracting the dry
operating weight (DOW) from the
maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW).
Then subtracting the planned payload
(passengers and baggage) from the
maximum payload gives the initial
remaining payload for cargo.
Since these are long flights, other
performance limitations also had to be
checked for. These include take-off
weight limitations being lower than the
structural limitations, and tank capacity
limitations that require the payload to be
lowered so the aircraft can make it to
destination. These all possibly have an
effect on the maximum possible payload.
This is typical flight planning and flight
dispatch work.
The last step was to look at the
aircraft itself, and the lower deck
configurations. Using average numbers of
1.2 bags per passenger, 35 bags per ULD
and the lower deck layouts as published
in the various aircraft characteristics for
airport planning (ACAP) documents, all
aircraft types were operated in a classic
configuration with P6-pallets in the
forward holds and LD-3 containers in the
aft holds. The bulk compartment was not
used in planning.
After calculating the required number
of LD-3 containers used for baggage, and
rounded up to the nearest whole unit, the
number of containers left for cargo was
determined. With tare weights of 187lbs
per container and 276lbs per pallet, the
total tare weight of the ULDs was
determined, and after arbitrarily setting
net average cargo weights as 1,100lbs per
container and 4,500lbs per pallet, the
total available payload for cargo was
calculated.
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS
Route LHR-AUS
Flight times - mins 579-610
Taxi out times - mins 20
Taxi in times - mins 11
Block times - mins 610-641
Tracked distances - nm 4,330
Wind components - kts -39 to -49
ESAD - nm 4,705-4,813
Alternate airport & IAH/143
distance - nm
Aircraft specifications
The precise specifications used for
each aircraft variant in this analysis are
summarised (see table, page 14). Since
these aircraft differ significantly in a
number of ways, they are not easily
categorised or paired off in comparison.
The aircraft were compared in four
sub-groups based on two-class seat
numbers as follows: the first group with
the 787-8 variants and the A330-200; the
second group with the 787-9 variants and
the A330-300; the A350-900 and the
787-10s grouped with the 777-200ER;
and lastly the A350-1000s in a group
with the 777-300ER and the 747-400s.
The baby aircraft in this round-up,
the 220-seat 787-8, was analysed with
two different engine options: the RR
Trent 1000-G engines, and the General
Electric (GE) GEnx-1B-67. Both
examples have a certified maximum take-
off weight (MTOW) of 502,500lbs, an
OEW of about 257,400 lbs (there is a
200 lbs difference between the engine
types), and a fuel capacity of 33,340USG
(see table, page 14).
The 787-9 is analysed with GEnx-1B-
74/75 engines. An MTOW of 560,000lbs,
an OEW of 267,800lbs and a fuel
capacity of 33,399USG (see table, page
14). The assumed dual-class cabin seats
of 266, and gives it a maximum range of
about 8,250nm with this payload. Range
with maximum overall payload is
5,250nm.
The two 787-10 variants are
equipped with the GEnx 1B74-75 engine
and the RR Trent 1000J3 engine. MTOW
sits at 560,000 lbs and the fuel capacity is
a low 33,399USG. Airline cabin layouts
on the 787-10 shows a dual-class 337
seats (see table, page 14). Maximum
range with this payload using the GEnx-
1B 74-75 engines turns out to be around
7,050nm, and switching to the RR Trent
1000J3 engines shortens range to about
6,900nm.
15 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
LHR-SAN LHR-GRU LHR-EZE LHR-SCL
638-675 667-715 790-852 833-896
20 20 20 20
12 10 13 9
670-707 697-745 823-885 862-925
4,811 5,155 6,088 6,449
-37 to -47 -29 to -33 -33 to -37 -29 to -33
5,204-5,324 5,479-5,549 6,523-6,613 6,858-6,942
ONT/112 GIG/187 MVD/154 MDZ/180
The A350-900 is equipped with Trent
XWB-84 engines. It has an MTOW of
590,839lbs and a fuel capacity of
35,646USG. The capacity is assumed to
be 318 seats, giving it a maximum range
of about 6,850nm with this payload.
The two A350-1000 aircraft are
equipped with Trent XWB-97 engines.
MTOW sits at 696,660 lbs and the fuel
capacity is a hefty 41,211USG. The two
cabin variants used show the currently
deployed average 327 seats, as well as the
Airbus standard 369 seats (see table, page
14). This second cabin configuration
gives a larger differential of 51 seats over
the smaller -900 series. Maximum range
with the 327-seat payload is about
7,600nm, and adding 42 seats shortens
the range to about 7,200nm.
The 777-200ER is equipped with
GE90-94B engines. It has an MTOW of
656,000lbs and a fuel capacity of
56,317USG. In this analysis the 777-
200ER has an assumed passenger
capacity of 304 seats, giving it a
maximum range of about 7,300nm with
this payload (see table, page 14).
The 777-300ER is equipped with
GE90-115BL engines, and is a standard
777-300ER in every way with an MTOW
of 775,000 lbs, and a tank capacity of
47,890USG, again, the largest number
here. The aircraft has a two-class cabin of
382 seats, and range with this payload is
around 7,600nm (see table, page 14).
The two 747-400 versions in the
comparison are equipped with GE CF6-
80C2B1F engines. MTOW is a
respectable 875,000lbs, and fuel capacity
is 57,065USG. The two cabin variants
attempt to reflect the remaining market
with 393 seats in a three-class cabin with
business class, premium-economy and
economy. The other cabin is an attempt
at a probable two-class cabin layout with
487 seats. Maximum range with the 393-
seat payload is about 6,600nm, and
adding 93 seats shortens the range to
about 6,150nm.
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
16 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Routes
The main operational factors and
characteristics of the five chosen routes
are summarised, stating flight times, taxi
times, resulting block times, and
information on used distances, wind
components, ESAD, and alternate airport
(see table, page 15).
Performance
The net cargo payload carried, block
times, fuel consumption, and ATC costs
of each aircraft variant are summarised
across the five routes analysed (see tables,
pages 18 & 19).
The fuel burn per ASM, and the
combined fuel cost at $1.69 per USG
with ATC costs of each aircraft variant
are summarised in cents per ASM across
our five sectors (see tables, pages 18 &
19).
Before we examine the grouped
aircraft performances, in a nutshell, the
787-10 clearly sets the standard on all
five routes with some of the best fuel
burn per ASM performance ever seen for
such longer-haul routes. On each route,
the aircraft with the closest performance
are the 367-seat A350-1000 and the
A350-900. The A350-900 and -1000
with 367 seats both have a fuel burn and
ATC cost performance about 11% higher
per ASM. The A350-1000 with 327 seats
has a fuel and ATC cost per ASM that is
21-22% higher than the 787-10’s.
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
The 787-9 lags by a surprising 15.0-
16.0% in fuel burn and ATC en route
costs per ASM compared to the larger
787-10, despite having a 7.8-8.3% lower
total fuel burn. The lower fuel burn is
negated by the -9’s lower seat count of
266, which increases fuel burn per ASM.
Where aircraft now have passenger
number restrictions, the 787-9 has the
fourth lowest fuel and ATC cost per
ASM. The 777-300ER is ranked fifth,
and the 747-400 with a higher seat count
of 487 is ranked sixth. The A330-300
follows closely behind, but this is only the
case on the two North American routes.
The aircraft suffers a payload restriction
of 27 passengers on LHR-GRU with an
ESAD of 5,548nm.
The 777-200ER is ranked eighth and
is also very close to the A330-300, and
the two types are virtually equal in fuel
cost and ATC performance per ASM
where neither suffer passenger number
limitations. The 787-8 variants are
ranked ninth and tenth, and the Trent-
powered version has a cost of about 0.10
cents per ASM higher. The A330-200 is
ranked last of all the 14 types analysed.
This is the case where no types suffer a
passenger payload limitation.
The two 787-8 variants are not the
most efficient aircraft in terms of cost per
ASM however. In fact, they are 32.2-
38.5% more expensive per ASM than the
best performing aircraft here, the 787-10.
This is equal to 0.65-0.75 cents per ASM
higher for the 787-8.
The 787-10 has the lowest fuel burn per ASM of
all 787 family and A350 family variants. This is
partially explained by the average airline two-
class cabin configuration having 19 more seats
than the A350-900, and 33 seats more than the
777-200ER. The 787-10 also has lower fuel burn
per ASM than the A350-1000, which has 30 more
seats.
Aircraft group performance
787-8 & A330-200
The first group is made up of the two
787-8s and the A330-200. At first glance
the vastly expected improvement in fuel
burn performance per ASM over the
A330-200 is not there.
First, the Trent 1000G powered-
version of the 787-8 shows 2.8-3.7%
higher cost than the GEnx-1B67-powered
aircraft. This may largely be due to the
Trent’s higher thrust rating (64,722lbs).
Then, compared to the 787-8s, the
A330-200 scored best on LHR-GRU with
a higher cost per ASM of only 0.8-3.6%.
On the North Atlantic routes this cost
difference was higher at 3.2-6.9%.
Once taking on the very long-haul
flights, the A330-200 lost terrain quickly.
On LHR-EZE, the maximum allowable
payload dropped by 49 seats; and on the
longest sector, LHR-SCL, this reduction
in payload increased to 84 seats, vastly
increasing cost per ASM. The differences
with the 787-8s grew to 24% and 54%.
The Trent 772C-powered A330-200
holds its own on sectors of up to 12
hours against the 787 aircraft. The
aircraft does cruise at a few Mach points
slower than the 787-8s. Observed
differences in ground speeds translate
into 2-3 minutes for every hour spent in
cruise flight.
787-9 & A330-300
When comparing the 266-seat 787-9
and the 274-seat A330-300 significant
differences in operating cost and
performance were expected. The A330-
300 was never seen as an aircraft ‘with
legs’. Of all aircraft in this analysis, the
A330-300 has the smallest full-payload
range profile. In comparison, the 787-9
can operate for another 2,000nm before
payload starts to become restricted.
When compared to our 787-9, the
Trent 772B-powered A330-300 showed
16-17% higher fuel and ATC costs per
ATC on the two shorter routes where the
A330-300 does not have a passenger
payload restriction.
The A330-300 starts to get penalised
on LHR-GRU as the aircraft experiences
a reduction of 27 passengers. The A330-
300’s operating performance is
inadequate to make it competitive on the
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
 17 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
longer LHR-EZE and LHR-SCL routes configuration. Of the aircraft here the terms. Cost per ASM is an entirely
with ESADs of 66,13nm and 6,942nm 747-400 has the highest seat capacity, the different picture however, and especially
(see table, page 19). highest operating weights, the highest fuel in the case of the 487-seat 2-class
burn and en route costs, and yet, it is still equipped 747-400, the difference in fuel
relevant. Our two cabin layouts are 94 and ATC cost per ASM is 0.40-0.48 cents
A350-900, 777-200ER & 787-10 seats apart, yet the difference in absolute per ASM on the first three routes.
With 318 seats in the A350-900, 337 operating costs between these two The difference between the 747-400
seats in the 787-10s and 304 seats in the versions is not large in relevant terms. with 393 seats is more at 0.85-1.05 cents
777-200ER, these aircraft serve a specific Compared to the A350-1000, they per ASM, clearly indicating the efficiency
bracket in cabin size. As stated earlier, the count of course, as the A350-1000 is a of the new generation A350-1000.
787-10 is the clear overall winner when much lighter and more economical The 747-400 starts to have passenger
comparing the performance of all aircraft aircraft type by 44.4-59.0% in absolute payload restrictions on the longer routes
on all routes
For the A350-900, the cost per ASM
for fuel burn and en route charges
relative to the 787-10s has already been
described in the section above. This is an
advantage of 0.23-0.26 cents per ASM
for the 787-10.
When the 787-10 is considered
against the 777-200ER, there is a larger
difference. The 777-200ER, which carries
a full passenger load on all routes, has a
fuel and ATC cost that is 0.46-0.56 cents
per ASM higher than the 787-10’s.

A350-1000, 777-300ER & 747-400

The group of four aircraft variants
with 327-487 seats includes the two
A350-1000s, a 777-300ER and the two
747s.
First, with respect to the two A350-
1000s, with two different cabin layouts,
the lower-density aircraft only has 327
seats, which is a number that is close to
the currently deployed cabins with the
small number of operators. Our second
version shows the standard cabin as put
forward by Airbus in its ACAP
document, which has an additional 40
seats.
When pairing these two versions off
against each other, the higher-density
aircraft naturally wins hands-down. The
lower-density A350-1000 shows lower
absolute fuel burn by 400-550USG per
trip, but has 0.24-0.30 cents higher cost
per ASM due to the smaller seat count.
Going forward, comparing the best-
performing A350-1000 with 327 seats to
the 777-300ER is perhaps a surprise,
with operating costs of the 777-300ER
on a par with those of the lighter A350-
1000 variant. The 777-300ER is
80,000lbs heavier and larger than the
A350-1000 and, together with previous-
generation technology in airframe and
engines, shows this in 18-19% higher fuel
burn.
With the 777-300ER’s larger seat
count of 382, the impact on cost per
ASM is far less, with results that are 10.2-
11.0% higher than the 367-seat A350-
1000. The 777-300ER has a small
advantage of less than 1% compared to
the 327-seat A350-1000.
The last aircraft in this round-up is
the venerable 747-400. Some 135 of these
aircraft are still operating in passenger

ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE

18 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
BLOCK FUEL BURN PERFORMANCE OF A350-900/-1000, 787-8/-9/10, A330-200, A330-300, 777-200ER, 777-300ER & 747-400

City-pair Aircraft Engine Cargo ESAD Block Block Fuel ATC Fuel &
variant variant Seats payload nm ASMs time fuel /ASM cost ATC
lbs Hours USG $ c/ASM

LHR-AUS A330-200 Trent 772C 248 14,825 4,763 1,181,224 10:39 19,145 0.0162 2,042 2.91
787-8 GEnx-1B67 220 19,112 4,705 1,035,100 10:10 15,434 0.0149 2,025 2.72
787-8 Trent 1kG 220 19,112 4,705 1,035,100 10:10 16,045 0.0155 2,025 2.82
A330-300 Trent 772B 274 10,511 4,785 1,311,090 10:41 20,276 0.0155 2,042 2.77
787-9 GEnx-1B74-75 266 23,822 4,726 1,257,116 10:13 16,422 0.0131 2,118 2.38
777-200ER GE90-94B 304 21,271 4,774 1,451,296 10:27 22,244 0.0153 2,271 2.75
A350-900 Trent XWB-84 318 23,075 4,744 1,508,592 10:11 19,157 0.0127 2,172 2.29
787-10 GEnx-1B74-75 337 26,994 4,745 1,599,065 10:14 17,907 0.0112 2,118 2.02
787-10 Trent 1kJ3 337 26,994 4,764 1,605,468 10:14 18,293 0.0114 2,118 2.06
777-300ER GE90-115BL 382 31,427 4,813 1,838,566 10:28 26,095 0.0142 2,443 2.53
747-400 3cl CF6-80C2B1F 393 15,034 4,806 1,888,758 10:18 34,589 0.0183 2,566 3.23
747-400 2cl CF6-80C2B1F 487 7,839 4,806 2,340,522 10:18 35,901 0.0153 2,566 2.70
A350-1000 (327) Trent XWB-97 327 31,741 4,765 1,558,155 10:14 21,825 0.0140 2,330 2.52
A350-1000 (367) Trent XWB-97 367 31,718 4,766 1,749,122 10:15 22,266 0.0127 2,330 2.28

LHR-SAN A330-200 Trent 772C 248 14,143 5,290 1,311,920 11:44 21,468 0.0164 2,392 2.95
787-8 GEnx-1B67 220 18,319 5,204 1,144,880 11:10 17,228 0.0150 2,371 2.75
787-8 Trent 1kG 220 18,305 5,225 1,149,500 11:11 17,951 0.0156 2,371 2.85
A330-300 Trent 772B 274 - 5,292 1,450,008 11:47 22,768 0.0157 2,392 2.82
787-9 GEnx-1B74-75 266 22,814 5,227 1,390,382 11:14 18,334 0.0132 2,483 2.41
777-200ER GE90-94B 304 20,331 5,301 1,611,504 11:30 24,899 0.0155 2,666 2.78
A350-900 Trent XWB-84 318 22,100 5,246 1,668,228 11:12 21,402 0.0128 2,547 2.32
787-10 GEnx-1B74-75 337 25,832 5,270 1,775,990 11:16 20,030 0.0113 2,483 2.05
787-10 Trent 1kJ3 337 25,832 5,270 1,775,990 11:16 20,455 0.0115 2,483 2.09
777-300ER GE90-115BL 382 30,016 5,324 2,033,768 11:32 29,182 0.0143 2,873 2.57
747-400 3cl CF6-80C2B1F 393 14,013 5,316 2,089,188 11:21 38,793 0.0186 3,022 3.28
747-400 2cl CF6-80C2B1F 487 7,307 5,316 2,588,892 11:21 40,281 0.0156 3.022 2.75
A350-1000 (327) Trent XWB-97 327 30,374 5,270 1,723,290 11:16 24,406 0.0142 2.737 2.55
A350-1000 (367) Trent XWB-97 367 30,352 5,271 1,934,457 11:17 24,843 0.0128 2,737 2.31

LHR-GRU A330-200 Trent 772C 248 9,728 5,549 1,376,152 12:25 22,639 0.0165 12,164 3.66
787-8 GEnx-1B67 220 17,566 5,537 1,218,140 12:04 18,298 0.0150 12,057 3.53
787-8 Trent 1kG 220 17,566 5,537 1,218,140 12:04 19,010 0.0156 12,057 3.63
A330-300 Trent 772B 247 - 5,548 1,368,002 12:24 23,547 0.0172 12,164 3.80
787-9 GEnx-1B74-75 266 22,042 5,534 1,472,044 11:58 19,400 0.0132 12,562 3.08
777-200ER GE90-94B 304 19,847 5,535 1,682,640 12:00 26,123 0.0155 13,886 3.45
A350-900 Trent XWB-84 318 21,320 5,534 1,759,812 11:58 22,496 0.0128 12,873 2.89
787-10 GEnx-1B74-75 337 25,184 5,529 1,863,273 11:48 21,075 0.0113 12,562 2.59
787-10 Trent 1kJ3 337 25,165 5,529 1,863,273 11:49 21,500 0.0115 12,562 2.62
777-300ER GE90-115BL 382 29,590 5,507 2,103,674 11:49 30,409 0.0145 15,298 3.17
747-400 3cl CF6-80C2B1F 393 13,667 5,503 2,162,679 11:40 40,529 0.0187 15,932 3.90
747-400 2cl CF6-80C2B1F 487 7,152 5,479 2,668,273 11:37 42,027 0.0158 15,932 3.26
A350-1000 (327) Trent XWB-97 327 29,501 5,531 1,808,637 11:53 25,706 0.0142 14,196 3.19
A350-1000 (367) Trent XWB-97 367 29,546 5,531 2,029,877 11:51 26,147 0.0129 14,196 2.88

Source: Lufthansa Systems’ Lido/Flight

Notes: Lufthansa Systems provided block fuel figures in lbs. These have been converted to USG using 1 USG = 6.55lbs.

on LHR-EZE and LHR-SCL (see table,
page19). This only has the effect of
increasing the A350-1000’s advantage
because it suffers no limitations to
available passenger numbers.
Summary
As expected, the new generation long-
haul aircraft offer a significantly lower
fuel burn and operating costs per ASM
compared to older generation types. The
three longer sectors are punishing in
terms of payload-range requirements and
flight operations in general. With block
times ranging from 11:50 (LHR-GRU) to
15:00 (LHR-SCL) hours, these aircraft
will have to meet the reliability and
comfort requirements that come with
such long flights. This may explain why a
number of operators do not put as many
seats as possible into these aircraft.
The good news is that even on these
extreme routes, almost all aircraft allow a
significant amount of lower deck cargo to
be carried in addition to their full
passenger cabins. On the 5,515nm LHR-
GRU route, weight-wise all aircraft can
take more lower deck payload than they
can stow volume-wise inside the aircraft.
On the 6,575nm (ESAD) LHR-EZE
sector we see some payload and
performance restrictions appearing, with

AIRCRAFT COMMERCE ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

 19 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

BLOCK FUEL BURN PERFORMANCE OF A350-900/-1000, 787-8/-9/10, A330-200, A330-300, 777-200ER, 777-300ER & 747-400

City-pair Aircraft Engine Cargo ESAD Block Block Fuel ATC Fuel &
variant variant Seats payload nm ASMs time fuel /ASM cost ATC
lbs Hours USG $ c/ASM
LHR-EZE A330-200 Trent 772C 199 - 6,611 1,314,616 14:42 26,913 0205 11,475 4.33
787-8 GEnx-1B67 220 15,858 6,594 1,450,680 14:14 22,285 0.0154 11,359 3.38
787-8 Trent 1kG 220 15,323 6,592 1,450,240 14:12 23,134 0.0160 11,359 3.48
A330-300 Trent 772B 146 - 6,613 967,473 14:45 27,135 0.0280 11,475 5.93
787-9 GEnx-1B74-75 266 19,925 6,563 1,745,758 14:07 23,590 0.0135 11,882 2.96
777-200ER GE90-94B 304 17,938 6,564 1,995,456 14:09 31,893 0.0160 13,026 3.35
A350-900 Trent XWB-84 318 5,334 6,590 2,095,620 14:07 27,432 0.0131 12,194 2.79
787-10 GEnx-1B74-75 337 8,215 6,557 2,209,709 13:56 25,682 0.0116 11,882 2.50
787-10 Trent 1kJ3 337 5,892 6,557 2,209,709 13:57 26,213 0.0119 11,882 2.54
777-300ER GE90-115BL 382 25,015 6,531 2,494,842 13:56 37,072 0.0149 14,271 3.08
747-400 3cl CF6-80C2B1F 393 3,320 6,524 2,563,932 13:44 49,763 0.0194 14,930 3.86
747-400 2cl CF6-80C2B1F 419 - 6,523 2,732,262 13:43 50,273 0.0184 14,930 3.66
A350-1000 (327) Trent XWB-97 327 24,254 6,561 2,145,447 14:03 31,236 0.0146 13,347 3.08
A350-1000 (367) Trent XWB-97 367 16,273 6,560 2,407,520 14:02 31,820 0.0132 13,347 2.79

LHR-SCL A330-200 Trent 772C 164 - 6,941 1,137,362 15:23 27,994 0.0246 10,322 5.07
787-8 GEnx-1B67 220 12,155 6,924 1,523,280 14:51 23,666 0.0155 10,215 3.30
787-8 Trent 1kG 220 8,565 6,923 1,523,060 14:51 24,579 0.0161 10,215 3.40
A330-300 Trent 772B 111 - 6,942 770,111 15:25 28,216 0.0366 10,332 7.53
787-9 GEnx-1B74-75 266 19,253 6,919 1,840,454 14:43 25,016 0.0136 10,737 2.88
777-200ER GE90-94B 304 13,027 6,892 2,095,168 14:45 33,858 0.0162 11,588 3.28
A350-900 Trent XWB-84 315 - 6,920 2,181,448 14:45 28,978 0.0133 11,040 2.75
787-10 GEnx-1B74-75 337 1,124 6,915 2,330,355 14:35 27,251 0.0117 10,737 2.44
787-10 Trent 1kJ3 337 - 6,914 2,330,018 14:34 27,824 0.0119 10,737 2.48
777-300ER GE90-115BL 382 14,143 6,858 2,619,756 14:31 39,398 0.0150 12,539 3.02
747-400 3cl CF6-80C2B1F 319 4,995 6,881 2,196,648 14:22 51,460 0.0234 13,237 4.56
747-400 2cl CF6-80C2B1F 312 6,214 6,881 2,147,259 14:22 51,311 0.0239 13,237 4.65
A350-1000 (327) Trent XWB-97 327 15,223 6,917 2,261,859 14:39 33,154 0.0147 11,910 3.00
A350-1000 (367) Trent XWB-97 367 6,843 6,917 2,538,539 14:39 33,902 0.0134 11,910 2.73

Source: Lufthansa Systems’ Lido/Flight

Notes: Lufthansa Systems provided block fuel figures in lbs. These have been converted to USG using 1 USG = 6.55lbs.

only the 777 variants, and the GE-
powered 787-8 and 787-9 still operating
with an underload, leaving weight
available for more payload.
The real watershed happens on the
longest, 6,910nm (ESAD) LHR-SCL
route. The 787-9 outperforms all other
aircraft in terms of payload-carrying
capability, and has payload for lower
deck cargo when completely loaded.
These additional cargo payloads and
the revenue that they generate have not
been taken into consideration in this
evaluation, however. Our consideration
has only been to evaluate the fuel and
ATC costs and performance associated
with operating the aircraft on these long
routes.
Still, when using some real-world
passenger and cargo yields, it turns out
that the aircraft with higher cash
operating costs are actually better revenue
earners than the best-in-class, the 787-10,
which yields a higher earning potential.
Everything depends on a range of
commercial factors of course, the primary
ones being the chosen cabin layout, and
average passenger yields and cargo
shipment revenues.
The 787-8s use the least block fuel on
these sectors but display a higher cost per
ASM than their larger siblings. The GE-
powered variant uses slightly less fuel
than the higher-rated RR-powered
aircraft. The differences in performance
between the RR- and GE-equipped 787-
8s and 787-9s should be treated with
some caution. This is because there are a
number of different engine specifications
and thrust settings available.
The 787-10s overall steal the show.
Our slightly more powerful RR-powered
variant burns 1.7-2.1% more fuel than
the GE-powered aircraft. When combined
with slightly lower time-related costs,
results in an overall 1.1% higher
operating cost.
The two A350-1000 configurations
have the highest revenue-earning
potential of current-generation long-haul
aircraft. Results of the 777-300ER are
keeping up with the A350-1000s, but the
777-300ER loses some terrain when
comparing operating costs. Still, even on
the longest sector the aircraft can hold its
own.
In closing
The analysis has shown that in our
field of 14 specific aircraft-engine models,
the GEnx powered 787-10 is the most
efficient aircraft on the five routes. This is
when measuring by fuel burn and en
route ATC charges cost per ASM (see
tables, page 18 & this page).
In this, a lot depends on the aircraft
configuration, both physically (engine
rating and weights) and in the cabin
(layout, seat count) and how the aircraft
are operated in airline-specific
environments. One of the 787-10’s main
advantages is its high seat count relative
to the 777-200ER. The market will
choose a certain aircraft type for its
operations based on many other factors
than fuel burn or cash operating cost.
To download 100s of articles
like this, visit:
www.aircraft-commerce.com

ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE

20 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Traditional cost cutting programmes have reached their limits. Post-flight
cost analytics will be replaced by real-time cost-driver-based costing to
support operations decision makers. Gesine Varfis investigates how
activity based costing (ABC) will benefit airlines for real-time cost
management.
Getting a grip on
real-time costing
A
nticipating the next big move
in the aviation industry is
important, but responding to
this by changing long-standing
processes, implementing new solutions,
making them acceptable and keeping
them sustainable is complex and
expensive.
By now, the low-hanging fruit in
airline operating cost savings have been
harvested. Cost-driver-based analytics is
the next opportunity in the context of
airline operations costing and economic
decision-making, as previously elaborated
(see Boosting operations management
with accurate real-time costing systems,
Aircraft Commerce, October/November
2018, page 13).
This article describes why cost-driver-
based analytics will be one of the next
challenges airlines need to face and
overcome in generating further bankable
savings in operations. Cost-driver-based
analytics have not yet been established as
an industry standard, so there are no off-
the-shelf operations management
solutions available to support real-time
operations costing. Partial elements of
this exist, and start-ups are beginning to
develop solutions, but airlines need to get
more engaged in digitalisation and big
data analytics.
Cost-driver-based cost management is
linked to big data analytics, real-time
costing for operations, and decision-
making support for predictive and
prescriptive cost-driver analytics. Many
airlines are unaware of cost drivers, or at
best only specific finance teams are
dealing with them. Airlines, therefore,
need to manage cost drivers on the shop
floor (maintenance), maintenance control
centre (MCC) and in hub and operations
control centres (HCC and OCC). These
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
are the departments where high-cost
decisions are routinely controlled and
implemented.
Traditional cost-cutting
Generally, it is no longer possible to
achieve 20-25% cost-saving margins
based on pure process or organisation re-
engineering or outsourcing, such as:
outsourcing the weight and balance
function; assigning ramp agent duties to a
qualified loader; or transferring walkout
assistance from a qualified engineer to a
trained ground services employee.
Certain carriers have led these
projects, while others have followed after
the projects have become ‘common
industry practice’. This also applies to
innovative IT developments, big data or
analytics, such as easyJet signing Skywise
for predictive maintenance management
in 2018, or Lufthansa signing a 10-year
strategic partnership with Inmarsat in
2015.
Waiting for cost-efficient solutions to
be available in the market place is no
longer an option. Previously it was
prudent to gauge applicability of a
solution by its performance with a launch
customer, or making several site visits to
see a system in operation before starting
an IT replacement or upgrade project.
These projects were driven by vendor
product/industry standard developments
applicable to any airline with some
predictable and accountable
customisation as part of a package. For
example, crew management solutions
were customised to national laws and
regulations.
Simply adopting best practice will not
generate all possible savings when airlines
actively engage in cost-driver-based
analytics. The pace of digitalisation and
speed at which artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning are being applied
are widening the gap between airlines
that are engaged in digital transformation
and those that have yet to put it on the
agenda.
Eventually, the gap between a fully
digitalised airline and an airline
considering integrating the techlog into
the electronic flight bag (EFB), will be too
big to be closed economically. There is
also the problem of employees being too
deeply rooted in traditional ways.
The era of traditional cost-cutting
programmes was characterised by simple
replication of existing programmes. Big
data and digitalisation refer to high-
quality and available individual data
sources. Fixing common data
management obstacles, such as data
duplication, questionable data sources
and fragmented data to meet the
requirements of digitalisation and big
data analytics cannot be copied. Airlines
need tailor-made solutions so that their
own data is available for analysis.
This article focuses on the
methodology of cost-driver-based costing,
and the areas in which it can be applied.
It also elaborates how managers need to
support transformation to generate
sustainable savings.
Cost-driver-based analytics are related
to transformations taking place in the
world of big data and digitalisation.
Dealing with digitalisation and big data
requires a different skill set in an
organisation’s management, as well as
high-quality and accessible data.
Data needs will grow, and the airline
industry is on the verge of affordable data
analytics. Algorithms are being developed
to predict a component’s failure as part of
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
22 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
predictive maintenance. Due to the nature
of predictive failure, an intact component
is removed from an aircraft and sent to
the shop. The shop checks it and tags it
as intact, after which it is reinstalled on
an aircraft where it later fails during
operations. The data volumes required to
predict the failure of a component are
already large; the ones to determine what
will cause predicted failure to allow the
shop to test a component under the
failure predicted environment require
substantially more data.
Airlines need to get the data now.
They do not have the luxury of waiting to
adapt to growing data requirements at a
later stage. Tomorrow’s airline
management decisions will be data-
driven, and paired with creativity and
innovation management. Tomorrow’s AI
needs data. At the same time, the lifecycle
of new application requirements and
tools will shorten, and business growth or
savings without the adoption of IT
solutions and data analytics will become
unthinkable.
With the end of traditional cost-
cutting programmes, airlines need to
embrace change, and re-organise
processes, organisation, culture, tools and
systems. Change is a corporate activity
that needs to be continuously applied and
managed.
Numerous airlines have incorporated
change as part of daily business. Chief
commercial officers need to enrich classic
marketing with analytics, making use of
the vast quantity of data available. To
this end, easyJet appointed a chief data
officer in 2018 for driving business
growth based on big data, AI and
machine learning. easyJet also appointed
a director of operations transformation,
who is responsible for delivering
operations strategy with a specific focus
on reducing operational disruptions,
improvement in operations performance,
and digital, data, connectivity and
mobility transformation.
The Lufthansa Group has appointed a
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
chief digital officer for digital strategy,
innovation and transformation. In
addition, Dr Christian Langer is
responsible for the product division
digital fleet solutions at Lufthansa
Technik, with the recently announced
MRO platform ‘Aviatar’.
Digitalisation and big data will meet
cost-driver-based costing, so airlines need
to get ready to encounter it.
Methodology evolution
Cost-driver-based costing has its roots
in activity-based costing (ABC) and
process modelling. ABC has developed
over the past 20 years as a method for
improving business processes in relation
to the costs they generate. In this context,
ABC has been used to support strategic
decisions, such as pricing, outsourcing,
make or buy decisions and identification
and measurement of process
improvement initiatives. With this
approach, airlines have determined the
cost of delay and cost of maintenance,
and have identified maintenance and
ground operations cost drivers. ABC is a
time-limited exercise focused on
determining cost of a delay and
cancellation based on post-flight data.
For example, analysis of a year’s
worth of cost and delay data performed
by operations, maintenance and finance
departments has always proved to be
time-consuming, because traditional
accounting data and costs provide neither
the cost of a process (workflow) nor
unrelated resource-consumption metrics,
such as labour and materials.
As an example, airlines still use the
2015 report published by Eurocontrol,
together with a University of Westminster
technical report on European airline
delay cost reference values. This analysis
is a reference document for European
delay costs incurred by airlines, both at
strategic planning and tactical stages.
Regardless of the time that has elapsed
since 2015, the delay cost references
The approach in how Activity Based Costing
(ABC) is configured to determine the cost of a
process or event is the same for a one-time
analysis or for a real-time costing solution. After
the processes have been mapped and the cost
drivers have been identified, the quantity and
cost relation determine the cost of an activity,
process and product. The analytics based on
cost deviations as well as benchmarking allow
the determination of savings.
appear to be valid.
ABC requires collection and analysis
of a significant amount of data. This
means only a time-limited approach can
be used for benchmarking. The data has
to be benchmarked externally, which is
difficult. Alternatively, the data analytics
must be based on a sound comparable
database (months and years of data) to
allow sound recommendations. These
types of analyses and calculations go
beyond traditional costing practices in
project control and financial accounting.
Therefore, ABC one-time cost-saving
projects are combined with best practice
benchmarks by experts that have
identified cost-saving opportunities at
other airlines. The decision to change
from post-flight analytics to exact real-
time results to support economic
decisions (such as delay or cancellation of
a flight) cannot validly be based on an
outdated average cancellation cost, but
needs to be calculated in real-time for
each situation, taking into account the
number of passengers who will miss
connections with rebooking, delay, food
and overnight requirements, among other
cost-drivers.
Aircraft manufacturers and
consultants have been determining
‘traditional’ cost-cutting programmes for
airlines. In 2005, Boeing launched
Technical Operations Performance
Improvement and Cost Solutions
(TOPICS) to help customer airlines better
understand maintenance costs and factors
that drive high costs, and to benchmark
those with other operators. The goal was
to provide airlines with solutions and best
practices that would help improve
maintenance operations, optimise
maintenance costs, and increase
profitability. As published in Boeing’s
Aero Magazine in the first quarter of
2010, Tom Buyers, formerly regional
director of airline value analysis and
marketing for airline economics, noted
that airlines had identified cost-saving
opportunities, determined saving
potentials, and recorded actual savings.
It is now time to move from cost-
cutting projects via continuous post-flight
analytics towards real-time costing and
cost analytics to perform the right
decision on the spot.
In terms of application, ABC allocates
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

costs based on the amount of resources
consumed by a product or service. ABC
determines those processes and activities
required for a product, assigning
resources and materials required for each
activity with related costs. These are the
resource cost per time unit (minutes or
hours), event and/or cost of utilised
material. ABC allocates direct costs based
on product cost drivers related to the
resource used.
The data obtained can be used to
identify wasted resources and
unnecessary costs. A load master, for
example, is allocated for complete
turnaround of an aircraft, but only
provides 20 minutes of actual
supervision. The rest is idle time, where
the load master is not adding any value to
the exercise.
In general, ABC has been used to
calculate the share of the total cost for
each step of a process. This determines a
product, service or cost for the customer.
Correlation of an activity with a cost and
measurable value or cost driver allows
someone to analyse reasoning behind the
cost, and benchmark the cost and time
required to complete the activity. ABC is
used to identify delays, inefficiencies,
bottlenecks or cost deviations compared
to industry benchmarks, standard service
or product cost, and invoiced cost.
ABC process determination comes
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
close to process enhancement modelling.
Workflows, processes and resource
consumption are currently mapped with
IT solutions, such as Architecture of
Integrated Information Systems (ARIS), a
process-mapping solution developed in
the 1990s. Process-mapping has attracted
start-ups like Celonis, which is a Munich-
based IT system provider. ARIS maps
processes and throughput times to
determine transparent, lean and efficient
workflows as well as costing and resource
consumption. The costing models used,
however, are not as important since the
systems are applied for industrial
production. Here efficiency gains and
cost savings are determined with
workflow and process optimisations. This
is different for airlines; decision-making
in heavily irregular situations cannot be
compared with industry workflow
optimisation. Especially for airlines, real-
time costing will make a difference by
supporting the OCC decision-making
with the cost for different operations
scenarios.
Real-time costing goes beyond
scenario comparisons. By determining the
cost-driver average, the standard or target
cost used for an activity (for example, the
time required for a load master to be
present for the loading procedure),
airlines and service providers can
determine when to change from using a
23 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
ramp agent to using a load master.
Therefore, this determines the pricing and
service level agreements of the new
services. They can also take immediate
action to fix a cost driver that has been
detected moving out of the normal level.
A highly sophisticated use of cost-driver
analytics and management is the use of
fuel monitoring and management
solutions. After International Air
Transport Association (IATA) fuel-saving
initiatives have been addressed, fuel-
saving techniques need to be monitored,
including single-engine taxiing, and use of
a ground power unit (GPU) instead of an
aircraft’s auxiliary power unit (APU).
More sophisticated analytics, therefore,
are required.
As previously mentioned, one reason
why ABC has not been established is the
large amount of data, and the number of
algorithms, correlations and aggregations
a system needs to manage. This applies to
not just actual data, but also historical
data for analytics and prediction. With
digitalisation moving towards AI, big
data analytics is no longer an obstacle. At
the same time the cost of data sourcing,
data archiving and analytics reaches a
level where a cost-benefit analysis of
using analytics makes sense. Airbus
(Skywise) and Lufthansa Technik
(Aviatar) provide state-of-the-art open
data platforms that allow costs and
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
24 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
benefits to be shared. SAP Hana also
offers a powerful real-time data analytics
platform. Airbus is working on a new
aircraft connectivity solution (FOMAX),
which will enhance data volume
downloads from 400 parameters to
24,000 parameters for the A330 (aircraft
data comprises 1,400-40,000
parameters), at a cheaper and more
efficient rate that allows airlines to use
predictive maintenance analytics.
ABC cost-driver analytics
Configuring an ABC project or tool
takes significant time and effort, driven
mainly by determination of required data.
Airline operations cost control, billing
and invoice control solutions (for
example, KEOPS CC by XLM Aero,
Airpas by Sabre or FinesseCost by
Accelya) support a limited scope of cost
analytics (post-flight actual data versus
post-flight invoiced data). It is difficult,
however, for airlines to get data sources
and cost drivers integrated and defined.
Gathering and agreeing on data, and
assuring and testing data quality can take
as long as a year before going live.
Airlines intending any form of ABC cost
driver analytics for a time-limited project
or tool with or without consulting efforts,
should get data sources and cost drivers
defined and cleaned. If an airline is
unable to do this, where else is it possible
to find and fix common data
management obstacles, such as data
duplication or fragmentation, and
questionable data sources?
Data and cost-drivers collected need
to be integrated into a high-level ABC
configuration by turning them into
measurable, traceable units, related to
algorithms determining the results. Cost-
drivers need to be changed into
measurable units, documented and agreed
in supplier contracts or internally.
Applicability cost-driver
There are still airlines that operate
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
without knowing aircraft maintenance
costs, specific costs of a delay or
cancellation, or cost drivers. These
operators are unable to control
maintenance invoices because they do not
know what an event should cost. ABC
can make a difference for airline
operations and maintenance, since direct
allocation of actual costs to a product
makes it possible to identify true costs
and cost drivers.
Knowing which aircraft needs to be
operated on longer routes to meet lease
return conditions without an extra
maintenance check, monitoring service
level agreements (SLAs), knowing
supplier support agreements, and being
familiar with warranty details make it
possible to generate significant cost
savings via ABC methodology. ABC
should be applied for all airline operating
costs, such as shown.
ABC for aircraft turnaround
One of the services that has been well
defined in terms of process and activity
mapping, and assignment of resources
and times (plan, target, and actual time
spent for activities) is aircraft turnaround.
Airlines have defined standard
reference models, and developed quick
turnaround models or variable models
(based on load scenarios) applicable to
managing different delay, irregularity and
turnaround scenarios. Current
turnaround management solutions allow
managers to control the turnaround
process, based on deviation of real-time
data recorded for start and end times
versus standard times required. In the
case of a delayed start to a turnaround
process (with no buffers), the minimum
time required for the process determines
the expected delay. Based on this
information, target off-block time
(TOBT) can be predicted. More
sophisticated solutions perform load and
special load-based predictions.
The mapped processes (with start and
end times) used for turnaround
With ABC not only the cost of a process, product
or service get traceable. With the cost of use the
cost of a delay can be identified and based on
the delay drivers, and different delay cost
scenarios can be predicted and compared. The
example shows some of the cost drivers
affecting the cost for towing from the arrival
position to maintenance base
management apply to ABC. ABC assigns
the cost of resources (time or material) to
each activity, aggregated to the total cost
of a service. As previously mentioned, this
type of analysis has been performed for
consulting purposes. There are solutions
in the market to control the cost of
ground-handling invoices post-flight.
A solution has not been developed,
however, that performs costing for each
turnaround in real-time. Currently,
detailed cost algorithms applied for
ground-handling are shared or negotiated
with the airline’s procurement
department. Cost can, therefore, be
assigned to measured activities and
processes aggregated to the ground-
handling cost per flight. Ground-handling
providers, such as Fraport, not only
publish rates for ground-handling,
landing fees, terminal use and parking,
but also describe the calculation model in
detail. The list of service charges, valid as
of January 1st 2019, are published on
Fraport’s website.
Fraport, like other service providers,
defines the charging (parameter-
measuring) period for services. For
pushback services, the time charged is
described as follows: ‘The charging
period for push-out services starts two
minutes prior to timely set TOBT or
rather with contractual agreed lead time
prior to timely set TOBT or latest with
the arrival of the aircraft towing tractor
at the position. Push-out time ends when
the tractor has completed towing-/push-
out procedure and leaves the position’.
The benefit is not only to have the
exact cost of a turnaround for invoice
control. With real-time costing, service
levels and turnaround services can be
varied according to the most efficient,
fast, economic and customer-satisfying
turnaround performance. The cost of a
delay can be predicted, managed and
varied.
Swissport offers a ground-handling
package to airlines with improved cost
transparency, complemented by
conversion of handling costs from fixed
to variable. Variable costing changes the
scenario as it can be used to manage
irregularities, as well as the cost of
operations on the day. It only makes
sense when an airline has an overview of
the handling status, standard fixed cost
and the option to manage variable cost
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
 25 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
ABC costing for aircraft turnaround management
gets more important. Today airlines manage
their turnaround process on time-based (start
and end time management) methodology. They
determine how to save time in case they need to
recover from a delay. With variable turnaround
costing, the resources used can be related to the
real work required. This will be the end of
standard turnaround package cost.

and quality of services. An airline needs

to know the time and cost not only of a
standard turnaround cleaning service, but
also of a quick turnaround cleaning,
reduced cleaning, or no cleaning at all. At
the same time the controller needs to be
aware of the cleanliness of the aircraft to
avoid jeopardising the customer
experience. Trying to win back 50
complaining passengers out of 156 on
board (with each complaint-handling
estimated to cost €120 per passenger)
might in the long run be more expensive
than the economic decision taken on the
spot.

Take first-mover advantage

The future of airlines will be digital.
Real-time variable cost management,
providing overall situational awareness
and decision support, will play a role in
this new area of operations management.
Aviation may have been slow to feel the
impact of technology as the industry has
been protected by regulations and
investment constraints, and had protected
markets with no pressure to change.
However, the pressure on the industry to
change is now increasing. The chief
digital officer role has been established in
leading airlines and others will follow.
Real-time costing, combined with
variable costing, complemented by
customer satisfaction management, can
give birth to entirely new business
models, and will leave companies that fail
to adapt struggling to survive. Currently,
big data sets are becoming larger, and will
eventually change the nature of business
decisions. Enhancements based on data
samples, statistical methods and expert
know-how will be replaced by real-time
analytics on performance, cost and
service quality calculations on all the
data. There will be no errors because of
sampling that produces precise predictive
and prescriptive analytics.
With big data analytics, any move to
start structuring corporate data efficiently
will prepare for the evolution towards AI.
Open data platforms are the easiest way
to join in data analytics, allowing for
shared hardware and development cost,
and provide the necessary benchmarking
and experience for small to medium-sized
airlines.
Making change stick
Success is driven by empowerment,
communication and continuous change
management. When real-time costing is
put onto the agenda, it is important to
follow some key guidelines.
Significant transformation and
innovation requires a dedicated person,
with the scope and magnitude of a chief
transformation, digitalisation or data
analytics officer with a direct line to the
chief executive officer. Costing involves
all areas of the airline: finance and
operations need to determine the
operating cost together with
procurement. This ensures that costs are
contracted, controllable and measurable
in all stations.
The next maker or breaker of success
is the empowerment and engagement of
employees, who need to drive change or
be part of change with strategic
management guidance, KPIs and targets.
Transformation requires the change of
roles and responsibilities and alignment
with new targets. Crucial to the process is
continuous communication throughout
all levels of a corporation. Employees
that know and contribute to corporate
needs can challenge and test costing
solutions, and determine the algorithms
and cost-drivers better than external
consultants. At the same time, employees
can bridge gaps, remove barriers and
tackle the bottlenecks between traditional
ways of conduct and big data analytics.
Open cost-driver discussions and cost
awareness of all employees is key to the
next stage of real-time economic decision-
making in the OCC, MCC or HCC; it is
a recipe for success. Employees should be
engaged where cost-driver based real-time
analytics are applied.
Engagement of integrators (or
integration workshops, based on an open
innovation principle) are another key to
success. Data analytics needs the insight
of data and process owners. It requires a
culture of open innovation, collaboration
and calculated risk-taking. Simple things,
like open work environments, flexible
work hours or home-office working can
make a difference.
Targets and achievements need to be
communicated regularly so that
employees understand what the company
is trying to achieve.
To download 100s of articles
like this, visit:
www.aircraft-commerce.com

ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE

26 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
There are more than 6,000 active and stored aircraft in the global
widebody fleet, with production ranging in date from the early 1970s to
present day. Fleet sizes, regional distribution, age and forecasted
maintenance requirements are examined here.
Size of the widebody
airframe base check market
T
he global widebody fleet of just
over 6,000 aircraft comprises
about 19% of the commercial
jet transport fleet, compared to
the narrowbody fleet of just over 17,000
aircraft. For the purposes of this article,
the fleet of established widebody types
includes in-service and stored Boeing
767-200/-300/-300ERF/-400s, 777-200/-
300s, 747-300/-400s and 787-8/-9/-10s.
The Airbus fleet includes
A300-B4/C4/F4/-600s and A310s, A330-
200/-300s, A340-200/-300/-500/-600s
and A380-800s.
Also included are the new emerging
fleets of the 747-8F/-8Is, A350-900/
-1000s, the A330-800/900s new engine
option (neo) family, and the yet-to-enter
service 777-X (-8/-9).
The survivors of the legacy fleet
included are the MD-11 and DC-10-10/-
30/-40.
Finally, the current listing of Ilyushin
IL-80 and IL-96 fleet quantities is noted.
Due to the fleet size and location, the
maintenance & repair organisation
(MRO) market for this type is extremely
limited, however.
In addition to the commercial fleet, a
small number of military widebodies is in
use as tankers and transporters,
including: 62 DC-10s, designated as KC-
10A and KDC-10; and eight 767-200s,
designated as KC-767A (4 aircraft) and
KC-767J (4). New models entering the
tanker/transporter fleets include 58 767-
2Cs (KC-46A). Such fleets generally do
not enter the commuter and freighter
MRO market.
Data for most of the aircraft in service
(including build details, operational
statistics, and ownership) are available
throughout the industry in different
formats for analysis. Such data supplied
to Aircraft Commerce for this article
provides a snapshot of the characteristics
of the widebody fleet from mid-December
2018 (see table, page 27).
This data of course is fluid in nature.
Aircraft move in and out of storage or are
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
retired, and new aircraft enter service
every day. Fleet details including quantity,
status, purpose, age and utilisation can be
used to gain insight not only into the size
of the fleet, but also its base maintenance
check requirements.
As an example, widebody quantities,
region of use, utilisation characteristics,
maintenance programme type, and
predicted maintenance events are
examined here. Details of the widebody
fleet engine MRO market are also
available (see Widebody engine MRO
market analysis, Aircraft Commerce,
June/July 2017, page 54).
There are also details of the
narrowbody airframe check market (see
Size of the narrowbody airframe base
check market, Aircraft Commerce,
October/November 2018, page 30).
The widebody fleet
The widebody fleet is used
operationally for its long-range
performance and ability to move large
numbers of passengers over short
distances, so fleet locations and
operational usage vary widely.
The regions with the three largest
widebody fleets are the Asia Pacific
(2,055 aircraft), North America (1,484)
and Europe (1,423). The smaller fleets
are in the Middle East (916), Africa (222)
and South America (202) (see table, page
28).
There are a small number of
widebody aircraft (11) with no assigned
operator country, and an ‘undisclosed’
operator. All these aircraft are stored.
The A330ceo makes up the larger
fleet numbers in Europe and the Asia
Pacific. The 777-200/-300 family makes
up the larger fleet numbers in the Middle
East, while the 767 family is the most
prevalent in North America.
In Africa, the fleet numbers of 777,
A330ceo and the 787 are closer in size. In
South America, the 767, A330ceo and
787 fleets are dominant.
The four largest regions in terms of
fleet orders are the Asia Pacific (611),
Middle East (605), North America and
Europe (417). Orders currently
unassigned to a country total 108 (see
table, page 28).
The ‘on order’ figures noted are
always considered as guides only. Airlines
are sometimes able to negotiate some
flexibility (or even the option to cancel)
when they place orders.
An overview of fleets per region now
follows.
North America
The North American fleet is made up
of 1,386 in-service and 98 stored aircraft
over 63 listed operators in the United
States (US) and Canada.
The US widebody in-service fleet
comprises 1,245 aircraft. The larger fleet
sizes include United Airlines (182),
American Airlines (155) and Delta
Airlines (150).
The Canadian widebody in service
fleet comprises 141 aircraft. The larger
operator fleet sizes include Air Canada
(74) and Air Canada Rouge (25).
Of the North American fleet, 638
aircraft are configured as freighters. The
larger fleets are with FedEx (265), UPS
(173) and Prime Air (41).
The business- and VIP-configured
widebody fleet comprises seven aircraft.
Other primary role functions include: five
Waterbombers; three aircraft listed as
experimental (still with the original
equipment manufacturer (OEM)); one
medevac; 62 tanker/transporters; and
three with military roles.
One unique primary role is the ‘Air
Launch Platform’ 747-400 listed as in
service with Virgin Galactic.
The region has 417 widebody aircraft
on order for 15 different operators and
leasing companies, including 405 in the
US and 12 in Canada, all of which are
due for delivery in the next 10 years. The
larger orders in terms of US airlines
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
 27 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
GLOBAL WIDEBODY FLEET - IN SERVICE AND STORED AIRCRAFT

In-service In service Average Highest Highest Aircraft

Aircraft & stored In-service In-service VIP or Stored Youngest Oldest fleet listed listed on
type fleet passenger freighter special aircraft aircraft aircraft age FH FC order
747-300 6 4 1 1 28 35 31.33 84,830 25,708
747-400 418 131 199 20 68 9 29.5 19.3 140,458 21,169
747-8 131 36 80 6 9 <1 7.3 4.5 36,780 6,878 20
767-200* 113 13 58 12 22 15 36 30.22 109,350 50,706
767-2C KC46A 58
767-300 548 388 90 19 59 4 32.2 20 134,952 45,326
767-300ERF 148 148 <1 23.3 9 74,299 27,178 64
767-400 38 37 1 10 18.9 17 79,089 14,649
777-200 656 438 151 8 59 <1 24.1 14 105,493 26,827 53
777-300 853 837 2 14 <1 21.2 7 67,335 20,722 38
777X (-8/-9) 326
787-8 361 329 2 30 <1 8.8 3.8 28,275 5,679 89
787-9 398 389 1 8 <1 5.2 2 19,682 2,966 387
787-10 12 11 1 <1 1.5 <1 2,271 691 158

A300 (B4/C4/F4) 18 4 10 4 34 38.8 35.7 67,399 42,359

A300-600 205 21 179 5 11 32 21.25 62,672 35,607
A310 63 20 8 19 16 21 32.4 28.25 111,150 27,292
A330-200 647 531 36 36 44 <1 21 9.6 94,907 22,530 37
A330-300 722 698 2 22 <1 26.1 7.92 82,497 28,925 31
A330-700 1 1 <1 <1 <1 NO DATA NO DATA
A330-800neo 1 1 <1 <1 <1 NO DATA NO DATA 8
A330-900neo 3 1 2 <1 1.2 <1 NO DATA NO DATA 233
A340-200 9 7 2 23 26.7 23.6 54,444 15,059
A340-300 119 91 8 20 10 27.1 18.34 108,643 18,724
A340-500 30 3 7 20 8 15.5 12.86 49,068 2,750
A340-600 88 58 2 28 8 17.5 12.7 69,601 9,494
A350-900 214 211 3 <1 5.5 <2 17,961 2,698 504
A350-1000 15 12 3 <1 2.1 <1 2,371 477 161
A380-800 232 229 1 2 <1 13.6 5.5 44,359 6,206 98

MD-11 127 121 6 17 28 24.2 130,179 17,406

DC-10-10 22 21 1 37 47.8 42.45 87,321 33,368
DC-10-30** 85 14 66 5 30 45.7 34.6 122,041 29,298
DC-10-40** 2 1 1 39 42.7 40.5 84,301 43,916
IL-80 4 3 1 33 33 33 NO DATA NO DATA
IL-96 300 20 4 1 8 7 2 28 15.85 NO DATA NO DATA
IL-96 400 4 2 2 7 21 12 NO DATA NO DATA

TOTALS (DEC 2018) 6313 2,265

INFORMATION FROM FLEET SURVEY DEC 2018 IN SERVICE AND STORED AIRCRAFT ONLY

* Includes the KC -767A/J variants

** Includes the KC variants (Tanker/Transport)

< 1 = LESS THAN ONE YEAR OF AGE - NEW AIRCRAFT ENTERING SERVICE

include FedEx (71), United Airlines (70),
American Airlines (49) and Delta Airlines
(49). In Canada this includes WestJet (10)
and Air Canada (2).
Lessors with a high number of aircraft
orders include Air Lease Corporation
(51) and GECAS (7).
In North America there are 98
aircraft stored for 40 different operators
and lessors. Excluding Boeing itself, the
operator with the highest number of
stored aircraft is United Airlines, with a
mix of stored 747-400s (9) and 767-300s
(3).
For aircraft fleet types and aircraft on
order for the North American region (see
tables, page 28).
Europe
The European fleet includes 1,323 in-
service and 100 stored aircraft over 137
operators and 31 countries. Europe has
the highest number of listed operators.
Countries with a high number of in-
service aircraft include the United
Kingdom (237), Germany (190), Russia
(135), France (148) and Turkey (116).
The largest in-service passenger fleets
include British Airways (BA) (134),
Lufthansa (103), Turkish Airlines (88),
Air France (103) and KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines (60).
Of the European fleet, 192 aircraft
are freighters. Large fleet numbers are
with European Air Transport (23),
Cargolux (23), Lufthansa Cargo (17) and
AirBridgeCargo (17).
Europe’s business and VIP fleet
comprises 27 aircraft. Other varying
primary role functions include six Combi
(passenger and freight), 12 aircraft listed
as experimental, 21 as
tanker/transporters, four with military
roles, and three with special roles
(Russian Air Force).
The are 417 aircraft on order for 33
different operators in the region. The
larger orders include Turkish Airlines
(54), Lufthansa (33), BA (30) and KLM
(24). Lessors with large orders include
AerCap (33) and Avolon (32).

ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE

28 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
CURRENT IN-SERVICE AND STORED GLOBAL WIDEBODY FLEET PER OPERATOR REGION

747 747 767 777 777X 787/ A300 A310 A330 A330 A340 A350 A380 MD-11 DC-10 IL-80/ Total
-300/ -8 -200/ -200/ (-8/ -8/-9/ (B4/C4/F4) -200/ -700/ -200/300/ -900/ -800 -10/ -96 By
-400 -300/ -300 -9) -10 & -300 -800neo/ -500/ -1000 -30/ Region
Region -400 A300-600 -900neo -600 -40

Africa 11 1 21 49 39 6 48 33 12 2 222
Asia Pacific 117 47 146 546 317 20 7 639 24 128 64 2,055
Europe 146 51 110 293 143 38 17 379 5 134 31 40 12 2 22 1,423
Middle East 38 10 20 352 100 32 21 140 36 36 128 3 916
North America 112 22 491 254 116 121 18 117 7 11 110 105 1,484
South America 57 13 56 6 46 7 11 2 4 202
Unassigned 2 2 5 2 11

TOTAL BY TYPE 424 131 847 1,509 0 771 223 63 1,369 5 246 229 232 127 109 28
(DEC 2018)

CURRENT ON ORDER GLOBAL WIDEBODY FLEET PER OPERATOR REGION

747 747 767 777 777X 787/ A300 A310 A330 A330 A340 A350 A380 MD-11 DC-10 IL-80/ Total
-300/ -8 -2C/ -200/ (-8/ -8/-9/ (B4/C4/F4) -200/ -800neo/ -200/300/ -900/ -800 -10/ -96 By
-400 -300ER/ -300 -9) -10 & -300 -900neo -500/ -1000 -30/ Region
Region -300ERF A300-600 -600 -40

Africa 1 20 1 4 34 60
Asia Pacific 2 23 61 191 34 86 203 11 611
Europe 13 20 145 23 39 157 20 417
Middle East 15 235 111 8 38 144 54 605
North America 19 120 27 124 55 72 417
South America 2 9 1 5 30 47
Unassigned 1 10 10 34 1 14 25 13 108

TOTAL BY TYPE 0 20 122 91 326 634 0 0 68 241 0 665 98 0 0 0

(DEC 2018)
Unassigned = unknown country & unannounced commercial customer

There are 100 aircraft stored across
45 operators and lessors. The operators
with the highest number of stored aircraft
are European Aviation Ltd with A340-
300 (1), A340-500 (1), and A340 (6),
along with VEB-Leasing with a mix of
747-400 (5), 767-200/-300 (2), and 777-
200 (1).
Aircraft fleets and orders for Europe
are summarised (see tables, this page).
Asia Pacific
The Asia Pacific fleet comprises 1,924
in-service aircraft and 131 stored aircraft
over 99 operators and 29 countries.
Countries with a high number of in-
service aircraft include China (445),
Japan (285), Hong Kong (222), South
Korea (187), Singapore (142) and Taiwan
(122).
The largest in-service passenger fleets
include Cathay Pacific (132), All Nippon
Airways (ANA) (139), Singapore Airlines
(SIA) (118), Korean Air (101), Air China
(115), Japan Airlines (JAL) (114) and
China Eastern Airlines (70).
Of the Asia Pacific fleet, 180 aircraft
are freighters. Korean Air has the largest
widebody freighter fleet with 23 aircraft:
four 747-400s, seven 747-8s, and 12 777-
200. Cathay Pacific Airlines has the
second largest freighter fleet with six 747-
400s and 14 747-8s.
The region’s business and VIP fleet
comprises 13 aircraft. Other primary role
functions include 11 tankers/transporters,
and four ‘Special Purpose’ aircraft with
the Japan Air Self-Defence Force.
On order in the region are 611
aircraft for 42 different operators. The
larger orders include SIA (98) and
AirAsia X (78).
The Asia Pacific region has the
highest number of stored aircraft, with
131 across 45 different operators and
lessors. The operator with the highest
number of stored aircraft is Thai Airways
International with a mix of 747-400s (5),
777-200 (1), 787-8s (4), A330-300s (5),
and A340-500/-600s (9).
The airline fleets and aircraft on order
for the Asia Pacific region are
summarised (see tables, this page).
South America
The South American fleet comprises
191 in-service and 11 stored aircraft with
34 operators and 15 countries.
Countries with large fleets include
Brazil (47 aircraft), Chile (43), Columbia
(32) and Mexico (25).
The largest in-service passenger fleets
operate with LATAM Airlines Chile (40),
LATAM Airlines Brazil (30), Avianca (21)
and Aeromexico (17).
Of the South American fleet, 24
aircraft are freighters. AeroUnion has the
largest freighter fleet with two 767-200s
and five A300s. The next highest is
Avianca Cargo with five A330-200s.
The South American business and VIP
fleet is just four aircraft. Other primary
role functions include one military multi-
role, and one tanker/transport aircraft.
The region has 47 widebodies on
order for eight different operators. The
larger orders include LATAM Airlines
Brazil (17) and Avianca (13).
There are 11 stored aircraft in the
region across eight operators and lessors.
Aircraft of interest are four new 787-8s
across various operators, and two Il-96-
300s with Cubana.
The South American fleet and aircraft
on order are summarised (see tables, this
page).
Africa
The African fleet comprises 192 in-
service and 30 stored aircraft over 44

AIRCRAFT COMMERCE ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

30 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
WIDEBODY FLEET ESTIMATED C CHECK & HEAVY MAINTENANCE VISITS (HMV): PER AIRCRAFT TYPE checks are structured around the familiar
letter checks of ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. ‘A’ checks
2019 2020 2021 contain the high frequency repeat tasks
Aircraft in service 2019 2019 in service 2020 2020 in service 2021 2021 that fall between the C checks, ‘C’ checks
type fleet C checks HMV fleet C checks HMV fleet C-checks HMV contain the cycle of scheduled base inputs
747-400 332 170 39 313 160 46 294 140 45 tasks (for example, 1C, 2C and 4C tasks),
747-8 130 55 20 136 67 24 136 57 20 and ‘D’ checks include the heavier access
767-200/-300/-400 751 475 130 738 473 123 718 462 126 structural tasks. Each aircraft and MPD
777-200/-300 1,483 482 243 1,496 446 256 1,494 452 263 will have slightly different groupings and
777X (-8/-9) 0 42 0 0 106 0 0 check titles.
787-8/9/10 925 290 105 1,074 334 137 1,213 393 168 The difference between the more
A300 9 5 1 7 4 1 6 4 1 modern MSG-3 logic and older MSG-2
A300-600 181 83 39 171 75 38 162 70 39 logic is detailed further (see Size of the
A310 33 19 7 27 14 6 21 7 6 narrowbody airframe base check market,
A330-200/300 1,309 553 276 1,299 590 297 1,285 531 315 Aircraft Commerce, October/November
A330neo 83 24 0 152 59 0 221 93 1 2018, page 30).
A340-200/-300 79 31 20 64 25 18 52 22 14 For much of the active in-service fleet,
A340-500/-600 59 29 15 53 19 14 47 23 10 the base check intervals currently fall in
A350-900/-1000 385 103 0 502 163 0 619 220 0 multiples of 15MO, 18MO, 24MO or
A380 240 110 42 247 105 53 254 110 57 36MO. Structural checks or HMVs are at
DC10 35 16 2 29 16 0 24 14 1 intervals of 5YE, 6YE, 8YE, 10YE or
MD11 110 83 25 102 75 26 94 74 20 12YE. Along with most calendar limits
will be FH or FC backstops, which work
Total 6,144 2,528 964 6,452 2,625 1,039 6,743 2,672 1,086 on a whichever comes first (WCF) basis.
For example, many 24MO tasks in an
Source: ICF Consulting proprietary MRO forecast model MPD may also have a 12,000FH
backstop. If the FH limit is reached
before the calendar limit, then the check
operators and 24 countries. VIP aircraft. Other primary role functions will be scheduled before the 12,000FH
Countries with the largest number of include nine tanker/transport aircraft. limit is exceeded.
in-service aircraft include Ethiopia (57), There are 605 widebodies on order There are also some permitted
South Africa (29) and Egypt (23). The for 14 different operators. The larger ‘maximum variations’, which can be
largest operators include Ethiopian orders include Emirates (210), Qatar applied to listed individual inspection
Airlines (57), South African Airways (28) Airways (138) and Etihad Airways (134). intervals and can provide some flexibility
and Air Algerie (11). Stored aircraft in the region include to schedule the maintenance input. These
The African fleet includes 19 77 aircraft across 28 operators and vary per MPD. For example, on tasks
freighters. Ethiopian Airlines has the lessors. The operator with the highest controlled by FC, a task with an interval
largest widebody freighter fleet, with nine number is Saudia with one 747-400, 17 of more than 500FC can have an allowed
777-200LRF aircraft. 777-200s, one A330-200 and one MD-11 variation of 5% or 250 landings,
Africa also has seven business and stored. whichever is the least. For a calendar
VIP aircraft. No other primary role For aircraft fleet types and aircraft on example, a task with an interval of more
options are listed. order for the Middle Eastern region (see than three years, can have a 3MO
There are orders for 60 aircraft in the tables, page 28). variation allowance.
region for nine different operators. The For high FH and FC aircraft, the base
larger orders include Ethiopian (15), checks will include additional inspections
Afriqiyah Airways (10) and Arik Air (9). Base maintenance that will impact the size of the check. For
Stored aircraft in Africa include 30 The OEM maintenance planning example, the 767’s threshold of
aircraft across 20 operators and lessors. documents (MPDs) combines mandatory 50,000FC (and 40,000FC for the 767-
The spread of stored aircraft numbers is repeat scheduled maintenance inspections 400ER, -300F and specific converted
relatively even across the operators. required for the continued airworthiness freighters), is the major threshold for
The fleet and aircraft on order are of the aircraft. This includes the introducing large groupings of fatigue-
summarised (see tables, page 28). system/powerplant, structural, and zonal based supplemental structural inspection
inspection tasks that airlines have in their programme (SSIP) tasks, including flight
aircraft maintenance programmes (AMP). length sensitive (FLS) tasks.
Middle East These MPDs are constantly evolving to A general overview of the C Check
The Middle East fleet comprises 839 factor in fleet service experience and and HMV requirements, as well as fleet
in-service and 77 stored widebodies, with maintenance philosophy changes. utilisation characteristics of each
53 operators and 13 countries. Two maintenance philosophies are widebody type follows.
Countries with large fleets include the mainly in use, depending on aircraft type,
United Arab Emirates (363), Qatar (189), to determine ‘C’ check (or base check)
Saudi Arabia (129) and Iran (52). and the ‘D’ check or Heavy Maintenance 767 family
The largest passenger aircraft fleets Visits (HMVs). The 767 family entered service in
include Emirates (258), Qatar Airways In more modern MPDs, the aircraft September 1982. Two variants are still in
(157), Saudia (102), Etihad Airways (72) and aircraft component flight hour (FH), production: the 767-300ERF for the
and Mahan Air (31). flight cycle (FC), and calendar time are commercial fleet, and the 767-2C/KC-46
Of the Middle East fleet, 67 aircraft used for the main threshold and repeat for the military fleet.
are freighters. Qatar Airways has the interval operational parameters. To cover The 767 base maintenance
largest widebody freighter fleet of 747-8s calendar time, hour (HR), day (DY), programme is based around a 18MO
(2), 777-200s (15), and A330-200s (8). month (MO) and year (YE) can be used. check cycle.
The Middle East has 35 business and In older aircraft’s MPDs, maintenance The basic C check parameter

AIRCRAFT COMMERCE ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

32 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
frequencies of 6,000FH/18MO,
12,000FH/36MO, 18,000FH/54MO and
24000FH/72 MO, are used to complete
one base check cycle over a 6YE period.
This can be referred to as a four C-check
cycle.
The basic structural or ‘SC’ check
parameters as per the 767 MPD language
are frequencies of 3,000FC/18MO,
6,000FC/36MO, 9,000FC/54MO, and
12000FC/72 MO. These are used to
complete one base check cycle over a six-
year period.
Tasks with intervals that fall between
the base checks are planned into what are
still commonly known as A checks. The
largest grouping of A check tasks is at
750FH. Based on daily utilisation of
8FH, the A check will fall due every 3
months.
The 767 MPD changed from the
industry familiar letter checks to FH, FC
and or calendar threshold and repeat
interval task parameters in 2012.
An exception to this is the Boeing
Low Utilisation Maintenance Programme
(LUMP) for operators that accumulate
fewer than 100FH per month per aircraft,
or 1,200FH per year; this still refers to
letter checks.
A snapshot of current 767 operational
characteristics shows the highest annual
FH utilisation aircraft is a passenger 767-
300 with 9,222FH and 1,202FC
equalling 7.7FH per FC on average.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is also a passenger 767-300 with
2,592FC and 2,222FH, equalling 0.9FH
per FC on average.
The average annual passenger fleet
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
utilisation from information available is
3,580FH and 730FC, equalling a rate of
4.9FH per FC. This would equate to the
C check calendar interval being reached
before the FH backstop.
The average annual freighter fleet
utilisation is 2,120FH and 750FC. This
works out at 2.8FH per FC, which puts
the fleet within normal parameters for
base checks.
747-300/-400
The 747-300 entered service in 1985
and the 747-400 in 1989. Both variants
have ceased production. Before this the
747-100/-200 models were in operation
from the early 1970s.
There are only six 747-300s left in
service, compared to more than 350 747-
400. The variants use different MPDs for
their maintenance programmes.
The 747-400 MPD still has letter
checks listed among FH, FC and calendar
utilisations. The letter checks equate to a
calendar threshold and repeat interval.
Originally the 747-400’s MPD was
operated on maintenance steering group
two (MSG-2) principles for the structure,
while the system and zonal programmes
were already MSG-3. The MPD was
changed to complete MSG-3 principles in
2002.
The C check interval is in the region
of 10,000FH or 24 MO. While the
aircraft still has structural inspections at
6YE, many deep access structural
inspections or HMV tasks fall at 8YE
which changes to 6YE after the aircraft is
older than 16 years. Additionally, there is
The global widebody fleet will use varying
bespoke AMPs developed from the base MPD to
match the primary role of the aircraft.
a large number of 16YE tasks, with
repeat intervals at 12YE, so the HMV
cycle and work content will alter as the
aircraft ages.
The A check interval is in the region
of every 1,000FH. In the 747-400 MPD,
more than 80 inspections are listed under
the threshold and repeat interval of 1A.
Not all tasks will apply to all aircraft.
The highest annual FH utilisation
aircraft is a 747-400 freighter with
5,649FH and 895FC, equalling 6.3FH
per FC.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is a passenger 747-400 with
1,740FC and 2,496FH per year, equalling
1.4FH per FC on average.
The average annual utilisation for the
passenger fleet from the information
available is 3,600FH and 550FC. This
equates to 6.5FH per FC.
In addition, the average annual
utilisation of the remaining freighter fleets
is 3,540FH and 680FC, equalling 5.2FH
per FC.
In general, the passenger and freighter
aircraft utilisations do not put pressure
on the calendar C check intervals.
747-8 series
The new model 747-8F freighter
entered service in 2011, and the
passenger version 747-8I in 2012.
The aircraft’s A check interval is
1,000FH, and the C check interval is a
combination of 10,000FH and 24MO,
wcf. This allows an aircraft utilisation of
up to 5,000FH per year without
compromising the calendar interval.
The 747-8 has an eight-year interval
for the first two HMV or D checks,
which is reduced to six years for the third
and subsequent D checks like the 747-
400. The oldest of the 747-8 fleet are
now approaching their first HMV
scheduled at 8YE.
The highest annual FH and FC
utilisation aircraft is line number (L/N)
1,504 with 5,423FH with 938FC,
equalling 5.8FH per FC on average. The
aircraft is a 747-8F freighter operating in
Europe.
In comparison the highest annual FH
utilisation passenger aircraft is L/N 1,514
with 4,984FH and 490FC, equalling
10.2FH per FC on average. The aircraft is
a passenger 747-8I also based in Europe.
The average annual passenger and
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
 33 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
WIDEBODY FLEET ESTIMATED C CHECK AND HEAVY MAINTENANCE VISITS (HMV): PER REGION

World Aircraft 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021
region group Fleet C chks HMVs Fleet C chks HMVs Fleet C chks HMVs

Africa 747-400 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 0
747-8 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0
767-2/3/400 17 11 4 17 13 3 17 11 3
777-2/300 43 8 7 45 12 9 47 19 9
777X 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
787-8/9/10 42 14 6 44 12 8 50 16 7
A300/-600 4 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1
A330-2/300 49 23 6 51 21 12 52 25 16
A330neo 4 3 0 6 1 0 9 5 0
A340 18 9 4 15 6 4 12 6 3
A350-8/9/1000 27 8 0 39 11 0 45 16 0
A380 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
MD11 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0
Africa Total 209 79 29 227 82 38 243 102 39

Asia Pacific 747-400 105 54 13 100 51 13 94 44 12

747-8 48 23 8 49 22 9 49 23 9
767-2/3/400 119 80 21 115 71 23 110 71 22
777-2/300 545 164 93 544 179 89 536 168 83
777X 0 4 0 0 22 0 0
787-8/9/10 382 109 42 446 152 49 507 154 65
A300-600 15 7 3 14 6 3 14 6 4
A330-2/300 607 249 132 598 278 125 587 251 129
A330neo 23 3 0 54 20 0 84 34 0
A340 10 4 2 9 4 2 7 3 2
A350-8/9/1000 195 53 0 239 87 0 280 108 0
A380 65 32 12 66 26 13 65 26 16
Asia Pacific Total 2,114 778 326 2,238 896 326 2,355 888 342

Europe 747-400 128 66 18 116 58 20 105 49 16

747-8 51 24 7 51 27 10 50 20 10
767-2/3/400 116 75 20 112 69 18 107 68 17
777-2/300 277 93 47 283 80 51 285 84 53
777X 0 8 0 0 18 0 0
787-8/9/10 170 45 17 203 68 26 234 69 31
A300/-600 37 17 8 34 13 8 32 16 7
A310-2/300 11 7 2 9 5 2 7 2 2
A330-2/300 341 141 73 336 152 85 330 130 87
A330neo 30 12 0 40 18 0 55 22 1
A340 80 35 20 67 27 19 55 22 15
A350-8/9/1000 64 17 0 97 21 0 124 41 0
A380 36 16 8 36 16 10 36 14 10
DC10 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
MD11 11 8 2 11 7 2 10 8 2
Europe Total 1,353 556 222 1,404 562 251 1,449 545 251

Middle East 747-400 20 15 1 20 5 3 19 13 3

747-8 7 0 2 8 6 2 8 0 0
767-2/3/400 17 9 3 17 9 4 17 13 3
777-2/300 349 120 57 348 91 67 346 106 72
777X 0 28 0 0 59 0 0
787-8/9/10 132 44 14 169 45 19 188 59 25
A300/-600 18 9 4 14 6 3 11 5 2
A310-2/300 10 7 1 8 3 1 6 3 1
A330-2/300 147 63 29 148 65 36 149 61 41
A330neo 12 4 0 19 8 0 26 11 0
A340 24 11 7 21 6 6 18 12 3
A350-8/9/1000 70 16 0 88 31 0 116 39 0
A380 137 62 23 143 62 29 149 68 30
Middle East Total 943 360 141 1,031 337 170 1,112 390 180

Source ICF Consulting proprietary MRO forecast model

ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE

34 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING

WIDEBODY FLEET ESTIMATED C CHECK AND HEAVY MAINTENANCE VISITS (HMV): NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

World Aircraft 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021
region group Fleet C chks HMVs Fleet C chks HMVs Fleet C chks HMVs

North America 747-400 75 33 7 74 44 10 72 33 14

747-8 22 8 3 26 11 2 26 13 1
767-2/3/400 428 265 72 425 276 64 419 268 70
777-2/300 250 88 36 256 80 39 258 66 43
777X 0 2 0 0 4 0 0
787-8/9/10 135 52 15 147 39 23 165 65 29
A300-600 113 51 24 109 48 23 104 44 25
A310-2/300 12 5 3 10 6 3 8 2 3
A330-2/300 122 58 26 124 56 28 126 48 31
A330neo 11 1 0 26 10 0 39 16 0
A340 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
A350-8/9/1000 14 6 0 19 6 0 25 8 0
A380 1 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 1
DC10 31 14 2 26 14 0 21 13 0
MD11 96 73 22 89 65 23 81 63 18
North America Total 1,311 655 210 1,337 657 215 1,353 641 235

South America 747-400 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0

747-8 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
767-2/3/400 54 34 10 52 36 11 49 32 11
777-2/300 19 8 2 20 4 1 21 9 3
777X 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
787-8/9/10 63 25 11 66 18 13 69 29 11
A300/-600 5 3 1 4 3 1 4 1 1
A330-2/300 43 20 10 43 19 11 41 16 11
A330neo 4 1 0 7 2 0 8 5 0
A340 5 2 2 4 1 1 3 2 1
A350-8/9/1000 14 3 0 20 7 0 29 7 0
DC10 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
South America Total 210 98 35 220 92 38 230 103 38

Source: ICF Consulting proprietary MRO forecast model

freighter fleet utilisation from available
information is 4,370FH and 670FC,
equalling 6.5FH per FC. Using the
average utilisation figures the aircraft
would reach the C check calendar target
of 24MO.
777 family
The 777-200 entered service in 1995
and the 777-300 in 1998. The 777F
entered service in 2009.
The MSG-3 logic that defines modern
MPDs like the 777 highlights the
variations of the standard C check
concept. The 777’s MPD does not
reference tasks against C check
parameters, but it does provide a guide A
and C check cycle example in the
appendices. This is based on the
assumption of an average utilisation of
14FH a day, at an FH:FC ratio of 5.6:1.
The MPD suggests that lighter A
checks take place at 1,000FH intervals
and the C or base check groups of tasks
are to be carried out every 14,000FH.
Given an FH:FC ratio of 5.6:1 this
equates to the aircraft achieving 2,500FC
between checks.
A recent Aircraft Commerce 777
maintenance feature provided operator
feedback that base checks are being
scheduled with a wide range of 18MO to
36MO (see Ageing 777 airframe
maintenance analysis, Aircraft
Commerce, October/November 2017,
page 47).
An aircraft with a utilisation of 14FH
a day would reach 14,000FH every
1,000DY (close to 33MO). An aircraft
flying 5FC a day would reach 2,500FC in
fewer than 18MO. The resultant varying
base check intervals would have to
incorporate at the appropriate stage the
heavier structural checks that are due at
6YE, 9YE and 12YE.
The current highest annual FH
utilisation aircraft is a passenger 777-300
with 6,161FH and 710FC, equalling
8.7FH per FC on average.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is a passenger 777-200 with
2,296FC and 2,008FH per year, equalling
0.9:1FH per FC.
The average annual utilisation of the
in-service passenger fleets from
information available is 4,410FH and
690FC. This equates to 6.4FH per FC.
The average annual utilisation of the
freighter fleets in comparison is similar at
4,610FH and 730FC. This works out to
be in the region of 6.3FH per FC.
The 777-X is due to enter service in
2020. The two current listed variants are
the 777-8 and 777-9, and will use an
independent MPD to the existing 777
family.
787 family
The 787-8 aircraft first entered service
in 2011, the 787-9 in 2014, and the 787-
10 in 2018.
Given the title Dreamliner, the 787
features new design architecture that
includes composite materials within the
fuselage and wing structure. FH, FC and
calendar utilisation parameters are used
in its MPD for inspection task threshold
and repeat intervals to form a series of
eight base checks over a 24YE cycle.
As a guide, A checks or lighter line
inputs can be planned at 1,000FH
intervals, the C checks or base checks are
at 12,000FH/36MO intervals, and the
structural base checks or HMVs at every
6YE and 12YE intervals. All other
FH/FC/calendar interval tasks will be de-
escalated and slotted into the nearest
convenient base check or A checks.

AIRCRAFT COMMERCE ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

36 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
MROs have begun to perform the
first lighter structural inspection HMV
inputs at 6YE, as the oldest in-service
aircraft are now over seven years old.
The highest annual FH utilisation
aircraft is a passenger 787-8 with
5,975FH and 689FC, equal to 8.7FH per
FC on average.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is a passenger 787-9 with
1,145FC and 4,443FH, equalling 3.9FH
per FC on average.
The average annual utilisation of the
in service passenger fleets from available
information is 4,560FH and 660FC.
Given that most of the larger airline
787 fleets have average rates of utilisation
near to 4,500FH per year, and an average
daily flight time of 12-14FH, the aircraft
are likely to reach the FH guide intervals
for the base checks before they reach the
calendar intervals, and reach the
structural check’s calendar interval before
they reach the FC interval. It is therefore
likely that FH tasks that fall due within
the systems, structures and zonal sections
of the MPD will drive much of the base
check input scheduling.
A380
The A380-800 first flew in April 2005
and began operational service in October
2007. The oldest A380s are now
completing their first 12-year cycle of
maintenance inputs.
The A380 was the first Airbus to
enter service on a 24MO/12,000FH base
check interval. This equates to a six-check
cycle over 12 years, rather than the more
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
familiar 18MO base check interval, eight-
check cycle. The A380 MPD does not use
letter checks in the task’s threshold and
repeat intervals, like the MPDs of
preceding Airbus widebody aircraft.
By the end of 2017, airlines had the
option to escalate the 24MO base check
cycle to 36MO, resulting in the aircraft
moving to a four-check cycle over 12YE.
This allows even greater planning
flexibility and increases the in-service
revenue for the fleet.
The traditional lighter structural
inspection at six years, and a heavy
structural check interval of 12YE, slot
into either the four or six-check cycle at
72MO and 144MO.
The A380 MPD uses a variation of
FH, FC and/or calendar intervals to
optimise the utilisation of each individual
scheduled maintenance task. An increase
from 24MO to 36MO required
equivalent FH escalations from
12,000FH to 18,000FH.
Line checks or A checks initially were
set at an interval of 750FH, but have
been extended to 1,000FH. Realistically
there is not a large grouping of tasks at
these intervals. Line and A checks will
comprise all the tasks that fall short of
the C check interval, along with other FH
and FC tasks as the utilisation is reached.
The highest annual FH utilisation
A380 aircraft has 5,753FH and 592FC,
equalling 9.7FH per FC on average.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft has 767FC and 4,327FH per year,
equalling 5.6FH per FC.
The average annual fleet utilisation
from available information is 4,530FH
The widebody fleet FH to FC utilisations vary
greatly due to the long range flying capabilities
and ability for mass passenger number
movement over short distances.
and 540FC, equalling a rate of 8.3FH per
FC. This puts the fleet within normal
parameters for a calendar-driven base
check cycle.
A350 family
The A350-900 entered service in
January 2015 and the A350-1000 in
February 2018.
The A350 MPD contains a large
number of tasks with intervals that are
multiples of 1,200FH, which could be
regarded as being a replacement for
traditional A checks. Other groups that
are multiples of 36MO and could be
regarded as a replacement for traditional
C checks.
There are, however, two large
groupings of tasks at 24MO (58) and
48MO (52). If the 36MO base check
interval is kept, airlines will have to slot
these additional large groupings into the
A checks and closest preceding C check
respectively.
When considering FH utilisation there
is a large grouping of tasks at 12,000FH,
24,000FH and to a lesser extent
36,000FH. Large groupings of structural
calendar tasks fall due at 72MO and
144MO, so there are many variables to
consider when forecasting base and HMV
checks on the A350s.
A snapshot of the current fleet shows
a wide range of utilisations. The highest
annual FH utilisation aircraft is a A350-
900 with 5,815FH and 644FC, equalling
9FH per FC on average.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is also an A350-900 with
1,049FC and 4,295FH per year, equalling
4.1FH per FC.
The average annual utilisation for in-
service fleets from information available
is 4,430FH and 610FC. This works out
at 7.3FH per FC. If targeting a 36MO
check cycle, then the FH tasks will bring
the aircraft in just before that threshold.
The A350 maintenance programme
and maintenance requirements have been
initially analysed (see The A350 MPD
analysis and maintenance planning,
Aircraft Commerce, December
2017/January 2018, page 36).
A340 family
The A340 family entered service from
1993, and ceased production in 2011.
The A340 and A330 have interesting
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

MPDs with a display of ‘FH-optimised’
and ‘FC-optimised’ task thresholds and
repeat intervals alongside ‘non-range’
sensitive thresholds and repeat intervals.
Therefore, one MPD task listing may
have more than one threshold and repeat
interval, depending on the maintenance
programme the aircraft is approved
against.
Additionally, letter check task groups,
such as 1A tasks, are still listed along
with FH, FC and calendar intervals.
The current A check interval for the
A340 is 800FH, and like many aircraft
this figure has escalated over its operating
life. The C check interval is 24MO, with
a large grouping of tasks left at 18MO.
For the A340, the C check escalations
ahead of the structural check escalations
over the life of the MPD have created
difficulties. For example, a C check cycle
of escalation from 15MO to 18MO
created a full cycle of eight checks in
144MO. This was out of alignment with
the S1 and S2 structural checks at 60MO
and 120MO
Over time, however, the S1 tasks were
escalated from 5YE to 6YE, putting the
S1 tasks back into phase with the C check
at 72MO. The interval for the larger
group of structures was also raised to
144MO, which then lined up with the C
check cycle.
Among the A340 fleet, the highest
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
annual FH utilisation aircraft is an A340-
300 with 5,847FH with 561FC per year,
equalling to 10.4FH per FC.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is a A340-200 with 1,146FC and
4,191FH, equalling 3.7FH per FC.
The average annual utilisation of the
in-service passenger fleet from
information available is 3,750FH and
450FC. This works out at 8.3FH per FC.
A330 family
The A330-300 entered service in
1994, and the A330-200 in 1998. Both
variants are still in production. One
A330-700 (A330-743L) prototype
freighter (build year 2018) is still listed
with Airbus.
As mentioned, like the A340 the
A330 MPD contains options of ‘FH-
optimised’ and ‘FC-optimised’ tasks,
alongside ‘non-range’ sensitive threshold
and repeat intervals and letter checks.
The A330 C check cycle is now based
around a large number of tasks at 18MO
and 24MO intervals, with varying FH
backstops. For example, for 24MO tasks
these backstops can range from 4,000FH
to 12,000FH. Each aircraft’s applicability,
modification status and approved FC- or
FH-optimised AMP will impact the
number of tasks required out of more
than 3,700 tasks in the MPD.
37 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
An additional complexity is that the
MPD still has a large number of tasks at
42MO and 48MO. These will either
enter the preceding C check or closest A
check. Structurally there is a large
number of FC-optimised threshold and
non-range sensitive structural tasks at
tasks at 6YE and 12YE to consider.
The A330 fleet utilisations vary
widely. The highest annual FH utilisation
aircraft is a passenger A330-300 with
6,047FH and 706FC, equal to 8.6FH per
FC.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is also a passenger A330-300,
with 1,632FC and 3,560FH, equalling
2.2FH per FC.
The average annual utilisation of the
passenger in-service fleets from
information available is 3,880FH and
800FC. This works out at 4.9FH per FC.
An average annual utilisation of the
freighter in-service fleets is 3,800FH and
900FC. This works out at 4.2FH per FC.
The A330 fleet base check intervals
will be driven by a mix of calendar and
FH/FC thresholds.
Late in 2018 the A330-900neo began
to enter commercial service. The sister
A330-800neo is due to enter service by
the first half of 2020. The aircraft has
new Rolls-Royce Trent 7000 engines to
improve fuel burn, but has about 95%
parts commonality with the A330ceo.
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
38 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
A300/A310 family
The A300B4 variants entered service
in 1975, and the A300-600 in 1983.
Preceding A300 variants entered service
from 1974 onwards. The type ceased
production in 2007. The A310 entered
service in 1983 and ceased production in
1998.
Of the remaining A300 fleet, only
four A300B4 and 21 A300-600 passenger
aircraft remain in service. The remaining
aircraft are freighters.
Of the remaining A310 fleet, only 20
passenger aircraft are still in service. The
rest are freighters, VIP or for military use.
The A300 and A310 MPDs have also
undergone periods of C check escalation
at different stages to the structural or D
check elements to the MPD programme.
For the purposes of the maintenance
programme development, it was assumed
that a C Check at 2,500FH would be
carried out every 12MO to 15MO. A
check task multiples would be carried out
every 250FH. If actual utilisation differs
significantly from this, an option would
be to adjust to a LUMP programme.
Today due to the varying modified
roles of the airframes AMP base check
cycles will vary. The base C check interval
is in the region of 18MO, although there
are additional larger groupings of
calendar tasks at 24MO and 48MO.
Structural task check intervals are
heavily FC-driven with more unique 9YE
threshold and 5YE repeat intervals than
seen in other MPDs. It is the systems
section tasks of the MPD that contains
the more familiar 72MO and 144MO
large groups of intervals.
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
The highest annual FH utilisation
aircraft is a passenger A310 with
4,063FH and 890FC, equalling 4.6FH
per FC.
The highest annual FC utilisation
aircraft is a freighter A300-600 with
1,865FC and 2,258FH, equalling 1.2FH
per FC.
The average annual utilisation of
passenger in-service fleets from available
information is 1,700FH and 550FC. This
equates to 3.1FH per FC.
In comparison, the average annual
utilisation of freighter in-service fleets is
1,300FH and 780FC. This equates to
1.7FH per FC.
MD-11
The MD-11 entered service in 1990
and ceased production in 2000.
The remaining 121 aircraft in service
are now converted freighters, and operate
for seven different operators across
Europe, North America and Africa. The
aircraft’s MPD has evolved from A checks
at 600FH to over 800FH, and C checks
at 15MO and up to 24 MO. The
freighter C check programme will,
however, be bespoke to the operator and
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
design used for the conversion.
As far as utilisation of the current
fleet goes, one aircraft has both the
highest annual FH and FC utilisation
with 5,040FH and 943FC. This equates
to 5.3FH per FC.
An average annual utilisation of the
fleet from available information is
3,020FH and 600FC, equalling 5FH per
FC.
The widebody fleet ‘C’ check cycles range from
15MO to 36MO. High FH utilisation can impacted
these calendar targets.
DC-10
The passenger DC-10 variants entered
service from 1971, and ceased production
in 1988. The remaining fleet consists of
freighters and aircraft with special
purpose roles.
The KC-10 military version tanker of
the DC-10-30CF was introduced in 1981,
and accounts for more than 50% of the
still operational DC-10 fleet.
The oldest DC-10s are now more
than 45 years of age. All except one
commercially operated aircraft are with
FedEx, and these are due to retire over
the next few years.
Ilyushin
The small number of Ilyushin
widebodies provides a limited MRO
market need outside of Russia.
Of the 28 aircraft on record, 22 list
Russia as the operator country, four list
Cuba, and two are listed as unassigned
and have been stored for a long period.
There is currently no data on FH and
FC, or order information available for
evaluation.
Base maintenance market
ICF Consulting specialises in MRO
advisory services in its aviation and
aerospace division. It provides
comprehensive strategy, market research,
market analysis, and maintenance
benchmarking for its customers.
ICF generates annual estimates of the
number of C and HMV airframe checks
for the global regional, narrowbody and
widebody fleets from its own proprietary
MRO forecast model. It sub-divides these
into the number of C and HMV checks
for each main aircraft type. A sample of
this is shown (see table, page 34).
For reference, the HMV numbers are
a sum of any check higher than the basic
C check repeat interval requirements,
including structural checks and D checks.
Grouping checks by the same title can be
difficult, especially since each MPD and
operator can group and title work
packages differently.
As detailed, base check programmes
tend to have a C check interval of close to
24MO for most passenger aircraft,
15MO to 18MO for legacy aircraft and
some freighters, and 36MO for the newer
aircraft into service. Structural checks
occur near or at 6YE and 12YE. In
reality, many factors affect the timing of
an aircraft’s scheduled maintenance visits,
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

The widebody fleet profile will change
dramatically over the next five to 10 years. Large
numbers of older generation DC-10s, MD-11s,
A310s, A300s, A310s, 767s and 747s will be
replaced by larger numbers of 777s, 787s and
A350s. These modern types have longer base
check intervals, so the fleet change will impact
the widebody MRO market.
even the availability of slots.
As an overview of the size of the
current widebody fleet check numbers,
ICF estimates that through 2019 there
will be a need for 2,528 C check slots and
964 HMV slots. This is predicted to rise
to 2,625 C check and 1,039 HMV slots
in 2020, and 2,672 C check and 1,086
HMV slots in 2021 (see table, page 34).
The table shows the specific fleet
types with a greater increase in C check
requirements. For example, HMV checks
for the 787 are predicted to rise from 105
in 2019, to 168 in 2021. The table also
forecasts fleet reductions. For example,
there are more than 330 747-400s in
service in 2019, down to 294 in 2021.
ICF also evaluate the widebody fleet
check requirements per fleet type per
global region (see table, page 34). This
provides a more detailed breakdown of
any predicted patterns in the check
requirements per type per region.
In Africa, for example, fleet check
numbers increase from 79 C checks in
2019 to 102 in 2021. In Europe,
however, the fleet C check quantities
fluctuate, rising from 556 in 2019, to 562
in 2020, and then falling to 545 in 2021.
The same table shows the growing
number of slots required in MROs per
region over the next three years for new
aircraft types, such as the A350. In
Europe, for example, the A350 C checks
increase from 17 in 2019, to 41 in 2021.
Retirement trends
An aircraft’s operational status is
tracked over its life, from ‘on order’
through to ‘in-service’, ‘stored’, ‘retired’
and ‘parted out’. Retirement trends can
therefore be monitored for the impact on
the MRO base check market.
The legacy fleets of aircraft including
the 747-300/-400, 767-200, A300, A310,
A340, MD-11 and DC-10 fleets are
naturally declining because the types are
out of production and existing aircraft
are getting older.
The introduction of the A330neo and
777-8/-9 will also see movement of the
original variants to new operators, as
well as retirements of the older aircraft.
A summary of the last three years of
retirements per fleet type follow:
l 747-300/-400 with a change of
status to retired: 34 in 2016, 43 in 2017
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
and 29 in 2018. The average age at
retirement has been 24 years. All but one
of these aircraft have been 747-400s.
l 767 aircraft with a change of status
to retired: 38 in 2016, 31 in 2017, and 15
in 2018. The average age at retirement
has been 27 years. 26 of these have been
767-200s and 58 have been 767-300s.
l 777 with a change of status to
retired: 12 in 2016, 22 in 2017, and nine
in 2018. The average age at retirement
has been 19 years, and 41 of these have
been 777-200s and two 777-300s.
l 787-8s with a change of status to
retired: just one L/N 5, which retired in
March 2018, at almost eight years of age.
There are no listed operator retirements
at this early stage of the aircraft’s in-
service life.
l A300s with a change of status to
retired: 11 in 2016, nine in 2017, and
three in 2018. The average age at
retirement has been 31 years. Ten of these
aircraft have been A300-600s and 13
A300B2/B4.
l A310s with a change of status to
retired: 23 in 2016, 12 in 2017, and three
in 2018. The average age at retirement
has been 27 years.
l A330s with a change of status to
retired: 12 aircraft in 2016, seven in 2017
and seven in 2018. The average age at
retirement has been 20 years. 13 of these
were A330-200s, and 13 A330-300s.
l A340s with a change of status to
retired: 14 in 2016, 31 in 2017 and 14 in
2018. The average age at retirement has
been 19 years. By variant these equate to
nine -200s, 41 -300s, two -500s and
seven -600s.
l A380s with a change of status to
retired: one aircraft in 2016, one in 2017
and two in 2018. The average age at
39 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
retirement has been a relatively young 12
years.
l DC-10s with a change of status to
retired: 12 in 2016, two in 2017 and four
in 2018. All but one were freighters. The
average age at retirement has been 41
years. By variant these numbers are 14 -
10s, two -30s, and two -40s.
l MD-11s with a change of status to
retired: 17 in 2016, five in 2017 and four
in 2018. All have been freighter aircraft.
The average age at retirement has been
21 years.
l Il-86/-96 with a change of status to
retired: four in 2017. The average age at
retirement has been almost 25 years.
Summary
There is a growing focus on engine
and airframe health monitoring solutions,
and predictive maintenance software.
These primarily target the reduction of
costs around unscheduled maintenance
events. C checks and HMVs, however,
are scheduled maintenance events.
In the widebody MRO check market,
longer and less predictable maintenance
intervals are challenging traditional check
forecast models and predicted man-hour
(MH) requirements. For example, over a
12-year period the 767’s cycle has eight
checks, while the newer 787’s has four,
leading to an estimated reduction of as
much as 65% in scheduled maintenance
MH for the 787. For airlines, this is a
reduced maintenance burden, and for
third-party MROs this is lost revenue
that needs to be replaced.
To download 100s of articles
like this, visit:
www.aircraft-commerce.com
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
40 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
A series of major modification and upgrade programmes for the CFM56-3,
5B & -7B series; and the V2500-A5 were based on replacing original
airfoils and associated hardware with 3D Aero airfoils. The main effects
were reduced fuel burn and maintenance costs.
Major modifications &
upgrades for the CFM56-3,
-5B & -7B, and V2500-A5
V
arious engine upgrade and
modification programmes have
been introduced as each engine
type gains operational
experience. The main aim of these
upgrades is to improve operational
reliability, reduce fuel burn and carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions,
increase temperature margins and retain
engine performance, and achieve overall
lower maintenance costs.
Major upgrade and modification
programmes for the CFM56-3, 5B and
-7B series; and the V2500-A5 have been
introduced over their years of operational
service.
CFM56 family
The CFM56 has become the best-
selling engine in commercial aviation, and
is also the most numerous engine in
operation. The three main series of the
CFM56 in operation are the -3, -5A/-5B
and the -7B, of which several thousand
units have been produced. Each fleet has,
therefore, accumulated tens of millions of
flight hours (FH) and flight cycles (FC) in
operational service, with some
accumulating hundreds of millions of FH
and FC. With extensive experience for
each main series, CFM International has
been able to make several improvements
to its engines and improve their economic
performance.
There were 1,988 CFM56-3-powered
737-300/-400/-500s built from 1984 to
1999, almost 4,100 CFM56-5B-powered
A320 family aircraft have been built since
1994, and more than 6,800 CFM56-7B-
powered 737NGs have been built since
built from 1997. Given that an additional
15% of engines over those installed are
required to provide spare engine
coverage, about 2,300 of the -3 series,
9,400 of the -5B series, and 15,600 of the
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
-7B series engines have been built to date.
The CFM56-3 was the first series to
enter service. A lot of the -3’s architecture
was used in the -5B and -7B series,
together with operational experience that
allowed improvements to be made to the
initial build standards of the -5B and -7B.
Most -3s, and the fleet of the earlier -2
series, had been built and entered service
before the -5B entered service in 1994.
The -3’s experience was even greater
when the -7B series entered service in
1997.
Despite the -3 series being the first of
the three major engine series, the -5B and
-7B series had upgrade and modification
programmes before the -3 series
underwent any major configuration
changes to its turbomachinery. The -3
series had its first major upgrade in 1999,
with turbomachinery technology
retrofitted from the -7B series that had
entered service two years before.
The first major upgrade and
modification programmes for the CFM56
family were for the -5B series.
CFM56-5B
The CFM56-5B was a derivative of
the CFM56-5A, which was the original
engine developed for the A320-100.
About 390 A320s were equipped with the
-5A1 and -5A3 engines, and most were
delivered from 1988 to 1991. Another
144 A319s were also fitted with -5A1
and -5A3 engines. The -5A had a highest
rating of 26,500lbs thrust, and a three-
stage low pressure compressor (LPC), so
its core was insufficient to develop
enough thrust for the larger A321 that
was under development.
The -5B series therefore retained most
of the -5A’s core, but had a four-stage
LPC. The -5B has several thrust ratings,
the highest being 33,000lbs for the A321-
200. The-5B’s core configuration is the
four-stage LPC, a nine-stage high pressure
compressor (HPC), a single annular
combustor (SAC), a single-stage high
pressure turbine (HPT) and a four-stage
low pressure turbine (LPT). The -5B has a
68.3-inch diameter fan, and a bypass
ratio of 5.5: 1 for the highest rated
variants at 31,000lbs and 33,000lbs; and
rises to 6.0:1 for the lowest rated variants
at 21,600lbs. A total of 4,073 A320
family aircraft built from 1993 to 2018
were equipped with CFM56-5B engines.
There are nine variants of the baseline
-5B series, all designated with a single
digit suffix. The -5B1 is rated at
30,000lbs, the -5B2 is rated at 31,000lbs,
and the -5B3 is rated at 33,000lbs. These
are all used for the A321. The -5B4 and
-5B7 are rated at 27,000lbs for the A320;
and the -5B6 and -5B8 for the A319 are
rated at 23,000lbs and 21,600lbs. The
-5B9 is rated at 23,300lbs for the A318.
Not all nine variants were manufactured
from 1993 to 1996, however. The -5B1,
-5B2, -5B4, -5B5, -5B6, and -5B7 were
the six variants manufactured for the
A320 and A319 from 1993 to 1996.
Production of the -5B3 for the A321, and
the -5B8 and -5B9 for the A318 started in
1997 and 2002 respectively. These three
variants were never built in the baseline
configuration.
A different variant was offered when
the -5B first entered service in 1994. This
had a dual annular combustor (DAC),
and was implemented to reduce nitrous
oxide emissions (NOx). Engines with a
DAC had a /2P suffix in their
designation. Only two airlines specified
the engines and production was
discontinued. The aircraft equipped with
DAC engines were originally specified by
European operators Swissair and Sabena.
Most are -5B4/2P engines for the A320
and -5B6/2P engines for the A319. The
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

Upgrade and modification programmes for the
CFM56 family have focussed on improving
coreflow and EGT margin, reducing fuel burn,
extending time on-wing between maintenance
shop visits, and reducing maintenance costs.
aircraft were built from 1995 to 2005.
The combustor, nozzle and HPT
hardware for the DAC engine differed
from the SAC engine’s, which added
maintenance costs to the DAC
configuration. Some DAC engines were
therefore converted back to SAC engines.
The baseline engine was successful,
but had competition from the IAE
V2500-A5, and both secured almost
equal shares of the market.
The -5B series had a long initial
production run from 1993 to 1996.
There are only eight A320s with the -5B4
engine left in service.
/P upgrade
The -5B’s first upgrade programme
came with the /P programme in 1996,
and so was an improved build standard.
As an example of the -5B4, this variant
with the /P modification is designated the
-5B4/P. The /P modification could also be
incorporated into baseline engines as a
retrofit through a maintenance shop visit
(SV). Only a small number of baseline
engines were upgraded, however.
The /P modification or upgrade is also
referred to as the 3D Aero programme.
Its main feature was the replacement of
2D blades and vanes with 3D parts. This
included re-designed HPC blades, new
HPT blades and improved cooling that
was incorporated to increase exhaust gas
temperature (EGT) margin, and a re-
designed stage 1 LPT nozzle. The EGT
margin was increased by lowering the
EGT of all nine variants by 10 degrees
centigrade. One particular advantage of
the /P upgrade is that it reduced the
difference in fuel burn that the -5B had
with the V2500-A5.
The overall effect of the modification
is to reduce specific fuel consumption
(sfc) by 3%, which would result in a
commensurate reduction in fuel burn on
the same aircraft being powered by the
same engine in equal operating
conditions.
A total of 1,246 aircraft were fitted
with /P engines. These were built from
1993 to 2012. Not only was the /P the
standard engine build from 1996, but it
was also retrofitted to engines in an SV.
“It is possible to modify some modules in
one SV, and modify the others in a
subsequent SV,” says Simon Mermod,
director at Jet Engine Management.
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
“Some modules will have to be upgraded
in the same SV because they are
complimentary. The engine will clearly
not become /P standard until all affected
modules have been upgraded.”
The cost of the full /P upgrade for all
modules was the same list price as the
parts for the baseline engine. It would
mean some higher costs because some
parts would be scrapped early.
“While some modules could be
upgraded in separate SVs, the entire
module would have to be upgraded, since
this involves swapping 2-D airfoils,
blades and stators, for 3-D airfoils,”
comments Mermod. “This meant that a
lot of airfoils would have to be scrapped
early, so the net cost of the upgrade was
close to the full kit price. That is, it would
not be a case of replacing unrepairable
airfoils with new generation airfoils.”
Most airlines took the advantage to
incorporate the /P upgrade kit when life-
limited parts (LLPs) in the existing engine
expired, or at least a major shop visit was
required.
There were two other upgrades and
modifications that followed the /P
programme. The first of these was the
acoustic upgrade, which was introduced
in 2002 and added a chevron nozzle at
the engine’s exhaust. This was installed to
reduce the engine’s noise emissions to a
level 10 equivalent perceived noise
decibels (EPNdB) below that of Stage III
levels.
The modification involved a core
engine chevron nozzle, an improved
thrust reverser, and inlet linings on the
engine nacelle. It gave the engine a
41 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
margin over Stage IV noise emissions. A
small margin was delivered for the
highest thrust variant powering the
highest weight A321, so wider margins
were achieved for lower rated variants.
The modification has been available
for production engines since 2004, but to
date has mainly been fitted to the highest
rated -5B3/P engines that power the
A321.
A second major programme that
followed the /P upgrade was the life
extension of the core engine LLPs. The
CFM56-5B can be considered in three of
four main modules with respect to LLPs.
These are the fan and LPC, the HPC, the
HPT, and the LPT. The fan/LPC had
target part lives of 30,000 engine flight
cycles (EFC), the HPC and HPT had
target lives of 20,000EFC, and the LPT
had target lives of 25,000EFC. In the case
of earlier built engines, the actual certified
lives of all discs and shafts were not at the
target lives when the engines first entered
service. Some parts had initial lives that
were less than half the target lives, and
could therefore limit and compromise on-
wing removal intervals. Short lives of
individual parts in modules mean that
remaining lives of other parts in the same
module could not be utilised.
The LLP life extension programme
had the objective of taking all parts to
their target life limits.
Tech Insertion
The second major upgrade and
modification programme for the CFM56-
5B series is the Tech Insertion or Tech 56
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
42 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
upgrade. Engines with this upgrade have
a suffix of /3 in their nomenclature. The
upgrade was launched in 2004. It was the
production standard from the third
quarter of 2007, and was also
incorporated into existing engines in
maintenance SVs.
The overall objective of Tech 56 was
to improve fuel burn and EGT margin,
and reduce maintenance costs through
increased parts durability and longer
removal intervals. The improvements
mainly affected the HPC, combustor,
HPT and LPT. The core engine and LPT
module were those affected.
The main change to the HPC are new
design blades with improved
aerodynamic efficiency. ‘This was
basically the use of second generation and
better-performing 3-D aero blades,”
explains Mermod.
The HPT was improved by reducing
aerodynamic shock that increased fuel
burn and improved blade durability, and
the LPT was upgraded through improved
cooling that increased longevity.
The programme has the flexibility of
allowing only some modules to be
upgraded, depending on an operator’s
requirements. The Tech 56 or Tech
Insertion was incorporated into a large
number of baseline configuration engines.
The main features of the Tech 56
programme are: an increased removal
interval of about 10%; standardised LLP
lives in the HPC and HPT modules of
20,000EFC; reduced HPC degradation,
which increases EGT margin by 10
degrees centigrade; lower fuel burn; NOx
emissions reduced by 20-25%; and an
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
overall reduction in mature maintenance
costs of 5-12%. The upgrade, however,
did not quite fulfil the projected fuel burn
savings.
A total of 951 A320 family aircraft
had /3 Tech Insertion engines, with some
being modified from their original
standard and the remainder being
original production engines.
The list price for the entire package
was $1.8 million. This does not include
the list price of LLPs. Most operators
would wait for the life expiry of original
LLPs to be replaced with new parts with
full life limits.
The /3 Tech Insertion programme
does not have to be incorporated in every
module. Some modules can have the
improvements incorporated, and engines
can have the entire modification
retrofitted over several maintenance SVs.
“It was only possible to upgrade a
baseline -5B engine to a /3 engine, but
this was clearly more expensive than
upgrading a /P engine,” says Mermod.
The /3 modification has been
incorporated in engines built from 1994
to 2017. There are also a small number
of aircraft that have /3 engines with a
thrust bump. These are designated with a
/3 B1 suffix.
PIP upgrade
The third major upgrade programme
for the -5B series is the performance
improvement package (PIP). This
included a series of hardware
improvements and upgrades to engines
that have already had the /3 programme
A main element of a series of modifications for
the CFM56-5B and -7B hasd the use of several
generations of 3-D Aero blades in the HPC to
improve coreflow, with the effect of reducing EGT
margin and fuel burn.
incorporated. Engines with the PIP
programme added are designated with a
/3 PIP suffix.
The PIP started in 2011. It involves
hardware changes to the HPC guide vane
diffuser and blades, HPT blades, and two
stages of the LPT. These modifications
were incorporated in existing engines
with the /P and /3 upgrades, and became
the build standard for new engines. A
total of 1,780 A320 family aircraft have
engines with the PIP modifications
incorporated. This is the largest group of
aircraft, making the /3 PIP engines the
most numerous sub-type of the -5B series.
These are aircraft built since 2004, and
include aircraft delivered in January
2019.
The price of the PIP package is similar
to the catalogue lost prices of the
equivalent parts in baseline, /P and /3
engines. For example, the cost of the full
shipset of blades for pre- and post-
modification engines is about $1.1
million. Installing the kit may be overall
more expensive, however, because of the
need to replace all airfoils in each
module. The kit is fully modular,
however, so modules can be upgraded
individually. It was viewed by some that
the most beneficial part of the kit was the
HPT, and was best installed at LLP
expiry.
There are a small number of PIP
engines that also have a thrust bump.
These are designated with a /3B1 PIP
suffix.
CFM56-7B series
The CFM56-7B engines were
developed for the 737NG. With various
technologies developed for the -5B series,
and the first upgrade programme
developed for it, the development of the
-7B followed a few years later for
introduction into service in 1997.
The -7B adopted a core engine used
for the -5B series, with the exception that
the -7B had a three-stage LPC and a
smaller fan with wide chord fan blades.
Because of installation issues on the
737NG, the -7B series needed a smaller
fan with a diameter of 61 inches. There
are six variants of the -7B series, with
thrust ratings of 19,500-27,300lbs for the
four main series of the 737NG family.
The lowest rated -7B18 engine has a
bypass ratio of 5.5:1, while the highest
rated -7B27 variant has a bypass ratio of
5.1:1.
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
44 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
There are three main groups of
engines in the -7B family. The first is the
baseline engine, production of which
started in 1997 and continued through to
the end of 2018.
This build standard incorporated the
technology of the /P programme
developed in the mid-1990s for the -5B
series from the start of -7B production.
This included the 3D aero blades, new
generation HPT blades for improved
cooling, and a re-designed LPT nozzle.
There have been a total of 2,180
aircraft equipped with baseline engines.
There is also another small group of 66
aircraft fitted with engines that have /A,
/A3, /B1 and /B3 suffixes to their
nomenclature.
Tech Insertion
The first major upgrade programme
for the -7B series was the Tech Insertion
or Tech56 upgrade. This was introduced
in 2007, the same time as the same
upgrade package for the -5B series.
Engines with the upgrade are designated
with a /3 suffix.
The package was introduced as
standard build configuration for engines
from this point, but the relevant
hardware could also be retrofitted to
existing -7B engines during a
maintenance SV. The price of the parts
for those included in the /3 upgrade
modification are the same as those for the
baseline standard engine. The full kit at
the time of release has a catalogue list
price of $3.5 million.
The material for the /3 upgrade could
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
therefore be introduced to engines as
baseline standard parts that require
replacing without any additional cost to
engine SVs.
The main features of the /3 upgrade
are: an enhanced SAC to reduce NOx
emissions by 20-30%; re-designed HPC
and HPT rotor hardware; the use of 3D-
Aero HPC blades; and improved LPT
blade and nozzle design. The overall
effect of this upgrade is to reduce engine
maintenance costs by extended removal
interval and reduced hardware
deterioration, and a fuel burn reduction
of about 1%.
There are more than 1,400 737NGs
with engines that have undergone the /3
upgrade programme. These are aircraft
built from 1998 to 2018, and so include
original build standard engines that have
been retrofitted. The /3 configuration was
an option from 2007, but baseline
configurations have continued to be built.
Evolution upgrade
The second major upgrade for the -7B
series is the Evolution modification.
Engines with this are designated with an
E suffix. An example is a -7B27E variant,
rated at 27,300lbs.
The Evolution upgrade was
announced in 2009, and the first
deliveries were made in mid-2011. The
upgrade became the standard production
configuration for the engine, and could
also be retrofitted to existing engines.
Retrofits to previously built engines of
different standards were not done.
The Evolution or ‘E’ has become the
The Tech Insertion programme for the CFM56-3
series provided several improvements. The
arrival of the upgrade on the market may have
been too late, since an increasing number of
used engines were coming onto the market.
most popular variant, with more than
3,067 aircraft equipped with this
standard of engine. This includes aircraft
manufactured from 1998. There are 100
aircraft with E engines that also have a
thrust bump, taking the total to close to
3,200 aircraft out of 6,850 built to date.
The Evolution upgrade included
modifications and upgrades to the HPT
and LPT, and had the objective of
reducing fuel burn by 1% and engine-
related maintenance costs by 4%.
Changes to the HPT were to the
outlet guide vane (OGV) diffuser to
improve aerodynamic efficiency, new
blades, and a forward and outer seal. In
particular, this included a new design of
the HPT blade, which has features to
improve durability. The change to the
HPT design also reduced the number of
blades from 80 to 76.
Changes to the LPT affected the
blades, the vanes, the disks and the case.
The overall effect was to improve
aerodynamics and cooling, and reduce
the number of parts in these two
modules.
The ‘E’ upgrade came in four possible
configurations. The first was a change to
just the OGV diffuser. The second was to
the HPT blades, and the third was to the
LPT. The fourth incorporates the entire
kit to the engine.
Testing revealed that the full kit
provides an actual saving in fuel burn of
1.6%. The E upgrade was accompanied
by some aerodynamic improvements
relating to the engine-airframe
installation that led to another 1%
reduction in fuel burn.
CFM56-3 series
In 1999, CFMI provided an upgrade
modification for the -3 series. This was
referred to as the time on-wing (TOW) or
advanced upgrade kit, and it took core
component and part technology from the
-7B series.
The modification involved
improvements to the HPC and the HPT,
and could be split in two halves. The first
is the enhanced performance upgrade,
and is a modification to the HPC. The
second is the enhanced durability kit, and
it affects the HPT.
The enhanced performance kit
involves upgrades mainly to the HPC,
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

and incorporates the use of 3D Aero
blades and the variable stator vane (VSV)
actuator and system. The effect of this is
to increase EGT margin by about 15
degrees centigrade, and so extend time
on-wing between SV removals. The cost
of the enhanced performance kit at
release was about $300,000.
The enhanced durability kit has three
main elements. The first is the use of new
N5 material on the HPT nozzles to
improve material degradation. There is
also improved cooling in the HPT, and
enhanced shrouds at the top of the HPT
blades. These all contribute to an
improved EGT margin and overall
durability. The cost of the parts in the
enhanced durability kit was about
$480,000 for the blades and about
$60,000 for the shrouds in 2003-2005.
The total cost of the full advanced
upgrade kit is about $1.4 million, but this
was several hundred thousand dollars
higher than the catalogue price of the
standard parts. The complete shipset of
airfoils in each module would have to be
changed in a single SV.
The parts are installed during engine
SVs, and increase removal intervals by
4,000-8,000EFC through an increase in
EGT margin. The benefit is realised for
variants rated at 22,000lbs thrust and
23,500lbs thrust. Lower rated engines do
not benefit as much from an increased
EGT margin, because they are able to
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
achieve long removal intervals.
Some considered the cost to be high,
so not all engines were modified. “The
TOW upgrade provided more of a benefit
to airlines operating in a hot
environment, since the cost of the kit
would be recouped through increased
removal intervals, and so lower
maintenance costs per engine flight hour
(EFH),” says Mermod. “Many airlines
that had engines managed through
MCPH contracts provided by the OEMs
had the Tech Insertion performed, while
others that managed their engines
independently did not have the
modification.”
The cost of the kit would now make it
economically prohibitive to upgrade
baseline -3 engines. This is especially the
case with a large number of time-
continued engines and modules available
on the market at attractive rates.
V2500-A5
The International Aero Engines (IAE)
V2500-A1 was the alternate engine
choice for the A320 when it was first
launched. The V2500-A1 entered service
in 1989, one year after the CFM56-A1,
and was rated at 25,000lbs. Like the
CFM56-5A1, the V2500-A1 lacked the
thrust growth capability required to
power the larger and heavier A321. The
original -A1 also had technical issues that
45 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
limited time on-wing and impaired
operating performance. These were
incorporated into production engines in
1992. Production of the -A1 engines
continued into 1994, and 143 aircraft
were equipped with them.
The higher rated -A5 series had a
marginally wider fan diameter of 63.5
inches, and a larger core engine for
increased air mass flow. This included a
four-stage LPC, a 10-stage HPC, a two-
stage HPT and five-stage LPT. The -A5
therefore has one more LPC stage than
the -A1. A two-stage HPT has been used
to maximise fuel burn efficiency.
The -A5 series has five main variants:
the V2522-A5 and 24-A5 rated at
23,000lbs and 24,000lbs for the A319;
27-A5 rated at 26,500lbs for the A320;
and 30-A5 and 33-A5 rated at 31,400lbs
and 33,000lbs for the A321. Production
of the -A5 series started in 1993 and
continued to late 2018. A total of 3,207
A320 family aircraft were equipped with
V2500-A5 family engines. In total, all
V2500 engines equipped 42% of the
A320 current engine option (ceo) family.
V2500-A5 standard
There are three main groups of
variants in the V2500-A5 family. The first
and most numerous of these is the -A5
standard configuration engines. There
were 1,310 A320 family aircraft
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
46 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
equipped with this engine.
The V2500-A1 had some small
modifications and upgrades made to it in
its earlier period of operation. In 1999
IAE introduced a ‘Phoenix standard’
version of the engine. This brought the
-A1 up to the hardware standard of the
-A5. The -A5’s higher coreflow gave it a
generous EGT margin, and so allowed for
a potentially longer removal interval
between SVs before it eroded its EGT
margin. The lower rated 22/24-A5
variants have initial margins of 90-115
degrees centigrade, the 27-A5 an initial
EGT margin of 70-80 degrees centigrade,
and the 30/33-A5 variants an initial EGT
margin of 40-60 degrees centigrade. The
restored EGT margins reduce by about
15 degrees centigrade after the first SVs.
There were 1,310 A319s, A320s and
A321s built from 1993 to 2011 that were
equipped with -A5 engines.
The -A1’s core engine configuration
had a low EGT margin, and also had a
high rate of EGT margin erosion, so it
was limited to short removal intervals.
The Phoenix standard modification
increased the -A1’s overall performance
and removal intervals.
SelectOne modification
The SelectOne modification was
introduced by IAE in 2007 to improve
the engine’s operating performance, and
on-wing durability.
The SelectOne upgrade included a
hardware package that affected the HPT,
HPT and LPT. The changes to the HPC
were the use of 3D Aero airfoils, whose
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
elliptical leading edge had the effect of
increasing coreflow and so reducing core
engine temperatures. The HPT had
improved materials and cooling in the
HPT blades and the use of advanced
sealing to increase EGT margin, while the
LPT changed the design of stage vanes in
the third stage and had the design of its
alternating blades and vanes re-staggered.
The overall objectives of the
SelectOne programme were to reduce fuel
burn by about 1%, increase EGT margin
by about 12 degrees centigrade, and
extend time on-wing between removals
by about 20%. Additional features were
a reduction in unscheduled SVs and
reduced NOx emissions.
The SelectOne configuration became
a build standard option from the second
half of 2008, but the hardware could also
be retrofitted to standard configuration
engines in a maintenance SV. “While it
was possible to retrofit, few airlines that
were not on an MCPH maintenance
management programme took this
option,” says Mermod. “Some airlines
with engines on an MCPH programme
had the upgrade performed. The engine
would benefit from longer removal
intervals, and with the same cost per EFH
it would make economic sense to retrofit
the kit.”
The cost of the SelectOne full kit was
about $2.8 million. Some commented
that it was not worth installing, unless the
LLP shipset in the engine had expired and
was being replaced.
A total of 1,221 A320 family aircraft
built from 2003 to 2017 were equipped
with SelectOne engines. There were also
The SelectOne modification for the V2500-A5
included a lot of upgrades to the airfoils in the
main modules, including the use of 3D Aero
airfoils. This increased EGT margin by about 12
degrees, and so lengthened removal intervals by
about 20%.
63 aircraft equipped with E-A5 SelectOne
and M-A5 SelectOne engines.
SelectTwo modification
The SelectTwo modification was
introduced in 2015. This was a fuel burn
improvement upgrade, and was effected
via a software upgrade to the engine’s full
authority digital engine control (FADEC).
One main feature was the reduced
ground idle rate of the engine to lower
fuel consumption during taxi.
The SelectTwo package software
upgrade was in the region of $150,000.
SelectTwo became the standard
production build for engines in 2015, and
these also incorporated the hardware of
the SelectOne modification. The package
can also be implemented on engines with
SelectOne hardware, and can be
incorporated with the engine on-wing.
To date, 442 aircraft have been
equipped with SelectTwo engines, and
there are a further 21 aircraft with E-A5
SelectTwo and M-A5 SelectTwo engines.
Summary
Airlines and engine lessors clearly
have to consider all issues when opting
for engine upgrade and modification
programmes. These include the engine’s
age and likely remaining life and current
market value, its maintenance
programme and any related contractual
obligations, the engine’s maintenance
status and part and component
configuration, the likely time or
opportunity to implement a modification
or upgrade, the cost of upgrade package,
and the subsequent savings and
operational benefits after the
modification has been implemented.
The modification programes for the
CFM56 and V2500-A5 family can still be
applied. These will have declining appeal
as the engines continue to age, however,
because of the increasing number of time-
continued engines on the aftermarket.
Upgrades still make economic sense for
CFM56-5Bs and -7Bs, and V2500-A5s
that are still relatively young.
To download 100s of articles
like this, visit:
www.aircraft-commerce.com
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
48 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
The use of Big Data analytics and predictive maintenance by airlines is in
its infancy. One main issues holding back development is the lack of an
affordable system to download the large volume of maintenance-related
data from new generation aircraft.
Coordinating aircraft and
M&E systems for big data &
predictive maintenance
T
he issue of big data (BD)
analytics and predictives,
including maintenance and
flight operations, has received a
lot of attention over the past few years.
The reality is that Big Data is a new name
for something that already existed, and
now the technologies to increase its
utilisation and application are maturing.
Aircraft operational and health data is
already being downloaded from aircraft,
and BD is an enlargement of the data
volume and aircraft parameters that will
be downloaded in the future. The overall
objective of BD analytics and predictives
is to monitor the operation and
performance of aircraft components and
systems more closely, by using data from
a larger number of parameters with a
larger number of sensors that has
previously been possible. “It means that
the deterioration of a component’s or
system’s operation can be detected and
followed earlier and in more detail
compared to the traditional approach of
detecting faults and malfunctions,” says
Willie Cecil, director business
development aircraft data services, at
Teledyne Controls.
“This changes things. The
identification of a malfunction is no
longer reliant on pilots reporting it, or
systems on board transmitting real-time
alerts or fault data to maintenance staff,”
explains Cecil. “This ‘legacy’ approach
involves waiting for malfunctions to
arise, and performing unscheduled
maintenance in a reactive way which can
disrupt flight operations and cause
delays. In contrast, predictive
maintenance allows proactive monitoring
and problems to be detected earlier,
enabled by a prediction that a failing
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
component or system needs to be
investigated, repaired or removed and
replaced before it ultimately fails causing
an unscheduled maintenance event.
Resolution can therefore be planned into
scheduled maintenance at the most
convenient time and place where there
are resources and parts available, for
example an overnight stop at a main
operating base.”
The technologies and capabilities to
make predictive maintenance work have
been developed. The process is in its
infancy, and has only started to come into
practical airline operation in a small
number of cases over the past two years.
Big data collection
Downloading data from aircraft
began with the development of new
generation aircraft in the early 1980s,
such as the A300-600, A310, 757 and
767, followed by types such as the MD-
11, 747-700, A320, A330/340 and 777.
All of these aircraft types used BITE to
send sensory data from their components
and systems to provide maintenance error
and fault messages on the aircraft’s CMC,
and health monitoring data.
In parallel, aircraft systems have been
providing data to supply the required
mandatory aircraft operational data for
flight operations quality assurance
(FOQA) analysis.
The system of using and delivering
aircraft data has evolved so that health
monitoring data from engines and some
vital aircraft systems are sent in snapshots
from each flight in real-time via the
aircraft communications addressing and
reporting system (ACARS). ACARS is
also used to send information on
component and system faults and failures
in real-time from the CMC so that the
engineering department can analyse
technical problems reactively as part of
the traditional unscheduled component
and system maintenance.
The ACARS system is limited,
however, to the quantity of data it sends
and the transmission rate of that data.
This applies to the transmissions being
sent via VHF or HF radio, or via satcom.
The use of ACARS for transmitting
aircraft data has been expanded as more
data gets generated by the aircraft and
engines, but also as aircraft health
monitoring (AHM) and engine health
monitoring (EHM) programmes develop.
First, AHM and EHM programmes have
gone from being managed by airline
engineering departments to being
provided by third-party specialists. This
in particular relates to EHM programmes
that are offered by engine original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and
as an element of their maintenance cost
per the hour (MCPH) services they
provide to airlines. Rolls-Royce (RR),
General Electric (GE) and Pratt &
Whitney (PW) and others all have EHM
programmes. These have gradually been
enlarged by the OEMs as the number of
engine parameters monitored in real-time
has grown, thereby increasing the volume
of data being sent by ACARS in real-
time. The increased number of
parameters and quantity of data sent in
real-time is included in the OEMs’
MCPH contracts.
In addition, airframe OEMs and other
providers have gradually introduced
AHM programmes. The number of
aircraft parameters and quantity of data
being sent via ACARS in real-time has
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
50 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
also steadily increased. As a result,
modern aircraft types are sending larger
quantities of data via ACARS, with the
effect of increasing an airline’s data
transmission costs. This has reached the
point with certain aircraft types, such as
the 787, where the volumes of ACARS
data being sent has overloaded the
ACARS networks.
The data sent via ACARS, both to
airline engineering departments and to
AHM/EHM providers, is a small example
of the type and quantity of data in BD
and Predictives.
The data downloaded from the
aircraft for FOQA programmes is
different, and has a different use. The
systems for downloading FOQA data
from the aircraft are nevertheless for a
high volume of data. Various technologies
have evolved to transmit data from the
aircraft to the operator’s flight operations
and engineering departments.
Originally data was collected
manually with PC cards and other
devices. Modern wireless systems soon
evolved. The first of these were WiFi
units on the aircraft, but also require a
wireless access point transceiver at the
airport. The alternative system of cellular
devices generally proved more popular.
The device for collecting FOQA data
on aircraft is the quick access recorder
(QAR),which receives inputs from the
Flight Data Acquisition Unit (FDAU).
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
QARs started with systems similar to
computer discs, and later developed into
solid state discs. In the early 2000s,
Teledyne introduced the first Wireless
QAR, which transmits data automatically
post-flight using wireless cellular
technologies. Since then some QARs also
transmitting the data off the aircraft via
airport gate WiFi links, but deployment
of this has been limited because they
never offered global coverage. The
quantity of FOQA data that is
downloaded periodically from aircraft is
very large compared to the data sent via
ACARS, but it is still relatively small
compared to the GB or TB of data that is
generated by the latest aircraft types.
Use of aircraft avionic connected
platform servers, such as the on-board
network server (ONS) on new Boeing
aircraft or the aircraft network server unit
(ANSU) or FOMAX box on new Airbus
aircraft now record and transmit BD,
including QAR data. These platforms
have cellular or WiFi transmission units
as standard, which can download larger
volumes of data than the aircraft’s
ACARS system can support. The wireless
systems can transmit BD and QAR data
at a fraction of the cost of sending small
text message data via ACARS.
There also avionic units installed as
line-fit options on some aircraft types,
and that are retrofitted on older
generation aircraft, that provide similar
One of the main issues of big data is that
modern and new generation aircraft types
monitor more aircraft component and system
parameters than previous generation aircraft,
and consequently generate up to several
hundreds time more data.
big data and wireless functions of the
OEMs’ avionic platforms. Examples
include the Wireless GroundLink Comm+
system by Teledyne Controls. These units
have gradually been fitted to a growing
number of aircraft. Clearly not all older
aircraft will have such avionics units
fitted, considering their age and probable
number of years until retirement. Cecil
estimates that two-thirds of the 25,000
plus jetliner global fleet are now fitted
with wireless transmission systems from
the airframe OEMs, Teledyne and other
vendors. Within five years we can expect
nearly all of the global fleet will have
such wireless systems transmitting BD.
Besides big data generated by aircraft,
there is additional BD necessary to enable
predictives. A fundamental approach of
predictive maintenance is to examine past
component failures and then to establish
signatures in the archives of aircraft
sensor BD. These signatures are used in
analytics models that predict future
failure of the same component. Enterprise
system data such as flight operations data
from flight operations IT systems and
maintenance history records from MRO
IT systems are therefore critically useful.
Contextual data such as weather and
turbulence data are also useful to refine
predictives.
Data volumes
New generation aircraft are known to
generate large volumes of data compared
to older aircraft types. “For example, a
767 can generate about 15MB of FOQA
data, while a 787 can generate about
60MB of FOQA data per flight,” says
Chris Reed, managing director at Trax.
“The 787 will, however, generate several
hundred Gigabytes of maintenance data.
If BD and Predictives are going to provide
a worthwhile service for airlines, data
needs to be downloaded at a reasonable
cost, and in a reasonable amount of time,
without disrupting flight schedules.”
Data of this size has to be collected by
laptop or portable maintenance access
terminal (PMAT) downloads.”
The volumes of data are so large for
new generation aircraft that it is not yet
possible to harvest all the data they
generate, and therefore the data cannot
be used for BD analytics and Predictives.
“Most health monitoring and flight
operations applications used by airlines
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
52 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
today still utilise data that is transmitted
from the aircraft via ACARS. The
quantity of data a 777 transmits per
flight is about 10 times that of a 767. In
turn, the amount of data generated by a
787 is about 10 times the amount
generated per flight by a 777, but this is
not big data” says Cecil. “The simple
truth is that the vast majority of the data
generated by modern aircraft is currently
not downloaded, and so is not available
for predictive maintenance.”
Modern and new-generation aircraft
types can clearly generate volumes of
data that extend into terabytes (TB) per
day. All of this super high volume data is
not being downloaded from the aircraft,
because the transmission technology for
quick downloads at a reasonable cost
does not yet exist. That is, existing
cellular and WiFi systems or even the
latest high speed Satcom systems are
inadequate for the purposes of collecting
such high volumes of big data that could
be consumed by BD analytics. “The
current approach for downloading the
largest volumes of data, for example from
an aircraft engine to support intensive
analytics by an engine manufacturer, is
via a portable maintenance access
terminal (PMAT) or laptop used by a line
mechanic,” says Cecil. “This a big burden
on line maintenance during aircraft
turnarounds so it is typically only
performed periodically which means only
a fraction of the large data volumes is
collected.”
Big data processing
There are several subsequent steps in
the BD analytics and Predictives services.
The first of these is storing and processing
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
data. “The first issue is that most airlines
do not have the capacity to store the data
in-house, so Cloud storage is required,”
says Reed. “In many cases data is
transferred to a local data centre or the
Cloud. Raw data is then accessed by
processors for conversion into a format
that can be analysed by specialist
processors.”
This is a large element, since
processing data includes the use of
algorithms, developed by data scientists,
to detect a component and system
malfunction that ultimately leads to the
alerting of a problem. The first
consideration, however, is downloading
and storing the data.
The amount of data that modern
types such as the 787 and A350 can
generate is up to several hundred GB.
“This comes from on-board sensors if all
possible components and systems are
taken into consideration,” says Wayne
Enis, vice president Middle East, at
Flatirons Solutions. “When one aircraft’s
operation and rate of utilisation is taken
into consideration, it can generate up to
330 TB per year. This has to be
considered in relation to the typical cost
of a mid-range server hard disk, which is
about $75 per TB. The cost of storing
data from just one 787 for a year is
therefore about $25,000.”
It is for this reason, and several
others, that data generated by the
aircraft’s systems does not go anywhere.
The implications of this are that only a
small percentage can be downloaded, and
subsequently processed. This means that
airlines have to be selective about which
data parameters are downloaded.
“Although a single new generation
aircraft may generate hundreds of TB in a
A low-cost system for downloading all
maintenance-related data from new generation
aircraft is not yet available. A lot of data is still
being transmitted from the aircraft in real-time
during flight. A fraction of all maintenance-
related data is downloaded when the aircraft is
on the ground.
single day of operations, I estimate that
the data applied for most health
monitoring and flight operations
applications amounts to less than a
quarter of one TB. This is not for one
aircraft or one day, but for all commercial
aircraft in the world combined for an
entire year,” says Cecil. “In contrast,
most airline flight safety departments
benefit from ‘full flight’ data recordings
wirelessly transmitted that contains over
1,000 times the ACARS data available to
airline maintenance and engineering. This
higher volume data is often held
exclusively for safety data analytics, even
though it contains rich sensor data ideal
for predictive analytics. With routine
downloading of this data now universal,
and airline safety departments starting to
release this data, the future for predictive
maintenance is bright.”
While most airlines still lack the
capacity to download all BD from an
aircraft, engine OEMs have been using
BD and increasing the number of engine
parameters and large data volumes to
drive engine maintenance. “This has
come from the increased scope of EHM
and engine MCPH programmes,” says
John Stone, vice president of product
management at Ultramain. “Airlines have
various choices when it comes to data
storing and processing.”
BD analytics providers
The first option for airlines is the
airframe and engine OEMs. The engine
OEMs have expanded their data storage
and processing capability. GE’s Predix
product is an example. Airbus started
offering its FOMAX, which includes the
downloading and storage of data, and
transfer to its Skywise system for
processing and providing Predictives
services. Boeing offers its AnalytX
products, including airplane health
monitoring (AHM) and self-help
analytics that will ingest QAR big data.
Another group of providers are airline
engineering departments. This includes
Lufthansa Industry Solutions that has
engineered the data downloading and
processing service, and Lufthansa Technik
which processes data for airlines and
provides Predictive Services. The product
provided is Aviatar.
Air France Industries KLM
Engineering & Maintenance offers a
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

similar product called Prognos,
comprising two elements: Prognos for
ENGINE and Prognos for AIRCRAFT.
Prognos for AIRCRAFT uses BD to give
A380 operators early warnings and
failure monitoring software for the
aircraft’s components and systems. There
are similar systems being developed for
the 787. The system ultimately aims at
reducing schedule disruptions as a result
of unscheduled maintenance events.
Other aerospace OEMs, including
Honeywell, UTC Aerospace and Teledyne
Controls, are also offering services.
Teledyne Controls offers its Flight Data
Analytics (FDA) service. Other data
storage and processing providers include
independents such as IBM, Tata
Consultancy Services and Capgemini.
While BD analytics and Predictives is
still in its infancy, some services offer the
possibility of increasing data volumes, or
making it more attractive to airlines to
download larger volumes of data. The
FOMAX data extraction service provided
by Airbus is free, with the condition that
data does straight to Skywise for
processing and providing a Predictives
service. The alternative option is to use
FOMAX to transmit the aircraft QAR
data direct to the airline, and for the
airline to use it with their own chosen
predictives provider. In this case the
airline pays the data transfer fees.
Lufthansa Industry Solutions, which
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
is part of the Lufthansa Group, separated
from Lufthansa Systems about five years
ago. Lufthansa Industry Solutions has
developed the architecture for
downloading maintenance data from the
aircraft, and transferring it to Lufthansa
Technik in Hamburg, where the data is
processed using algorithms. A good
example is the maintenance data
downloaded from Lufthansa’s A350 fleet,
which it introduced into service in
December 2016. “Much larger volumes
of data are downloaded from the A350
compared to older types,” says Bernard
Kube, vice president of technology
consulting at Lufthansa Industry
Solutions. “Lufthansa Industry Solutions
built the data processing systems, and our
data scientists wrote the algorithms to
process the data and analyse the cause of
technical problems. This concept was
started about five years ago, and the first
stage was designing the architecture of
the data processing and Predictives
system, which became the whole Aviatar
system. Two years ago we implemented
the first productive use of the Predictives
capability, and the first results in terms of
providing a solution to a technical
problem.
“In general, data scientists can find
answers to questions that previously did
not exist,” continues Kube. “That is, with
the data processing and writing of
algorithms, we can solve a problem in a
53 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
way that was not previously thought of.
As this has developed we have ended up
providing an exploratory service. That is,
we can develop new ways to investigate
the cause of technical defects and
component or system malfunctions. In
some cases we are finding that we need
more sensor data, because we need more
values and data from a larger number of
parameters to pinpoint a problem, and
detect it earlier than before. We can now
answer more questions if required, and so
need more sensors to be placed on certain
systems on the aircraft. This is performed
as a modification by the aircraft OEM.”
In addition to the basic services of
data download, storage and processing,
other techniques are being used to
provide detailed information about the
cause of technical issues. GE has
developed a system of digital twinning as
part of its Predix system.
“GE builds a digital model of the
aircraft or engine being monitored,”
explains Reed. “This is so that when
performance data is downloaded and
analysed, the operation and flight of the
aircraft or engine can be simulated. This
allows GE to see how certain faults and
system malfunctions develop, and how
hardware deterioration has occurred.”
Airframe maintenance
The evolution of EHM services
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
54 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
offered by engine OEMs, and the
development of MCPH services in
parallel over the past 20 years or so has
seen the engine OEMs gain a large share
of the engine aftermarket.
The arrival of BD and its analysis
with respect to airframes raises the issue
of airframe OEMs gaining a share of the
airframe aftermarket with an increased
level of MRO through power-by-the-hour
(PBH) programmes. This would be aided
by their BD processing services. “There is
a risk that airframe OEMs could use BD
to control the airframe aftermarket,” says
Stone. “This may happen because BD
processing gives the airframe OEMs the
full loop of the aftermarket, since they
would be involved in every step of the
airframe maintenance and aftermarket
support process. BD is key to controlling
almost the entire maintenance package on
the aircraft, except for the engines and a
few heavy components such as landing
gear, or wheels and brakes.
“There are already some examples of
OEMs making entry into the airframe
aftermarket,” continues Stone. “One is
Heavy Maintenance Singapore Services
(HMS Services), which is a joint venture
between Singapore Airlines Engineering
Company (SIAECO) and Airbus. HMS
Services will provide heavy maintenance
for the A350 and A380.”
There are several obvious candidates
for this type of MRO provider, including
low-cost carriers. The maintenance and
engineering (M&E) departments of major
airlines are likely to enhance their third-
party maintenance services with the use
of BD. One target area where this can be
effectively used is in the assessment of
what rotable inventory is required to
support a fleet, and also managing several
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
aspects of fault detection, component
removal and replacement, component test
and repair, and overall logistics processes.
The concerns about OEMs gaining an
increased share of the airframe MRO
market via PBH programmes and control
of BD has been voiced by high profile
figures, including the chairman of
Lufthansa Technik, who said that if
OEMs run and control aircraft data it
will destroy the freeflow of aircraft data,
and this will eventually kill the
aftermarket. Boeing, for example, has
said that it is entitled to own the all the
737 MAX data.
It remains to be seen what will
happen with regard to the issue of data
ownership and control. Some believe that
airlines will ultimately refuse to accept
handing control of data generated by
their fleets to the OEMs. When airlines
collect this data they usually do not want
to share it all with everyone. They may be
willing to send certain data to the OEMs,
and certain other data to their MRO
provider or engineering and maintenance
departments. This may illustrate the need
for data filtering.
Using processed data
Downloading and processing aircraft
operational and maintenance data is just
one step in the complete BD and
Predictives process.
There are six main steps. The first of
these is the initial collection of data using
sensors from the aircraft systems and
components. The second step is the
transfer of data to the on-board servers,
and its subsequent storage.
The third step is downloading the
relevant pieces of data, subject to the cost
One of the ultimate aims of big data and
predictives is for airlines to be able to refine
their rotable component inventory
requirements.
of downloading it being low enough. This
data harvest will be widened as the cost
of downloading data declines.
The fourth stage is pre-processing or
cleaning and decoding data. The fifth
stage is analysing the data with predictive
analytics algorithms and the sixth step is
making use of the recommendation or
insight provided by the predictive. This
process is gradual, since development by
data scientists of use cases and predictive
algorithms takes time.
Moreover, they are developed one by
one, or at least in groups since there is
not enough capability to produce
algorithms simultaneously that analyse
and detect every type of technical and
reliability problem on every aircraft type.
This is one of the two main factors
that limits providers’ progress in being
able to offer a full BD and Predictives
service for aircraft maintenance. The
maintenance data that is downloaded
from the aircraft on-board server is
therefore limited to those parameters that
can be analysed using algorithms.
“Predictive maintenance in the airline
industry is in its infancy,” says Cecil.
“Teledyne is adding and expanding the
number of aircraft data parameters
acquired and collected from aircraft to
support both OEM and airline predictive
maintenance initiatives, and we are
helping with both aircraft coming off the
production line and airlines’ in-service
fleets. The data acquisition hardware that
captures full-flight data on most in-
service aircraft is capable of capturing
much more aircraft system and
maintenance-related data, and the volume
can be expanded significantly and often
without replacing hardware or modifying
the aircraft.”
There are ways to expand the number
of parameters in one go, and so increase
the amount of data captured from
aircraft databuses and systems, continue
to download all the data, and then
gradually make use of the expand the
number of parameters for key component
reliability issues to be resolved.
Airlines have to consider the issue of
diminishing returns. That is, the technical
issues that cause the largest number of, or
the most expensive, unscheduled
maintenance events would be dealt with
first, and the cost of developing
algorithms and all other related processes
can be justified. As technical problems
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
56 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
with smaller consequences are dealt with,
the related cost is more likely to be
questioned.
M&E system function
The final step in the whole BD and
Predictives process is to send information
to an airline’s or maintenance provider’s
M&E IT system.
With traditional maintenance, aircraft
faults are reported by fault messages via
ACARS or by pilots and the repair
actions are driven by these faults and
pilot reports. The faults and rectifying
actions and parts replacements are
recorded in the M&E MRO IT system.
With the introduction of predictives there
is a need to transfer the output of the
analytics into the MRO IT system so that
maintenance takes action based on
problems that pilots may not yet be
aware of. Typically an airline’s
engineering technical service organisation
will perform a triage function where they
review predictives outputs and
recommendations before work orders are
raised in the MRO IT system.
“There are now some Ultramain
customers that are getting processed data
back from the specialist data processors,”
says Stone. “This data comes back in
extensible mark-up language (XML)
format, which can be used in Ultramain
to provide instructions. For example, this
will be correlated fault data to identify
the system or component that is causing a
problem. It can also be information that
instructs the engineering department to
perform a test or troubleshoot a
component or system on a particular
aircraft within a particular timeframe, or
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
to remove and replace a component
within a certain time limit. It could also
be a work order for a particular repair of
a component. Planning engineers can
then include these actions in scheduled
maintenance visits, such as daily or
weekly checks.”
Stone points out that this basic
capability has actually been available for
several years, and that it is in the past few
years that the whole capability and
process is being expanded.
This final step in the complete BD and
Predictives process cannot be performed,
however, without the data processor first
having key data and information. This
will include each aircraft’s component
and system configuration, the serial
number (S/N) of each component, the
date that each component on the aircraft
was installed, the total time in FH and FC
the component has accumulated on the
aircraft since installation, and the
component’s repair history. This will all
have to be sent from the airline’s M&E
system to the data processor, before the
data processor can send back data
relating to maintenance Predictives. A
two-way link and data transfer is
therefore required between the M&E
systems and the data processors. XML is
the most commonly used format by
M&E systems. This process has begun to
be implemented, and Airbus’ Skywise
Predictives product is an example. “Trax
has an interface with the RR system so
that it can be informed of problems with
individual engines as they develop,” says
Reed. “An example is a message being
sent by RR to Trax if, for example, a
generator is not performing correctly.
This can include a recommendation to
Some of the benefits of big data and predictive
maintenance is being able to anticipate and
plan for non-routine maintenance tasks, and so
reduce the downtime to complete base checks.
change the part, bring forward its
removal, or even change the component’s
maintenance interval.”
There is not yet a data standard,
however, and Reed makes the point that
this will be needed. “The OEMs will have
to accept that they will be interfacing
with a large number of different M&E
systems,” continues Reed. “It looks like
there is no standard, but this will be
useful in the future. It will almost
certainly have to be developed. Another
issue is the need for a bigger connectivity
capacity to send data along all the
various paths in the entire process.”
Enis explains that few changes to
M&E system functionality and
configuration are required. “This is
mainly because M&E system vendors are
not making use of data yet, and within
the scope of MSG-3 logic there is not
much you can do to improve the
maintenance processes with data,” says
Enis. “This is why the OEMs are the
drivers in big data and the subsequent use
of predictives. This raises the issue of
whether or not the M&E system vendors
will have the capital to invest in new
capabilities and upgrades to their
systems.”
Stone explains that Ultramain has a
flexible data schema, and a data import
and export engine. “The system does
already have some BD processing and
predictives capabilites,” says Stone. “So
far this is data that relates to the
execution of maintenance, so it does not
compete with the OEMs and external
suppliers at the moment. This data is
used by Ultramain to reduce the ground
time used for maintenance tasks. For
example, as non-routine maintenance
tasks arise, there is a need for
optimisation and predictive capabilities.
“There are some benefits of BD and
predictives that are coming clear,” adds
Stone. “These include the continual
process of driving down maintenance
costs and improving operational
reliability. Airlines are also planning to
use BD to extend maintenance intervals
and refine rotable component inventory
requirements.”
To download 100s of articles
like this, visit:
www.aircraft-commerce.com
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
58 I FREIGHT BUSINESS
The 30-80 ton freighter category is one of the largest in the entire market.
It has experienced high growth rates, especially in recent years with the
surge of e-commerce. Overall fleet requirements over the next 20 years
could exceed 1,300 units, providing a challenge for the sector.
The market for 30-80
ton freighters
M
edium-sized freighters
generally include all
aircraft types from the 757
to the DC-10-30. Other
types include all variants of the 767,
A300, A310, and A330. To date, there
are no 787 freighter variants. These
aircraft have gross structural payload
ranging from 67,000lbs to 178,000lbs,
equal to 30-80 tons. Net structural
payloads, when configured with
containers, are 34-71 tons.
The active fleet of these types has
been increasing by 35-62 aircraft per year
for the past three years, and was 876
aircraft at the end of 2018. This is an
increase of 263 aircraft and a factor of
1.4 over the 10-year period since 2008,
equal to an annual growth rate of 5%.
The first two or three years of this period
had suppressed growth, so the average
annual growth rate was limited. This
compares to an increase of just 22% for
large widebody freighters over the same
10-year period (see The market for large
widebody freighters, Aircraft Commerce,
October/November 2018, page 61). The
fleet also increased by a factor of 4.4 over
the 20 years since 1998, equal to an
average annual growth rate of 7.6% over
the term.
In addition to its continued steady
growth, the medium freighter bracket
accounts for one of the largest sectors of
the freighter fleet. The 757 is the smallest
type in this category, and has gross
payloads of 30-37.5 tons (see table, page
59). There were 307 757 freighters in
service at the end of 2018, which
accounted for 35% of the fleet.
The other main type comprises the
767-200/-200ER and 767-300ER
freighters. These have gross structural
payloads of 102,000-125,000lbs, equal to
45-56 tons (see table, page 59). There
were 299 in service at the end of 2018,
equating to 34% of the global fleet. These
are split between 57 smaller 767-200/-
200ERs and 242 larger 767-300ERs.
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
The A300-600F/RF has a gross
payload of 107,000lbs. Fleet numbers
have steadily increased to 174.
The A310-300F is similar in payload
capacity to the 767-200, but numbers
have declined to just 11 aircraft left in
service from a peak of 80 in 2008.
Similarly, the A300B4-200F has a
structural payload of 100,000lbs, 44.5
tons, but the fleet has now diminished to
just nine aircraft. The DC10-10F fleet
peaked at 61 aircraft in 2005, but has
declined to 21, and is being phased out.
There are just 15 DC-10-30Fs in service.
The A330-200F and -300F are the
youngest types, and numbers have
increased from 2010 to 40 by the end of
2018. Most deliveries to date are factory-
built A330-200Fs. Only a small number
of aircraft have been converted to date.
This category of freighters will
continue to grow, and large numbers of
these aircraft have been added to the fleet
to serve the e-commerce market. The
757PF is no longer in production, and the
number of passenger-configured aircraft
that will be converted is likely to decline
as the better-quality examples are
acquired. No more A310s, A300B4s or
A300-600Rs are being converted; and
production of factory-built A300-600RFs
has stopped.
The 767-300ERF continues to be
built, with FedEx having an outstanding
order for 54 aircraft, and with deliveries
continuing at up to 13 units per year until
2023. UPS has nine outstanding orders
for 767-300ERFs, with the latest to be
delivered in 2022. Another 63 aircraft
will therefore be added to the fleet over
the next five years. A growing number of
767-300ERs has been converted in recent
years, reaching 23-25 aircraft per year in
2017 and 2018. More than 150 767s
have been converted since 2002.
With the probable demand for
capacity to satisfy demand for increased
freight traffic volumes and the continued
retirement of older types, airlines have to
consider which types will be available to
satisfy their requirements in this category
over the next 10-20 years. This will be a
combination of continued conversions of
757-200s and 767-300ERs, an increased
rate of A330-200/-300 conversions, and
the addition of new types. Within 20
years this could include conversions of
787s and A330neos, factory-built 787s
and A330-200s, and a possible new
dedicated freighter variant of the A330.
Main issues
The main factors affecting the market
for aircraft in this category are the profile
of the current fleet, the likely number of
active aircraft that will be retired over the
next 20 years, and the likely annual rate
of traffic growth and fleet requirements.
One option in this sector that does
not require consideration is the
reactivation of stored aircraft. There are
few or no aircraft in storage. Older A300,
A310s and a few 757-200s have been
fully retired.
Traffic growth
There are several market forecasts
that predict annual growth rates in all
world markets, and also on a global level
as a whole. Large volumes of freight are
carried as belly freight in passenger
aircraft, but a large number of dedicated
freighters are nevertheless required.
Traffic growth rates in recent years
have been stimulated by the development
of e-commerce. The long-term average
growth rate of global freight has been
4.2% per year over the past 20 years,
based on general and expresss package
freight.
The continued growth in
intracontinental and intercontinental
markets has seen volumes increase
significantly, thereby adding to annual
growth rates. Traffic growth increased to
above average levels in 2016, and grew
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
 59 I FREIGHT BUSINESS
MEDIUM FREIGHTER WEIGHT SPECIFICATION & PAYLOAD CHARACTERISTICS

Aircraft 757-200 757-200 A310-300F 767-200ER 767-300ER A300B4 A300-600 A330-200F A330-300F DC-10-10F DC-10-30F
type SF/PCF PCF BDSF BDSF -200F RF PAYLOAD PAYLOAD
MODE MODE

MTOW - lbs 255,000 255,000 361,620 351,000 412,000 373,760 375,890 500,308 500,308 440,000 572,000
MZFW - lbs 184,000 200,000 251,320 266,000 309,000 277,780 286,600 392,312 392,312 335,000 414,000
OEW - lbs 116,300 116,000 162,920 164,000 183,500 177,780 179,230 240,236 245,746 217,300 236,000
GROSS PAYLOAD - lbs 67,700 84,000 88,400 102,000 125,500 100,000 107,370 152,076 146,566 117,700 178,000
GROSS PAYLOAD - tons 30 38 39 46 56 45 48 68 65 53 79

Payload carriage

Main deck -
ULD Vol cu ft 6,600 6,600 10,572 9,456 12,034 10,398 11,016 12,084 14,220 13,508 13,508
Tare Weight ULD - lbs 7,140 7,140 8,992 9,170 11,550 10,810 11,416 12,540 14,788 14,300 14,300

Lower deck
ULD Vol cu ft 1,790 1,790 2,100 2,728 3,720 3,000 3,300 3,900 4,800 3,900 3,900
Tare containers - lbs N/A N/A 2,800 4,466 6,090 4,000 4,400 5,200 6,400 5,200 5,200

Total volume - cu ft 8,390 8,390 12,672 12,184 15,754 13,398 14,316 15,984 19,020 17,408 17,408
Total tare - lbs 7,140 7,140 11,792 13,636 17,640 14,810 15,816 17,740 21,188 19,500 19,500

Net structural
payload - lbs 60,560 76,860 76,608 88,364 107,860 85,190 91,554 134,336 125,378 98,200 158,500
Net payload - tons 27 34 34 39 48 38 41 60 56 44 71
Max packing density
- lbs/cu ft 7.2 9.2 6.0 7.3 6.8 6.4 6.4 8.4 6.6 5.6 9.1

by an unprecedented 10% in 2017.
While the business model for express
packages includes quick delivery, for
which a premium is paid, e-commerce
does not, but requires transport by air in
the case of long distances.
The express package carriers have
been established for a long time, and
traffic has been transported by a variety
of airlines. These have now consolidated
into the three main carriers of FedEx,
UPS and DHL.
The largest e-commerce providers are
Amazon in North America, Europe and
many other parts of the world; and
Alibaba in China. These companies have
started to develop freighter fleets of their
own, and Amazon is transporting more
packages via airlines working for it on a
wet lease basis or via its own aircraft.
Amazon recently signed a lease with
ATSG for 10 767-300ERFs, and there has
been speculation for some time that it will
order up to 100 767-300ERFs.
Alibaba has transported some
shipments by Chinese freight carrier SF
Express, which operates a small fleet of
757-200PCFs. E-commerce companies
are still several years away from having
fleets close to the size of FedEx, UPS and
DHL.
Even though the growth of e-
commerce suggests that higher than
historic global freight traffic growth rates
might become the norm in the future,
global air freight traffic forecasts still
predict average annual growth rates of
4.5% per year over the next 20 years.
This has implications for the current fleet
of aircraft, and the number required in
the future. The 2018 fleet of 30-80 ton
freighters included about 300 757-200s
and 570 medium widebodies, varying in
size from the A310/767-200 up to the
DC-10-30; a total fleet of about 870
aircraft. Fleet projections are that the
number of aircraft in the same size
category will double to about 1,650
aircraft. The actual number will depend
on the availability of aircraft in the 757-
200F’s payload and volume capacity.
This growth is a net increase in the
fleet of about 780 aircraft. However, a
larger number of aircraft will have to be
delivered to airlines over this period, due
to retirements among the 870 aircraft in
service.
Current fleet
The fleet of 30-80 ton freighter stood
at 876 active aircraft, split between 307
757-200Fs, 299 767-200F/-300Fs, 183
A300B4Fs and A300-600RFs, 11 A310-
300Fs, 40 A330-200F/-300Fs, 21 DC-10-
10Fs, and 14 DC-10-30Fs. The 757 is
therefore the largest sub-fleet, and
accounts for 35% of the total. The 767
fleet accounts for another 34.1% of the
total fleet. It can be sub-divided between
57 of the smaller 767-200ERF with a
gross payload of up to 46 tons, and 242
of the larger 767-300ERF with a gross
payload of up to 56 tons.
There are also nine A300BFs in
service, having declined from a peak of
about 67 aircraft in 2008/09. The 48-ton
A300-600RF fleet is the third largest,
with 174 in service and 20% of the fleet.
It reached this peak number in 2015.
The A310-300F fleet has been in
decline for the past 10 years. Of a fleet of
81 aircraft at its peak, only 11 remain in
service. The DC-10-10F fleet was
exclusively operated by FedEx, and has
declined from a peak of 64 in 2008 to 21
aircraft. FedEx is replacing the 53-ton
DC-10-10F with the 767-300ERFs it has
on order. The 79-ton DC-10-30F is also
operated exclusively by FedEx, and
numbers have declined from a peak of 58
aircraft in 2005 to 15 by the end of 2018.
The fleet is dominated by the three
express package carriers, which account
for 63% of the aircraft. The other 37%
of the fleet is operated by a large number
of airlines that operate small fleets. Many
of these operate on a wet lease or fixed-
fee basis for the three main express
package carriers.
In addition to the longer-term
carriers, some airlines are also now
providing an increasing portion of their
capacity for e-commerce giant Amazon
on a wet lease basis. These include some
of the aircraft operated by Atlas Air.
Of the 549 aircraft operated by DHL,
FedEx and UPS, 500 are 757-200Fs, 767-
300ERFs, and A300-600RFs. The other
49 aircraft are small numbers of other
types which are all being phased out over
the next five years. Most are DC-10s.
Estimating what portion of the 500
aircraft will be retired over the next 20
years is a major issue in determining the
demand for new aircraft up to 2037.
757-200F fleet
The 757-200F fleet of 307 aircraft
includes 40 that are operated by the DHL
group and its associated carriers. DHL’s
European division European Air

ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE

60 I FREIGHT BUSINESS
Transport (EAT) operated the first batch
of 757-200s converted to freighter. These
were mainly ex-British Airways aircraft
equipped with RB211-535C engines.
Most of these have been retired, but 10
are still in service with DHL and
European Air Transport (EAT). The other
30 aircraft have all been converted with
Precision Conversions’ supplemental type
certificate (STC), and are a mixture of
aircraft equipped with RB211-535E4 and
PW2037 engines. Most were built from
1996 to 2002, and average utilisation
across the whole fleet is about 1,100
flight hours (FH) per year. DHL retired
many of its -535C-powered aircraft at
30-35 years old. This implies that all
aircraft that have passed the 35-year
mark are retired, so all aircraft in the fleet
should have retired by 2037.
FedEx is the single biggest operator of
757-200Fs. It has 111 757-200SF
aircraft, converted from passenger
configuration using the Boeing
modification, by ST Aerospace. These
111 aircraft are equipped with both the
RB211-535E4 and PW2037/40 engines.
They were built from 1983 to 1998, and
were converted from 2008 to 2017. Rates
of utilisation are relatively high, with
most aircraft operated at more than
2,000FH per year. The oldest aircraft in
FedEx’s fleet will be 29 years old in 2037,
so most will have been retired by then.
UPS operates a fleet of 75 factory-
built 757-200PFs, split between 35
PW2040-powered aircraft built from
1987 to 1994, and 40 RB211-535E4-
powered aircraft built from 1994 to
1999. Average utilisation is similar to
DHL, at about 1,200FH and 770 flight
cycles (FC) per year. These low rates of
utilisation mean that the youngest 30-
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
50% of the fleet may still be in operation
in 2037, but the remainder will have
retired by then. The oldest aircraft in the
fleet are now more than 30 years old, but
have accumulated highest total times of
only 25,000FH and 16,500FC. This
suggests aircraft could operate until they
are more than 40 years old, as is the case
with FedEx’s DC-10s.
The remainder of the 757-200F fleet
comprises 81 aircraft, all of which were
converted using the Precision
Conversions modification. These aircraft
are operated by a mixture of carriers that
include Air China Cargo, Air Transport
International (ATI), Blue Dart Aviation,
Cargojet Airways, China Postal Airlines,
SF Airlines and YTO Airlines. Another
13 aircraft, operated by Morningstar
Express and SF Airlines, were converted
using the Boeing STC by ST Aerospace,
which has control of the licence and
manages the conversions.
These 81 aircraft were built from
1984 to 2002. These have annual rates of
utilisation ranging from 1,000FH to
3,500FH. Most are likely to have been
retired by 2037.
Overall, 220-230 757 freighters are
likely to retire over the next 20 years.
767-200F/-300F fleet
The fleet of 767-200Fs totals 59
aircraft, sub-divided between two groups.
The first comprises 23 aircraft that were
modified from 2004 to 2006 with a non-
conventional cargo door. This was a
freighter modification for ABX that was
provided by Bedek Aviation of Israeli
Aircraft Industries (IAI). This loaded
cargo containers through the original
passenger door, and a large cargo door on
The 757-200 accounts for 305 of the 876 active
freighters in the 30-80 ton category. With 757PF
production having ceased, probably less than
100 passenger-configured aircraft left as suitable
conversion candidates, and high growth rates in
the sector, alternative aircraft types will be
required.
the main deck was not installed.
The second group is 36 aircraft that
were modified by Bedek Aviation using
the IAI STC, and were fitted with a
conventional large cargo door. These
were modified from 2004 to 2008.
This fleet of 59 aircraft was built from
1983 to 1994, and so is 25-36 years old.
Some of the aircraft converted with the
special modification for ABX Air have
already been retired. Annual rates of
utilisation are low, however, so aircraft
could operate until they are 40 years old
if they remain economically viable. All
aircraft are likely to have been retired by
2037.
The 767-300ERF fleet totals 242
aircraft, with 133 operated by the express
package carriers and 109 by other
airlines.
DHL operates a small fleet of 2009-
built 767-300PFs. FedEx has the largest
fleet of all airlines with 67 factory-built
aircraft that have been delivered since
2012. It has another 54 aircraft on firm
order, with deliveries due until 2023.
UPS operates a fleet of 62 -300PFs
that were delivered from 1994 to 2013.
Average annual utilisation is 3,300FH
and 900FC. UPS has another nine aircraft
on order, and aircraft are due for delivery
from 2019 to 2022. The oldest aircraft in
this fleet are therefore likely to have been
retired by 2037, but a large portion will
still be in service.
The other 109 767-300Fs in service
are operated by a mix of airlines. About
30 were converted using the Boeing
modification, and so are -300BCFs.
Another 63 aircraft are modified with the
Bedek Aviation conversion programme,
and so are -300BDSFs, while 20 are
factory-built freighters.
The converted aircraft were built
from 1988 to 1999, and so are 20-31
years old. Many are operated at medium
rates of utilisation, but some accumulate
fewer than 1,500FH per year. The 20
factory-built 767-300PFs are six to 18
years old. Most of these can therefore be
expected to retire over the next 20 years,
but a minority may still be operational.
A300-600RF fleet
Of the 179 A300-600RFs in service at
the end of 2018, 141, or 81%, were
operated by the big three express package
operators. These are split between 51
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019

converted aircraft operated by EAT and
FedEx, and 92 factory-built aircraft
operated by FedEx and UPS. In total
there are 76 converted aircraft, all of
which were modified from passenger
aircraft to freighter using the EFW STC
and modification, and 103 factory-built
aircraft.
The DHL group operates 22
converted aircraft that were modified
from 2011 to 2013, and are 17-28 years
old. They operate at average annual
utilisations of 2,000FH and 1,600FC.
FedEx operates the largest fleet of 71
aircraft, including 29 that were converted
from 2002 to 2009, and are 26-34 years
old. FedEx also operates 42 factory-built
freighters, most of which were produced
from 1993 to 1999. All aircraft are
operated at low annual rates of utilisation
of 1,300FH and 730FC, but despite this
their age means that these aircraft are all
likely to be retired by 2037.
UPS operates 52 factory-built aircraft
that are 13-19 years old and operate at
averages of 1,200FH and 700FC per year.
Their age means that some will have
retired by 2037.
The remaining 33 aircraft in the fleet
include 25 converted and eight factory-
built aircraft. MNG Cargo and Uni-Top
Airlines account for most of the
remaining converted aircraft. Air Hong
Kong operates eight factory-produced
A300-600RFs.
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
DC-10-10F/-30F
The DC-10-10F and -30F fleet is
small at just 35 aircraft and declining. All
but one aircraft are operated by FedEx,
which is phasing out its fleet. These are
being replaced by 767-300ERFs. All of
FedEx’s aircraft were converted from DC-
10s to MD-10s using Aeronavali’s
programme in the late 1990s. The aircraft
still in service were built from 1971 to
1980 in the case of the DC-10-10F, and
from 1973 to 1988 in the case of the DC-
10-30F.
In addition to the DC-10Fs, the 11
A310-300Fs and nine A300B4Fs are part
of a larger fleet that has been retired.
These remaining aircraft are expected to
be in service for another five to 10 years.
A330-200F/-300F
The A330-200F and -300F are the
most recent types to enter this category of
freighter. The A330-200F was originally
developed as a factory-built freighter by
Airbus after the A330-200 platform was
developed into an in-flight refuelling
aircraft for the military. In addition there
is a passenger-to-freighter modification
for the A330-200 and -300 series. The
STC is held by EFW.
The factory-built freighter is
designated the A330-200F. To date,
Airbus has received 43 orders for the
61 I FREIGHT BUSINESS
aircraft, of which 39 have been delivered.
Deliveries started in 2011, and have
continued at an average of four to six
aircraft per year. The main customers for
the A330-200F are Avianca Cargo, EAT,
Hong Kong Air Cargo, Malaysia Airlines,
QATAR Airways and Turkish Airlines.
There are outstanding orders for four
A330-200Fs, which are due for MNG
Airlines and Avianca cargo.
The first A330-200s and -300s were
converted to freighter by EFW in 2017
and 2018. One A330-200F has been
modified and a second is in conversion,
and will be operated by Egyptair. Three
A330-300s have been converted, and are
operated by Air Hong Kong. There are
also two -200s in conversion to be
operated by Egyptair, and three -300s in
conversion to be operated by DHL Air.
The converted aircraft were built
from 1995 to 2005, so some are likely to
have retired from this small fleet by 2037.
Total aircraft market
Examining the fleet and age profile for
each type, the number of aircraft retired
from the current fleet of 876 aircraft over
the next 20 years can be estimated at 580
units. This will leave about 300 of the
current fleet in service in 2037.
In addition to the 580 retirements, the
growth in freight traffic and the fleet
means that another 780 aircraft will be
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
62 I FREIGHT BUSINESS
required. This would take the total to
1,350 aircraft over the next 20 years.
Airlines will therefore need to add an
average of 65 new aircraft per year.
These will clearly come from a
mixture of converted and factory-built
aircraft. The main issue this raises is
which types are available, and likely to be
converted, and which types will be
acquired as all-new factory built aircraft.
FedEx and UPS account for most
factory-built aircraft, while airlines in the
DHL group have acquired a more even
mix of converted and new-built
freighters. Other airlines have acquired
most of their fleets through freighter
modifications, although a difference has
been seen with the A330-200F, where
large numbers have been acquired as
new-built freighters by non-express
package carriers.
One main issue is that because large
numbers of aircraft are converted and
many types are no longer in production,
several new aircraft types will have to be
acquired, either as converted or as new-
built freighters. The new types will not be
direct replacements for older types, which
complicates fleet planning and aircraft
selection. The 30-80 ton category of
aircraft clearly has a wide range of gross
payload characteristics; but also a wide
range of containers or palletised cargo
volumes, which vary from 6,600 cu ft to
19,000 cu ft. The gross structural
payload, total containerised cargo
volume, net structural payloads, and
maximum packing densities of the
aircraft types are summarised (see table,
page 59).
An example of the complexity
involved in choosing replacements is the
A330-300F, whose structural payload is
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
32,000lbs lower than the DC-10-30F’s.
However, the A330-300F’s total volume
is 2,600 cu ft higher, so it could
potentially reach its payload limit before
all available volume is utilised.
Another issue is aircraft in the 757-
200’s, A310-300’s and 767-200’s payload
capacity, which have a gross structural
payload of 38-46 tons, net structural
payloads of 35-39 tons, and cubic
capacities of 10,180-12,184 cu ft. There
is no direct replacement for any of these
aircraft.
A321 P2F
The A321-200 passenger-to-freighter
conversion is offered by several providers
that include EFW and Precision
Conversions. The initial Precision
Conversions offering has a net structural
payload of about 22.7 tons and a freight
volume capacity of 7,430 cu ft. This
comes from a combination of 6,160 cu ft
on the main deck from 14 main container
positions, and 10 AKH ULDs on the
lower deck that provide another 1,270 cu
ft.
EFW is further advanced with its
conversion programme, and has a
different configuration to Precision
Conversions. Aircraft converted by EFW
have a lower net structural payload of up
to 22.6 tons and a volume of 7,600 cu ft
when loaded with containers on both
decks.
The A321-200F’s total volumetric
capacity is up to 2,500 cu ft smaller, and
its payload is 10 tons lower, than the total
volume of the 757-200PC; the A321-
200F is converted by Precision
Conversions.
The A321-200F’s volumetric capacity
The 767-300ERF is the second most numerous
type in the 30-80 ton freighter fleet. Factory-
freighter production continues with orders from
FedEx, and demand in the sector has bene high,
and a large number of 767-300ERs have been
converted to freighter over the past 10 years.
is, however, 900-1,000 cubic feet more
than the 757’s main deck containerised
volume. The appropriate comparison
between the two may not include the
757’s lower deck volume when the
aircraft are being used to carry express
packages. The A321-200F actually
provides higher containerised volume and
so is an appropriate replacement for some
757-200Fs for some current operators.
“Most freight has changed from a
weight-dominated business to a volume
business because of the fall in average
packing densities to the 6lbs per cu ft
level,” says Brian McCarthy, vice
president of sales at Precision
Conversions. “When all the costs of
acquisition, conversion and preparation
for service are considered, the A321-200F
is an economic option, particularly given
the growth in postal services and e-
commerce in many countries.”
A basic analysis of the A321-200
passenger fleet reveals that there are 641
CFM56-5B- and 990 V2500-A5-powered
aircraft in service. The oldest aircraft
were built in 1997, so there is a large
pool of potential feedstock for freight
airlines and lessors to choose from.
757-200
The number of aircraft required over
the next 20 years raises the issue of
further 757-200s being converted. The
757-200 has proved a popular type for
the past 10 years, with the number being
converted peaking at 25 in 2011, and
reaching 19 aircraft in 2018. All 757-
200s have been converted for FedEx, and
ST Aerospace is unlikely to convert any
more aircraft. It did not convert any
aircraft in 2017, and converted only three
in 2018. Meanwhile, Precision
Conversions converted nine aircraft in
2015, but this rose to 16 in 2016, 17 in
2017, and 16 in 2018. Moreover, there
are 12 aircraft due for conversion in 2019
by Precision Conversions. An issue for
further 757-200 conversions is that the
last passenger aircraft were built in 2005.
Analysis of the remaining 757-200
fleet shows that there are about 310
passenger-configured aircraft still in
operation. These are split between 145
PW2000-powered and 167 RB211-
powered aircraft.
It seems that ST Aerospace, with a
14-position conversion, will not modify
any more aircraft. This leaves Precision
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019
 63 I FREIGHT BUSINESS
Conversions as the only remaining A main consideration here is how configured aircraft with high-specification
programme. “To date we have had orders many more 767-300ERs could be weights in the passenger fleet. These are
for 107 conversions,” says McCarthy. converted, as well as how many more split between 220 CF6-80C2-powered
“Of the remaining passenger fleet, we factory-built aircraft could be sold by and 135 PW4000-94-powered aircraft. A
think we could convert about another 45 Boeing. As discussed, there are more than few are also equipped with RB211-524
or even possibly 60 aircraft. We have a 60 outstanding orders that take engines. There are large fleets operated by
few outstanding conversions to complete production up to 2023, and rumours of a American (24), Air Canada (29), All
for DHL and Swiftair. large order being placed by Amazon. Nippon Airways (24), Delta Airlines (53),
“Demand for conversions temporarily Continued conversion of passenger Japan Airlines (28) and LATAM Group
slowed down due to a shortage of good aircraft to freighter is likely, and with airlines (32). A large portion of these
quality engines, and life limited parts large numbers. Although production of could satisfy demand by freight carriers
(LLPs), but it has now picked up again,” passenger-configured 767-300ERs has for several years. Fewer than 40 aircraft
continues McCarthy. “The problem is halted, the last aircraft was built in 2014. are less than 10 years old, however.
that while the PW2000 may be the There are 360 good-quality passenger-
favoured engine, few aircraft are
available in the right maintenance
condition. We do not expect any Delta
Airlines aircraft to be converted, because
of its policy of using up all maintenance
life before retirement. Some good quality
RB211-powered aircraft remain in the
fleet.”
The main fleets of remaining
passenger aircraft are 111 PW2037-
powered aircraft operated by Delta, and
15 PW2000 aircraft operated by United.
Of the RB211-powered aircraft, there are
four big fleets operated by American
Airlines (34), Icelandair (24), TUI UK
(13), and United Airlines (41). “The
better quality aircraft have to be picked
out. Investors do not like aircraft that
have accumulated more than 30,000FC,”
says McCarthy.
Up to 60 possible future conversions
could come from about half the
remaining American fleet, most of
Icelandair’s aircraft following finalisation
of its merger with Wow, most of TUI
UK’s remaining aircraft, and the United
fleet.

767-300ER
In addition to a lack of smaller
widebodies, A300-600RF production has
stopped and most A300B2/B4Fs have
been retired. The lack of aircraft types to
choose from has clearly stimulated
demand for the 767-300ER in recent
years. The A300B4F, A300-600RF and
767-300ERF are all close in payload
characteristics. They have net structural
payloads of 41-48 tons and total
containerised volumes of 13,400-15,700
cu ft (see table, page 59).
The 767-300ER is now in a class of
its own. It has the largest containerised
volume and net payload over the two
A300 models. These factors explain the
large orders for factory-built 767-
300ERFs, as well as the high number of
aircraft being converted. This had fallen
to just two aircraft in 2013, but rose to
25 in 2018. Bedek Aviation has had the
majority share of the conversion market
in recent years. It converted 12 aircraft in
2016, 16 in 2017, and 15 in 2018. There
are nine aircraft due for conversion, with
Bedek Aviation modifying some of them.

ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE

64 I FREIGHT BUSINESS
A330-200F
The A330-200 is the only aircraft
currently available that is young and still
in production. The A330-200 has proved
to be less successful as a new-built
freighter than the 767-300ERF. The
A330-200 has a similar containerised
volume to the 767-300ERF, but the
A330-200F has a 12-ton higher payload
and a 88,000lbs higher maximum take-
off weight (see table, page 59). The main
difference is that it allows the A330-200F
to operate with a higher packing density.
The A330-200F is therefore at a
disadvantage to the 767-300ERF in some
respects. The A330-200’s higher packing
density and higher specification weights
will not be required by express package
carriers and integrators.
What may be required is a type larger
than the A330-200F to provide more
volume. The A330-300F provides the
largest amount of containerised ULD
volume at 19,000 cu ft, the highest of all
modern types (see table, page 59). The
A330-300F’s net structural payload
allows for a maximum packing density of
6.6lbs per cu ft, which is close to that of
express packages. The -300F also has the
same specification weights as the -200F,
but the -300F has about 2,000 cu ft more
volume.
There are a large number of
passenger-configured A330-200s and
-300s available in the global fleet as
possible conversion candidates. The fleets
can be divided by engine type. There are
150 CF6-80E1-, 86 PW4000-110-, and
288 Trent 700-powered A330-200s in
service in passenger configuration. Main
fleets are operated by Aer Lingus, Air
Europa, Air France, Alitalia, Iberia,
KLM, Qantas Turkish Airlines, Brussels
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
Airlines, China Southern, Delta Airlines,
Korean Air and Malaysian.
There are also 122 CF6-80E1-, 69
PW4000-110-, and 253 Trent 700-
powered A330-300s in passenger
configuration still in operation. These
968 aircraft are all potential freighter
conversion candidates.
The A330 conversion market has
been slow in recent years. This may be
explained by a plentiful supply of 767-
300ERs for conversion and the continued
production of the factory freighter.
“It is not clear how much longer
production will continue, but once it
stops and the better passenger aircraft
have been converted then we expect the
rate of A330 conversions to increase,”
says Wolfgang Schmid, vice president
sales & marketing for Airbus
Conversions, at EFW. “There are no
other conversion candidates in this size
bracket, and we expect a good market
over the next 10 years at least. Demand
will be higher for the A330-300 because
of its volume, which will appeal to
express carriers. DHL has already got
some, and I others will follow.
“The problem with the A330 is that
the majority of feedstock is still
expensive, and the only aircraft available
are five- to 10 year-old aircraft that have
come off lease. These are clearly too
young,” continues Schmid. “The oldest
A330-300s are now 24 years old, so there
should be more on the market. Airlines,
such as American, are keeping the aircraft
in service for longer than expected, and
these particular aircraft will probably be
too old to convert when they do come
available. The optimum age is probably
15-20 years. Some aircraft that need a lot
of structural work may be available for
conversion at a younger age.”
With a probable exhaustion of good quality
767-300ER conversion candidates, alternative
types with similar freight volumes are required.
The A330-300 is a prime candidate, and there
are more than 440 passenger-configured aircraft
available.
There is no shortage of potential
conversion candidates, and EFW has
plans to increase its A330 conversions to
18 aircraft per year by 2020/21 between
its Dresden and Singapore facilities.
Overall aircraft feedstock
There are therefore large numbers of
A321-200s, 757-200s, 767-300ERs and
A330-200s/-300s that could be converted
to satisfy part of the requirement for
1,350 new freighters in this sector over
the next 20 years. The total number
converted from these three main fleets is
likely to reach about 600, and could even
reach as many as 800 or 900. Other types
will still be required to fill remaining
demand. This raises the issue of other
possible aircraft types. Only a small
number of 757-300s and 767-400ERs
were built, so passenger-to-freighter
conversion programmes are unlikely to
materialise for them.
The next aircraft type of the right size
and payload capacity is the 787. The
oldest aircraft is seven years old, so it will
be more than 12 years before a
conversion programme is developed and
the first aircraft undergoes modification.
The 787 has been developed for ultra-
long-range missions, however, so it will
be heavier than the 767-300ER, while the
787-8 will have similar volumetric
capacity. This high weight may diminish
the 787’s appeal to freight airlines. The
787-9 may be more attractive because of
its longer fuselage and therefore higher
containerised volume.
Even with almost 800 787s in
operation, a portion of the fleet being
converted will still not satisfy all demand
over the next 20 years. This is even when
numbers provided by the 757-200, 767-
300ER and A330 are considered.
This raises the issue of what other
possible types could be included. The
factory-built A330-200F will provide
some aircraft, but other new-built
freighters may have to come into
production.
Airbus is rumoured to be considering
a dedicated factory-built freighter variant
of the A330. This will be about the same
size as the -300 series, but will be
optimised in terms of weights, and weight
and balance.
To download 100s of articles
like this, visit:
www.aircraft-commerce.com
ISSUE NO. 121 • DECEMBER 2018 / JANUARY 2019