Sometimes in a bloggers life ,there comes that time where a blogger must face the reality of where a corporation is heading. First a corporation canceled the 787-300 model line. Here is a copy paste prospectus on the 757/787-300 case and A321 as it stood in 2005. Missing are import charts and graph looking at options. Boeing has this data and so does Airbus yet they opted for an A321Neo
When this report was made in 2005, Boeing had announced making the 787-300 and was making its last 757's. The MAX hadn't even been a conceptual footnote during this moment. The A321 NEO hadn't even had a champion with Airbus Now the status has changed.
2015 Boeing summary:
- No 757
- No 787-300
- Yes with Airbus A321 NEO is hoping for replacing the 757
- Boeing's Business Case Is found in other Airframes
I believe Boeing is doing more with the 737-900 than advertised at this point. First it must roll out the 737-800 Max, then 737-700 MAX, and going forward the 737-200c Max for Ryanair. Its ongoing slight enthusiasm for its 737 MAX 900 becomes more of a mystery until the A321 NEO debuts. Could this remain becoming a future Boeing announcement in the next two years for an 737-900 ER for 220 passengers? Two hundred passengers is the Max load for a single aisle. After that its a mini twin aisle for seven across with about 31 rows. A mini twin aisle is not a 787 width nor is it too long for more seats, but it would borrow from every program in making this a special airplane. Below is the 757 eulogy from back in 2005.
Aircraft Commerce: Important click when thinking the 757 Boeing decision not to replace:
Analysing the options
for 757 replacement
Page 25 AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS & FLEET PLANNING
"The 757 has had an impressive history. It has been in a class of its own and
offered airlines some of the lowest seat-mile costs possible for
narrowbody aircraft. Weakened yields and traffic volumes and more
efficient alternatives mean its now time to consider the 757’s replacement."
Below is the quoted article for your convenience please link to article above for complete analysis.
"The 757 has been in operation
for 23 years, and a large
number of aircraft are now of
an age when operators are
considering their replacement. The
problem is that the 757 is in a class of its
own as the largest narrowbody, so there
are no direct replacement candidates. The
narrowbodies with the closest seat
capacities are the A321 and 737-900ER.
The 787-3 and A330-200 are 100 seats
larger, but are the smallest widebodies
that could be considered.
Airlines will therefore have to
consider replacing the 757 with smaller
or larger aircraft, operating at similar,
lower or higher frequencies than they
currently use on their route networks.
Before considering which aircraft is a
suitable substitute for the 757, the need
for replacement must be examined,
including the 757’s operating cost trend
and disposal options.
757 profile:
The 757-200 is mainly used on short and
medium-range routes, with seat
numbers typically totalling between 178
and 208 in various arrangements. While
seat arrangements vary, a typical two class
configuration is 190 seats.
American Airlines, is the biggest
operator, with an average stage length of
1,178nm, and configured with 186 seats.
This is close to the average for many 757
operations. Overall, a 1,000nm sector
length and annual utilisation of about
2,700 flight hours (FH), 3,000 block
hours (BH) and 1,050 flight cycles (FC) is
representative of how many 757s are
used.
Despite being about 33% bigger than
the 727-200, the 757-200 consumes up to
43% less fuel per seat.
The 757-300 is a stretch version of
the -200, carrying about 245 passengers.
The 757-300’s maximum take-off weight
(MTOW) was increased to 272,500lbs.
There are 986 757-200s in service
with 98 airlines, most of them in North
America and Europe. Only 55 757-300s
were acquired by seven airlines, including
Northwest, Condor Flugdienst and ATA
Airlines. The 757-300’s poor sales
performance is partially due to the A321.
The 757-300 is also a very long aircraft.
So, despite being very efficient and having
attractive seat-mile costs, it takes a long
time to load and off-load passengers.
The majority of 757s fly short- and
medium-haul trunk routes in the US
domestic market.
It has proved popular
with European charter carriers, since it
can operate across all of Europe, as well
as to the US East coast.
The 757’s largest operators are
American, Delta, Northwest and United.
America West, Continental, National and
US Airways also have large fleets, as do
British Airways, Iberia, and various
European charter airlines. China is also
an important market, with Air China and
China Southern operating 42 757-200s.
Case for 757 replacement:
Many 757 operators are split between
those that may benefit from downsizing
and those that require higher capacity
aircraft. This needs careful consideration,
since new aircraft will offer operating
efficiencies and lower cash operating
costs, but will also have high capital and
financing charges. This raises the issue of
whether the 757’s maintenance costs are
increasing at a high rate, and if its fuel
burn is high in relation to the aircraft that
could potentially replace it. Besides the
787-3, A330-200, A321 and 737-900,
the smaller A320, A319, 737-800 and
737-700 are all replacement candidates.
Maintenance costs:
The 757’s maintenance programme
includes a base check cycle based on four
C checks. The basic interval for 1C tasks
is 6,000 FH or 18 months. There are
multiples of the basic 1C tasks, and the
heavy check at the end of the cycle is the
C4 check with an interval of 24,000FH
and 72 months.
In practice, most airlines utilise about
85% of this interval. With an annual
utilisation of about 2,700 FH and 1,050
FCs, the C check will be about every 15
months and 3,375 FH, suggesting that
the C check cycle will be completed about
every 13,500FH and five years.
The
youngest aircraft will still be in their first
base check cycle, but many older ones
will be in their third and fourth. They will
have reached maintenance maturity, and
their man-hour (MH) and material
expenditure could increase with age.
“The MH used for routine tasks in
the C1, C2, C3 and C4 checks during the
first base check cycle are about
1,500MH, 2,400MH, 1,600MH and
5,000MH,” explains Patrick Ryan, head
of engineering and planning at Shannon
Aerospace. “The non-routine ratio for C1
and C2 checks is 0.4 and for C3 and C4
increases to 0.5.
The MH for
modifications, service bulletins (SBs) and
airworthiness directives (ADs) in C1, C2
and C3 checks are 200, but increase to
about 1,000 in the C4. Interior work
requires about 200 MH in the C1, C2
and C3 checks, and about 1,500 MH in
C4 checks. The total MH for the first C
check cycle therefore reach 19,060 MH.”
Given a labour rate of $50 per MH,
labour cost for the base check cycle is
about $950,000. This has to be amortised
over the interval of about 13,500FH, and
results in a reserve of $70 per FH for the
labour portion.
“Routine MH increase in the second
C check cycle, as does the non-routine
ratio. MH for modifications, SBs and
ADs and interior work in the second C
check cycle are similar to the first C check
cycle,” says Ryan. Total labour for the
second base check cycle totals about
23,360MH, which is equal to a cost of
about $1.2 million, 22.5% higher than
the first C check cycle.
“MH for routine job cards increase again slightly in the third base check
cycle, while the non-routine ratio,
however, increases to about 1.0 in the C4
check.
Total MH climbs to about
28,100,” says Ryan. Labour cost thus
reaches about $1.4 million, a 20%
increase over the second cycle. The
reserve for labour therefore increases to
about $104 per FH, a $34 increase over
the first cycle. This is equal to about an
increase in $90 per average flight, and is
small when all other costs are considered.
The consumption of materials increases
with each base check cycle, however.
In general, although the 757’s
airframe maintenance cost steadily
increases with age, it will not impose an
unexpected and heavy maintenance
burden on operators.
The 757’s engines, however, have high
costs compared to narrowbodies that
could replace it. In the case of the RB211-
535E4, reserves for life limited parts are
in the region of $85 per engine flight
cycle (EFC), while reserves for shop visits
are about $160 per engine flight hour
(EFH).
Fuel burn:
With the fuel price soaring, the 757’s
fuel cost has become a concern for some
operators. On a typical sector of
1,000nm, the 757-200 burns about 2,805
US Gallons (USG) of fuel. At the current
fuel price of $1.60 per USG, the fuel cost
is about $4,500 and is equal to 2.41 cents
per available seat mile (ASM) (see table,
page 29).
On the same route length, a 757-300
burns about 3,250 USG, equal to $5,200
and 2.13 cents per ASM (see table, page
29).
Fuel burn for the A321, A320, A319,
737-900ER, 737-800, 737-700, 787-3
and A330-200 on the same sector length
is summarised (see table, page 29).
The 787-3 has about a 20% lower
fuel burn than the 787-300, and will thus
have the lowest unit fuel cost. Unit cost is
1.51 cents per ASM (see table, page 29).
The A330-200 and A321 then have the
next highest unit fuel cost. All other
replacement candidates have lower unit
fuel costs than the 757-200, but only in
the order of 0.10-0.35 cents per ASM.
Blended winglet:
Modification with blended winglets is
one option to be considered for continued
or extended use of the 757-200.
The 757-200 Blended Winglet system
from Aviation Partners Boeing reduces
fuel burn by about 3% on a 1,000nm
sector, reducing unit fuel cost by 2.35
cents per ASM. This translates into a
saving of 99,651 USG and $160,000 per
year at current fuel prices. With a list
price of $1.05 million for a winglet
system, it will pay for itself in about seven
years.
The fuel saving is improved to 4.4%
on longer routes of 3,000nm. In this case
the saving equals 196,259 USG and
about $314,000 per year at current fuel
prices, generating a return for the
operator after about four years.
Freighter conversion:
Lessors and some 757 operators can
consider passenger-to-freighter
conversion programmes as an exit
strategy. The two independent passenger to-freighter
conversions for the 757-200
are offered by Precision Conversions and
Alcoa-SIE.
Precision Conversions has a 15-pallet
conversion, which has been approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and by China’s aviation regulator.
The aircraft has maximum structural
payload of 67,000-71,000lbs, and up to
6,600 cubic feet of cargo space on the
main deck, with an additional 1,790
cubic feet on the lower deck.
Alcoa-SIE is still developing its 14.5-
pallet conversion. The aircraft will have a
gross structural payload of 66,000lbs,
and a lower total container volume on
the main deck than aircraft modified with
the Precision Conversions’ programme.
Conversion is dependent on various
factors. The first is lessors’ concern about
whether the lease rate of 757-200SFs will
be high enough to generate a return on
the book value or investment in the
aircraft and the cost of freight conversion.
The current market value for 757s
built before 1989 is less than $8 million.
Including the conversion and probable
maintenance expenses, the total cost of
acquiring a converted 757 is about $13
million. Given a lease factor of 1.5%, a
monthly lease rate of about $195,000 for
the 757-200SF is necessary to make
conversion economic, which is similar to
the expected market lease rate for
converted aircraft. This suggests that
lessors are only likely to be interested in
converting the 757 when its market or
book value has declined to $8 million or
less.
Airlines that own the 757 might also
be interested in the conversion if they
have dedicated freight operations. This is
likely to be when the aircraft reach a low
or zero book value.
Airlines therefore
only need to pay for conversion and
maintenance costs, which will total about
$5 million, but will depend heavily on the
need for engine shop visits.
China’s airlines, such as Shanghai
Airlines, are more active in converting
their 757s to meet strong cargo growth.
Replacement strategy:
There are three options for replacing
the 757-200.
The first, for airlines experiencing
weaker passenger volumes and yields, is
to replace the 757 with smaller aircraft
and operate them at the same frequency.
This will reduce capacity offered on a
route, resulting in operating cost savings
and an improved yield mix.
The second option is to replace the 757 with smaller narrowbodies and
increase frequencies to maintain total
capacity on each route.
The third is for airlines experiencing
high load factors and traffic growth, and
examines replacing the 757 with bigger
aircraft, thereby increasing capacity on
each route. China Southern Airlines, for
example, has ordered 10 787s to replace
its 757s. Its 757s are flown on busy
routes, such as Guangzhou-Beijing, which
have been recording double-digit growth
rates.
A321/A320/A319
In a similar cabin configuration to the
757-200, the A321 has about 10 fewer
seats, putting the A321’s capacity at 180
in this analysis. A high MTOW variant of
205,000lbs gives the A321-200 a range of
up to 3,000nm, which enables it to
operate a number of important US transcontinental
routes, as well as some of the
longer European intercontinental sectors.
The A320 has a typical two-class seat
size of 150. There are various MTOW
variants, and the aircraft can operate the
1,000nm sectors operated by the 757
without any payload restrictions. This is
true for the A319, which has a seat count
of about 124 on this comparative basis.
The A321, A320 and A319 have the
same pilot type rating, share many system
rotables, and can all be powered by the
same variants of the CFM56-5B or
V.2500 engine, thereby providing
attractive commonality benefits.
737-900ER/737-800/737-700.
Over the past several years the 737-
900 has posed a threat to the 757-200
and A321. A new higher gross weight
and longer range version, the -900ER,
has now been launched. The 737-900ER
can carry up to 26 more passengers, or fly
about 500nm further than the 737-900.
An additional pair of exit doors and a flat
rear pressure bulkhead allow room for up
to 215 passengers in the same fuselage.
Other changes, which include optional
Blended Winglets and auxiliary fuel
tanks, increase range to 3,205nm.
The 737-900ER connects distant city
pairs across continents, such as San
Francisco-Boston, in a general two-class
configuration of 177 seats. It has two
other smaller family members.
The 737-800 has a seat capacity of
160, and is larger than the A320. The
737-700 has a seat capacity of 128, and
the performance capability to operate
1,000nm sectors without payload or
performance restrictions.
The 737-700/-800/-900ER are
powered by the CFM56-7B set at
different thrust ratings between 24,000lbs
and 27,300lbs. Like the A320 family, the
737NG has a single pilot type rating and
common system components, offering
airlines attractive commonality benefits.
787-3
The new 787-3 is expected to have a
two-class capacity of 289 seats. Its
3,500nm range capacity will allow it to
operate most city-pairs in the Asia Pacific
region, and many of the same routes
where the 757-200/-300 is deployed. The 787-3 will be powered by the
General Electric GENX or the RollsRoyce
Trent 1000. Both have wide intake
fans and high bypass ratios. One main
result will be a 20% lower fuel burn than
the 767-300.
The 787 will also have a carbon fibre
content exceeding 80%, whose main
benefit will be resistance to structural
damage and corrosion. This should
contribute to lower base-check-related
maintenance costs, and also result in a
low rate of increase in MH consumption
for these checks as the aircraft ages.
A330-200
The A330-200 is similar in size to the
787-3, with a seat capacity of 293. The
older design and use of Trent 700,
PW4000-100 or CF6-80E1 engines
means it has higher fuel burn than the
787-3. This aircraft is already used by
Dragonair for high-density routes into
mainland China from Hong Kong. The
A350-800 could possibly be used to
replace the 757 on similar routes, but the
A350 has been designed for ultra longhaul
missions.
Economic analysis.
The three 757-200 replacement
options have each been analysed.
The first two options consider
replacing the 757 with one of three A320
family types and three 737NG variants
either at the same or higher frequencies as
the 757-200 on a 1,000nm route. This
examines the difference in total aircraft
trip costs and seat capacities between the
757 and six narrowbody replacement
candidates to identify the most economic
option.
The third option considers replacing
the 757 with larger aircraft, by examining
the quantity of additional seats supplied
by either the 787-3 or A330-200, the net
increase in aircraft trip costs, and the
incremental revenue required by
additional passengers to cover this.
All three options are analysed on a
1,000nm sector length. The flight time for
a 1,000nm sector is 152-160 minutes,
and a taxi time of 20 minutes has been
applied. This will result in annual
utilisations already described.
The 757-200 is also assumed to
operate at a frequency of five flights per
day. This generates a daily capacity of
950 seats each way.
All aircraft have been analysed in two
classes, with seat numbers as previously
described (see table, page 29). The
MTOWs used for each aircraft are also
summarised.
The trip costs analysed for these aircraft include: maintenance; navigation
and landing fees; fuel; annual flight crew
and flight attendant employment costs;
and lease charges. These are summarised on table provided.
Fuel burns and costs
have been discussed.
The 787’s carbon fibre content of
more than 80%, and resulting resistance
to structural damage and corrosion to
reduce the ratio of non-routine
maintenance, is expected to give it 15%
lower base check costs than the 767. The
787-3’s fuselage maintenance cost will be
$480 per FH. The engine reserve is
expected to be $260 per engine flight
hour for an average FC time of about
2.5FH. This takes into consideration the
probable reserves for life limited parts,
shop visit costs and removal interval. The
cost for rotables and heavy components is
expected to be $250 per FH and $165 per
FH, respectively.
Hence the 787-3’s total
maintenance cost per FH is about $1,275
(see table, this page).
The 757’s total maintenance costs are
$1,140 per FH (see table, this page),
which is high in relation to the A320
family and 737NG variants. These
smaller narrowbodies benefit from the
long average cycle time that results in a
low engine reserves for EFH, as well as
having airframe related-costs that are
$200 per FH lower than the 757.
All aircraft types have two-man
flightcrews, with gross salaries,
allowances and annual productivity as
shown (see table, this page). Gross
salaries are escalated by 25% to account
for the additional costs of insurance and
pension contributions, subsistence,
uniforms and training. This does not
allow, however, for possible advantages
some types may have over others with
respect to commonality that would result
in long-term reductions in training costs.
Pilot commonality may have the effect
of improving pilot productivity and
reducing training costs, with the overall
effect of lower employment costs and
fewer crews required per aircraft and so
lower costs per trip. The actual benefits
of pilot commonality depend on fleet mix
and airline policy.
Landing and navigation charges for
each type relate to the MTOW. Catering
charge is assumed to be $8 per seat.
Typical current monthly lease rates
have been used for the A321/320/319,
737NG members, and A330-200. These
are summarised (see table, this page). A
monthly finance charge for the 787-3 is
based on the list price of $120 million for
the 787-3, a 25% purchase discount, and
lease factor of 0.9%. This results in a
monthly rate of $810,000.
Monthly lease rates for the 757-200
are highly variable. Over the past four
years leases have been renegotiated for
many aircraft, and have come down to
$180,000-220,000 per month in many
cases. Moreover, rates for newly signed
leases for older aircraft have approached levels as low as $160,000 per month.
Long-term rates for financings signed
prior to 2001 for a large number of
aircraft are in the region of $350,000-
450,000. For this reason, a lease rate of
$350,000 has been used for the 757-200.
Overall, this results in the trip and
unit ASM costs shown for the seven
aircraft types operated at higher frequency, providing a
daily seat volume close to the 950
provided by five 757-200 flights.
In this case the A321 and 737-900ER
have to be operated at five flights per day
to provide a total number of seats as
close as possible to the 950 generated by
the 757-200’s five daily flights. The A320
and 737-800 have to be operated at six
flights per day, and the 737-700 and
A319 at seven flights per day.
The overall effect on the number of
seats provided and total trip cost is
shown (see table, page 31). The 737-800,
A321 and A319 provide the biggest
saving per seat reduced or added.
Continue Reading in linked website:
