27 Monday Jan 2014
Posted in General Aviation Interest
Project Airbus Tech is pleased to announce the availability of the chapter on the A320’s Oxygen: ATA 35.
This is a milestone in the project, with just 3 chapters left to complete this A320 Q&A Bank.
We thank each and every one of you for the support lent, in any which way possible, including reviewing the answers. Hats off to Sushank Gupta for taking the efforts to answer the questions.
To view the chapter on Oxygen, click HERE.
18 Saturday Jan 2014
Posted in Manufacturer, Operations
Tags
A319, A320, Analysis, CS300, CSeries, Delay, Dreamliner, Narrowbody, NEO
The first CS100 intended for commercial service being assembled.
Bombardier’s announcement: revising the entry into service (EIS) of the CSeries: came as a surprise to noone. You didn’t even need company insiders to leak information about the slow progress of the test flight campaign. The media front-ending is clue enough: the lack of updates, and the general lowly feeling : gave away a test flight campaign with nothing much to talk about.
Bombardier isn’t the first manufacturer to declare intensive test flight campaigns and program milestones, only to show the world that their program management planning wasn’t planned at all. The trend has been in alphabetical order: Airbus – Boeing – Bombardier. The Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787 programs talked of entry into service dates that were too good, only to be found later that that they were too good to be true.
For Airbus, the A380 was a first: in terms of size, wiring, and a level of coordination in design that was not well coordinated. For Boeing, the airplane was, technically, a new design, with many firsts: technical and production, leading to software issues, and supply issues.
The graph below shows how unique, technically challenging, and possibly operationally “disruptive” airplane programs, show longer periods between the first flight & entry into service (EIS). The A300 was Airbus’ first airplane; the A340 was Airbus’ first quad-jet. The A350 has nothing special about it: it builds upon the A380’s avionics & software; the only thing new is the extent of use of composites. 12 months for the program should be doable.
Legend: Blue: Past programs, Red: programs with significant gap between FF & EIS, Orange: Programs in progress.
In comparison to the A380 and the 787 programs, the CSeries is a “stranger” airplane for Bombardier. It is Bombardier’s first all new airliner design (the CRJ series is a derivative of the Challenger from Canadair, the Q400 is a modification of De-Havilland’s turboprop offering), the manufacturer’s first airplane so big, the first airplane in the world to fly with the PW1000G Geared Turbofan Engine (never before has such a large GTF ever flown), the companies first fly-by-wire aircraft, Bombardier’s first foray into designing an all composite wing for a commercial aircraft, and the first use of Al-Li on such scale on a narrowbody aircraft.
It is so new, that it is to Bombardier what the 787 is to Boeing. A great airplane, promising excellent fuel savings, but exhibiting a huge leap in technology & process: a toxic combination that introduces too many variables in one go.
The CSeries program has pushed the first deliverers by nine months to the second half of 2015, taking the time between first flight and EIS to a projected 21 months. The CS300, is expected to enter service 6 months later.
That is terrible news for Bombardier: The CS300 is expected to enter service in early 2016.
The CSeries was the very aircraft that made Airbus and Boeing reengine their airplane. But with the A320NEO planned to enter service in 2015, the popular single aisle family, which members A319NEO and A320NEO compete directly & indirectly with the CS300, will be available earlier, and with a better appeal: thanks to a proven airframe: the A320 family’s. Considering that Airbus can afford upto 25% off on the list prices, the A319NEO can be sold for for US$70.8M, about US$7M costlier than the CS300’s list price. The CS300 burns lesser fuel than the A319NEO, and is expected to have the same operating cost per seat as the A320NEO. The CS300 still has an appeal: massive appeal. Technically that is, operationally: uncertain.
“We are taking the required time to ensure a flawless entry-into-service. We are very pleased that no major design changes have been identified, this gives us confidence that we will meet our performance targets,” said Mike Arcamone, President, Bombardier Commercial Aircraft.
But questions still linger in the minds of most: with so much so new to Bombardier, how reliable will the airplane be? Will the CSeries become the narrowbody “Dreamliner”?
15 Wednesday Jan 2014
Posted in Manufacturer, Operations
“I remember when we had very strong demand for A319s, then it shifted to the larger capacity A320 version…and we’re now seeing very, very strong demand for A321s”, explained John Leahy, Airbus’ Chief Operating Officer – Customers, during the 2013-2032 Global Market Forecast press briefing in September, 2013.
Almost a month later, the US Based carrier JetBlue Airways, deferred deliveries of its 100 seat Embraer 190 aircraft, ordering instead 35 Airbus A320 family aircraft: 20 A321NEO and 15 A320CEO aircraft. The airline seeks to reduce costs with the Airbus A320 aircraft which burn less fuel per seat, but with a largr capacity: 150 passengers for the A320 and 190 passengers for the A321.
Back home, and one month before JetBlue’s decision to focus on larger capacity aircraft, the “JetBlue of India”, IndiGo, opted for 20 Airbus A321NEO aircraft, of its 180 all A320 order back in 2011, exercising the option that was inked in the deal.
Airlines, which stayed away from the A321, which accounts for 20% of all Airbus A320 family (A318, A319 CEO+NEO ,A320CEO+NEO, A321CEO+NEO) orders, are now leaning toward the A321NEO because it promises the affordable operating costs that otherwise kept airlines at bay: different aircraft sub-type, and higher operating cost. Suddenly, the A321NEO’s reduced operating costs, thanks to the fuel saving sharklets and the PW1100G Geared Turbofan Engine, make the added 20-30seats affordably attractive.
To the airlines, higher seat capacity at reduced operating costs means higher profit potential. Note potential.
Statistically, the best performing airline in the country, IndiGo, has the best load factors,: an average of 81.4% over 5 years from 2009-2013, with the highest being 83.8% in 2010. IndiGo’s added capacity, and demand has grown, but the effect on load factors has been nil; the average load factors remain more or less constant. So getting larger airplanes will not have a significant impact on load factors, but may slightly increase profits per flight on account of the reduced operating cost per seat.
Indigo’s single-type fleet of Airbus A320 aircraft can accommodate 180 passengers. 83.8% load factor corresponds to 150 seats. So why not replace the fleet with A319s?
A 150 seat airplane like the Airbus A319, or its direct competitor, the Boeing 737-700 is costlier to operate, per seat, as a shorter aircraft isn’t as optimized as the longer aircraft it was derived from. But what if you had an aircraft with a cost per seat as much as that of the A320NEO (which is claimed to be 15% more efficient than the A320 CEO), but with 150 seats? This would make the aircraft cheaper to operate, have lower capacity but push load factors closer to 100%, while keeping the fares low, or possibly lower than the competition.
The smaller, efficient aircraft, like what Bombardier claims of its CSeries CS300, has lesser seats to sell to break even, has the same cost per seat as the A320NEO, costs lesser to operate, but doesn’t have to fly with many empty seats if the tickets are priced low, or lower than the competition, and the brand marketed well.
Assuming that the breakeven load factor (BELF) for a particular, fixed operating environment is 70% for the Airbus A320NEO, and assuming that the CSeries CS300 fitted with 150 seats has a similar BELF, then with the A320NEO, the airline must sell 126 seats to break even, while sell only 105 seats on the CS300 to break even. Considering the average of 150 seats occupied, per flight, on average, the A320NEO flies 24 passengers contributing to the airline’s profits, while the CSeries CS300 flies 45 passengers contributing to the airline’s profits. Of course, if both aircraft flew with 100% load factors, on a dense route, the A320 gets 54 passengers contributing to profits, but that is only a potential, not a guarantee.
Unfortunately, airline pricing and BELF aren’t so simple, but this gives you a rough idea of what is possible with the CSeries CS300 in the Indian market.
For those who didn’t get it: What’s possible is an all CS300-fleet airline, that shoots right into profitability, defeating the competition. Is it this simple? Only IF Bombardier delivers its promise of meeting the projected costs per seat, and if Bombardier’s not-that-great image relating to aircraft dispatch reliability and maintenance issues are sorted: something that will be a challenge considering that almost everything about the aircraft, including the very design, is new, and without decades of airframe maturity like that of Airbus’s or Boeing’s narrowbody market leaders.
The conundrum: Increase capacity and increase both the profit potential as well as the risk of a loss on a route, should the loads go either ways. Decrease capacity and introduce a stronger element of predictability and control, but lowering the profit potential.
What would you choose?
12 Sunday Jan 2014
Posted in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer
Airbus’ marketing seems to have gone on a slightly unrealistic overdrive, with its “Felt squashed on a recent flight? It’s not you, it’s the seat” campaign, which states:
“Airbus offers an entire product line of modern, efficient jetliners designed for today’s standard of passenger comfort: at least an 18-inch wide seat in economy class.”
That statement isn’t true. Data published by Airbus shows that the A320 family’s cabin can have either 18 inch wide seats and a 19 inch aisle, or 17 inch wide seats and a 25 inch aisle. Indigo Airlines has the 17 inch seat option. The campaign doesn’t explicitly mention the “long haul economy standard” set by Airbus, and slyly brings the A320 into the picture as well.
“The company’s entire product line is designed for modern comfort standards, ranging from the single-aisle A320 Family to the widebody A330 and A350 XWB families and the 21st century flagship A380 jetliner – which has a standard 18.5-inch seat in economy class.“
“Seat width is one of the most important – yet often overlooked – factors for passenger comfort. With an extra inch, compared to the 17-inch industry norm set in the 1950s that is still used by other aircraft manufacturers, Airbus jetliners offers travellers more personal space and room for lateral movement.”
Embraer offers 18.25 inch wide seats (though another technical documentation points to 18 inch wide seats) in the economy, across the E Jet series (as per company published data). The C-Series, which has threatened the A318, A319, and in part the A320 members of the A320 family, has seats that (claimed by Bombardier) are a mix of 18.5 inch wise seats and 19 inch seats (see image above). These are far wider, and more comfortable than the seats on the A320, and even the A380 in economy (claimed to be 18.5 inch wide). So, “Airbus cabins are designed to offer passengers and airlines the highest levels of comfort, services and efficiency.“?
Airbus’ inadequate and improper “research”, states “It’s not you, it’s the seat” and “the 17-inch industry norm set in the 1950s” in the same page (CLICK HERE). Truth be told, Rebecca Utz, from the University of Utah, presented a paper, “Obesity in America, 1960-2000: Is it an Age, Period, or Cohort Phenomenon?”, which shows how its “You” and not the “Seat” that has grown too big to fit in a 17 inch wide seat.
Funny huh?
06 Monday Jan 2014
Posted in Flight Safety
Tags
200, 600, 767, A320, Accident, Air, Airbus, Aspen, Boeing, Bombardier, Challenger, CRJ, Emergency, HS-BKE, Incident, India, Jaipur, N115WF, Saudi, Spicejet, VT-ESH
The black book of aviation safety suddenly experienced a spike in entries on January 5th, 2014. There were three accidents and one incident on Jan 5th, 2014. There was only one fatality.
At around 01:00UTC, A Saudi Boeing 767-300, registered HS-BKE, landed at Madinah (Saudi Arabia) with the right main gear still retracted. The crew were first made aware of the situation when they were on approach, and extended the gear only to observe an unsafe indication for the right main. The crew put the aircraft into a hold, followed applicable checklists, including what appears to be a gravity extension, but after being unable to resolve the issue, landed on the third attempt, on the left main, and the right engine. There were no injuries as a direct result of the accident, but because of chaos during the evacuation. The aircraft seems to have sustained substantial damage.
At around 13:00UTC, a Bombardier CRJ200 registered N8758D, landed at New York’s (USA) John F Kennedy’s runway 22L, and slid off the taxiway exit J, and came to stop on soft ground, temporarily shutting the airport for 2 hours. No injuries were reported.
At around 14:00UTC, an Airbus A320-231 with the double bogey landing gear, registered VT-ESH, landed at Jaipur International Airport (India), burst its tyres, and damaged its left wing significantly. The aircraft was operating a scheduled domestic into Delhi, but was forced to divert to Jaipur due to visibility at Delhi, where it declared a fuel emergency and reportedly landed below minima (landing in visibility below the allowable runway visual range (RVR)), due to a fuel emergency. Uncertainty remains on the cause of wing damage: whether the wing scraped the ground, or the wing hit obstacles after reportedly (but unlikely) veering off the runway after landing. The closure of Jaipur Airport due to this accident forced a Spicejet 737, registered VT-SGU, which was supposed to have landed at Delhi, but was forced to divert to Jaipur due to visibility, to return to Delhi, where it declared a fuel emergency, and reportedly landed below minima.
At around 19:20UTC, a Bombardier Challenger 600 registered N115WF, reportedly land, turn into a fireball, flipped a few times, and skid to a stop, upside down, on runway 15 at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, CO (ASE, USA). The accident left the airplane charred, took the life of one on board, while seriously injuring another, and mildly injured the third person on board. The right wing had snapped off. The aircraft had executed a go around, citing a tailwind, and came to rest in this condition on the second landing attempt. Other traffic had reported mild windshear and gusting winds.
10 Sunday Nov 2013
Posted in Manufacturer
Tags
319, 321, 737, A320, aile, Airbus, backlog, Boeing, hamburg, MAX, NEO, Orders, Production, rate, Renton, single, tianjin, tolouse
Just when the 747-8’s production rate was ramped down at its Everett facility (state of Washington), Boeing announced that the 737’s production rate will be ramped up at its Renton, Washington facility , from its existing 38 airplanes per month, to 42 per month in the first half of 2014, and next 47 airplanes per month in 2017, the highest rate ever for its best-selling airliner. Boeing currently has more than 3,400 unfilled orders across the 737 family, which includes the 737Max.
Airbus, in contrast, has 4,223 unfilled orders across the Airbus A320 family, which includes the A320NEO. Across its global production facilities, Airbus already produces 42 airplanes a month since 2012, the highest-ever rate for any commercial aircraft, and has no immediate plans for a production ramp up over concerns of supply chain fragility.
The A320 Family is produced on two Airbus assembly lines in Europe: Toulouse, France and Hamburg, Germany; which have been complemented by an additional facility in China. Toulouse is home to the initial assembly line, building A320s; Hamburg has responsibility for the A318, A319 and A321; while Tianjin assembles A319s and A320s.
Tianjin is Airbus’ first assembly facility located outside of Europe, resulting from a joint venture involving Airbus with a Chinese consortium comprising the Tianjin Free Trade Zone (TJFTZ) and China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC).
Joining this network will be a new A320 Family production facility in Mobile, Alabama USA, which is to build A319, A320 and A321 jetliners beginning in 2015.
Boeing, however, produces the Boeing 737 only at its Renton facility.
10 Sunday Nov 2013
Posted in Manufacturer
Airbus has assembled the first major airframe component assembly: the engine pylon for the first A320neo to fly. The pylon was assembled at the dedicated pylon facility in St Eloi in Toulouse.
In parallel with this pylon construction, other major NEO components and subassemblies will shortly be taking shape in factories across various countries. For example, in Hamburg the centre wing-box will soon arrive from Nantes to be integrated in the fuselage, and also the rear fuselage will begin assembly there. In St. Nazaire, the forward fuselage will start assembly in January 2014.
The Pratt & Whitney PW1100G Engine, which will power the A320NEO (New Engine Option) family, first flew on the 15th of May 2013. The Winglets, referred to as Sharklets by Airbus, are already mature and flying attached to most recently produced A320 aircraft, henceforth known as A320CEO (Classic Engine Option) family.
There will be no significant changes to the flight deck avionics and airframe.
Final NEO assembly is expected to start in the spring of 2014, followed by the aircraft’s first flight planned next autumn.
09 Saturday Nov 2013
Posted in Operations
A paying passenger’s experience of a mix of the good and bad of Air India, and thoughts on what gives passengers enough to talk so much about the airline, and how the airline makes things difficult for itself.
4th November saw me flying Bangalore to Bhopal via Delhi, with confirmed tickets for my return on the 8th of November.
On the 3rd, I had web-checked in, and changed my assigned 20J to 17J. The nine abreast cabin promised me the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, and although I have been on board, I hadn’t got airborne on one. I was excited with the thought of experiencing the cabin’s low noise levels and comfort.
The next day, at the check in counter, the check-in staff cleared my e-ticket with seat 17J. Upon a friend’s insistence, I asked the staff if we had a Boeing 787 operating as Air India 505 to Delhi. “Yes sir, it’s a Boeing 320”. “Excuse me?”. “Wait sir….it’s a…sorry…Airbus”. “How did you issue me seat 17J, then?” “Sorry sir (taking my boarding pass and scratching out my seat)…it’s 12F for you!”.
VT-EDD, a 3 year 8 month young Airbus A320 flew us from Bangalore to Delhi. The in flight meal was not palatable, and that left the tray untouched and me hungry. The cabin was tidy, but some of the in-flight entertainment screens weren’t working. Most of the seats were empty: the loads were very low, and that allowed me a “54” inch wide seat in economy: 3 X 18” seats all for myself. Upon landing at Delhi, I quickly grabbed a sandwich at Costa Coffee, and proceeded to board AI634 to Bhopal.
AI634 was operated by VT-SCI, a 6 year old Airbus A319 that was kept in a very bad state. The cabin was dirty, the wings had paint chipped off at places, and fluid stains running across the wing. The male cabin crew wasn’t very pleasant, and the “snacks” served on board wasn’t great, either.
Both flights operated on time, but the food, aircraft cleanliness (or the lack of it), and the attitude of the cabin crew left a bad taste.
On the 8th, I was at Bhopal airport, and a scheduled 18:00 local departure on AI633 to Delhi was revised to 18:35. The Bhopal-Delhi flight has a planned block time of 01:15hr. All passengers had boarded VT-PPX, a 3year 6 month old Airbus A321 part of the “Praful Patel” series of Airbus airplanes. At 18:52, cargo was still being loaded. My connecting flight to Bangalore from Delhi was scheduled to depart at 20:10: earlier than we could reach Delhi, and I was braced for some chaos at the airport.
The in-flight “snacks” consisted of two butter cookies (very good, I must say), and tea/coffee. The staff was very, very courteous. The Cabin Crew in charge managed the show very well, coordinating between the pilot and anxious passengers who had connecting flights that were scheduled to depart before we could land at Delhi. Extreme patience was shown, and nobody: neither the passengers nor the cabin crew had an opportunity to lose their cool.
Upon landing at Delhi, ground staff very clearly called out for those who were headed to Bangalore. Three ground personnel coordinated very well, taking care of 10 of us who had to make it to the Bangalore flight that was waiting just for us to board. Over the radios, the baggage’s were discussed, and although tension prevailed in their voice, they got us through service stairs out of the terminal, onto the apron and into an apron shuttle, and back up via service stairs to the airbridge that led us to VT-EDC, aged the same as VT-EDD, operating as AI504 to Bangalore.
We got in, the doors closed, the cargo was loaded, erasing all apprehensions of leaving my bags behind, and at around 20:40, we pushed out of the gate, picking up 30 minutes of delay.
On board, the staff was very patient and courteous. My IFE was working, but my earphones were missing, so I called them once. I had a terrible ear block, so I troubled the crew many a time thereafter for water that allowed me to gulp fluids and help equalize the pressure in my eustachian tube.
And oh, the meal. I was hungry like crazy, and the paneer-rice-dal combination seemed fresh and was at the right temperature. This was accompanied with vegetable salad, and an Indian sweet dish: kheer. The bun was soft, and the butter softer, making the spread easy. It was a classic AI spread, but the spread was good.
The IFE worked well. There were about 4 channels: News, A retro-Hindi film playing, the 2013 “Kai Po Che”, and the 2010 “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps”.
I was woken by a cabin announcement. My seat, 15A, gave me a good view. Visibility at Bangalore was excellent, and I could see the airfield (identified by the white / green beacon) flashing in the distance. A Boeing 737 could be seen on short finals, as we were somewhat on the downwind leg. There was something magical about the combination of engine noise, great visibility, and clear skies.
We landed at 23:04, with a 20 minute delay. The flight crew had enroute made up for about 10 minutes of the delay.
This time, I walked out of the airline feeling real good about the aircraft cleanliness, service, and on-board meal.
Giving food for talk.
This got me wondering: The reason my client put me on an Air India flight was because of its fares: it was the lowest, and the airline still offers some of the lowest fares. While that should be a reason to smile and not bother about anything else, the very fact that one is “entitled” to a complimentary meal / snack on board results in expectations, and if it turns out to be bad, it leaves a bad impression. When a passenger sees an in-flight entertainment screen in front of his seat, his expectation is that it must work and entertain him. The same passenger wouldn’t mind staring at a blank seat on a low-cost carrier, but when his IFE isn’t working while his co-passenger enjoys a nice movie, it leaves a bad impression. When the aircraft is dirty, the windows greasy and the seats in a bad shape, it leaves a bad impression.
Making it difficult for itself.
Air India offers some of the lowest airfares, provides in-flight meals to all at no extra cost, usually has a very courteous cabin crew (many others find them to be the best in the country, in terms of approachability and service attitude), and has a good safety record. Yet, when the freebies fail to met expectations, anti-airline sentiments set in. These freebies cost the airline money, and the passenger nothing; yet expectations are very, very human. India is a cost-conscious market: Almost all domestic passengers do not buy an airline ticket for the in-flight entertainment, cabin service, the on-board meal, or the aircraft cleanliness. What matters most, to most, is something simple: on time performance.
Probably another way in which the airline can turnaround, make money and improve passenger satisfaction? Give them lesser to expect. Knock off the IFE, and the in-flight free meals. Passengers will soon get accustomed to paying for a meal and having nothing but sleep to engage themselves with. And they will continue to fly for the low fares. If the airline competes with low cost carriers and offers low fares, it may as well change its operations to low cost.
Like IndiGo, which has nothing to offer on board, yet has absolutely clean aircraft and flies with one eye on the watch. And nobody complains.
After all, when there is nothing to expect, there is nothing to disappoint.
06 Wednesday Nov 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest
Tigerair of Singapore, in which Singapore Airlines has a stake of 32.8%, unveiled the first A320 aircraft to be retrofitted in Asia with Sharklets. Five A320s have already been delivered to Tigerair with Sharklet-ready wings, with the retrofit work being undertaken by Sepang Aircraft Engineering in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sharklet-ready wings are already strengthened to the necessary levels to handle the bending and twisting forces introduced by the additional aerodynamic surface. The retrofit takes just 2 days for such ready wings. Non-sharklet ready wings will need at least 13 days of work with the sharklet-retrofit kit, which will be available only in 2015.
Jet Blue made “history” in the February of 2013 by being the first operator to perform a production retrofit, on its aircraft N821JB (MSN 5417 which first flew on the 1st of December, 2012). This aircraft was produced before MSN 5428, which is now registered as 9M-AQQ, flying for Air Asia, that had made “history” as the first Sharklet Equipped A320 to be delivered.
Factory fit and production retrofit can be better understood here.
In addition to its retrofitted aircraft, 9V-TRK (MSN 5697 delivered on the 26th of July 2013 to Tigerair), Tigerair will start taking delivery of production-fitted Sharklet aircraft later this year.
You can read more about Sharklets here.
03 Sunday Nov 2013
Posted in Manufacturer
Almost a year after the first Airbus A320 equipped with a sharklet was delivered, Airbus announced the launch of the sharklet retrofit program for in-service A320 aircraft, and will be available in 2015.
This retrofit includes reinforcing the wing structure and adding the Sharklet wingtip device. As part of the upgrade, the retrofit will lengthen the aircraft’s service life and thus maximise the operators’ return on investment for the Sharklet retrofit.
The extent of reinforcement and more details on the sharklets may be viewed here, in this comprehensive article on Winglets and Sharklets.
Airbus will offer the retrofit initially for A320 and A319 models and will evaluate a retrofit for the A321 at a later stage.
The Sharklets’ benefits include a fuel consumption reduction by up to 4 per cent (Only on long sectors), and an extension of mission range by 100 nautical miles or payload capability increase by up to 450 kilogrammes.
Sharklets equipped on new-build A320 Family aircraft have been delivered by Airbus since December 2012, with more than 184 received by customers and operators to date. MSN 5428 is the first sharklet equipped Airbus A320. In India, only two operators of the Airbus A320 feature sharklet equipped A320s in their fleet: IndiGo and GoAir.
In Indigo, VT-IFH onwards, up to the latest, VT-IFV feature sharklets. Out of 71 Airbus A320 in the airline’s fleet, 15 are equipped with sharklets.
In Go Air, VT-GOL onwards, up to the latest, VT-GOP feature sharklets. Out of 18 Airbus A320 in the airline’s fleet, 5 are equipped with sharklets.
There are 112 Airbus A320 in India (excluding A321 and A319), 17.8% of which are equipped with fuel-saving sharklets.
21 Monday Oct 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer
Tags
195X, A320, BELF, Bombardier, Break, C, Composite, E, E2, Embraer, Engine, Even, Factor, Gear, Jet, jetBlue, Load, Metal, Series, Turbofan, Wings
In this piece, we look into the significance of the E-Jets, particularly the 100 seat E-190, and the need for the Brazilian manufacturer’s launch of the upgraded, “Second generation” E-Jets.
The Embraer E-Jets: Making Regional Sense.
Bombardier stepped into the 70 seat jet space with the introduction of its CRJ700 into commercial operations in 2001, with Brit Air. 3 years later, Embraer introduced its 70 seat jet to commercial operations, with LOT Polish airlines. Till date, 192 Embraer E-170s have been sold, while the 70 seat CRJ700 has sold 347 airplanes.
One Embraer regional jet, that has been very well received, is the 100 seat Embraer 190, which, till date, has raked up 560 orders. No other Bombardier 70+ seat aircraft, including the C-Series has managed to touch those numbers, yet.
The Embraer 190 makes absolute sense. The typical single class cabin of the airplane accommodates 100 passengers comfortably. JetBlue, the largest operator of the E-190 with 59 aircraft, complements its Airbus A320 fleet of 129 aircraft. Jet Blue’s A320s are fitted with 150 seats.
Way back in 2003, when JetBlue had an all-Airbus A320 fleet and the cabins had 156 seats, the break-even load factor (BELF), as published by the airline, was around 72%, corresponding to 112 seats. To open up more routes which would have a demand less than this BELF, the 100 seat Embraer 190 was introduced in 2005. In the light of its reduced A320 seating, and spiralling fuel prices, the airline’s A320’s BELF has only gone up, further stressing the need for the Embraer 190.
Embraer acknowledges that a big advantage for E-Jet operators today is their ability to use the aircraft to “right-size” in lower-density markets.
But also acknowledged in 2010 was the realisation that if Airbus or Boeing re-engine their narrowbodies, and achieve better costs per trip, the advantage enjoyed by the E-Jets would disappear.
The upgrade saga
This left only two options for Embraer: Introduce a clean-sheet airplane that competes with Airbus and Boeing’s popular narrowbody families-A320 and 737-an idea that has played with Embraer since 2009; or do something to the existing offering to retain the regional jet family’s attractiveness to operators.
Late 2011, Embraer formally confirmed its decision to abandon the development of a competing airplane (which otherwise would have put 4 players in the coveted segment, including Bombardier with its C-Series), and instead focus on enhancing the value of the Embraer 170 and 190 families through a possible stretch and a definite re-engine, at an estimated program cost of US$1.7 billion. This was the outcome of Boeing announcing the delivery of the 737Max in 2017: a period too short for Embraer to both hold its grip on the market with its existing offering while developing a competing airliner. This also reflects the industry’s lower appetite for risk.
Embraer started working with E-Jet customers to define the performance goals and technical characteristics of the new aircraft family. One of the considerations was a composite airframe. Early 2012, Air Lease Corp advised Embraer to stretch the Embraer E-190 by 1 row (4 seats) and the E-195 by 2-3 rows (8-12 seats). The aim was to add capacity to compete with the CS100, while allowing for pricing flexibility in the light of much lower development costs associated with an airplane upgrade rather than a clean sheet design. Adding to this advantage is the huge customer base of Embarer’s E-Jets. A customer would prefer an upgrade “within the aircraft family” for near-seamless operational integration, rather than an all-new aircraft.
Embraer claims to be not just re-engining, but investing heavily to achieve the efficiency of a clean-sheet design. In January 2013, Embraer selected the Pratt and Whitney Geared Turbofan PW1000G series to power the second generation E170 and E190/E195 aircraft, which it calls the “E-Jet E2 family”. The wings will feature a higher aspect ratio, longer wingspan, and raked wing tips instead of winglets. The landing gear will be lengthened to accommodate the larger engines, and the flight deck will feature the Honeywell’s Primus Epic™ 2 advanced integrated avionics system with large landscape displays, advanced graphics capabilities, and Honeywell’s Next Generation Flight Management System (NGFMS). The new airplanes will be 100% fly-by-wire, unlike the in-production E-Jets.
Unlike the C-Series, the wings for the E-Jet E2 are all metal, as, according to Embraer, composites aren’t cost-effective for such-sized airplanes. Embarer’s late announcement of the selection of the geared turbofan actually stands in its favour: the airframer benefits from Pratt and Whitney’s work on the smaller PW1200G for the Mitsubishi Regional Jet (MRJ), and the larger, mature PW1500G for the C-Series, both of which engine families are almost identical to those being offered for the E-Jets.: The PW1700G for the E175-E2 and the larger PW1900G for the E190/195-E2.
The reason to select the Geared Turbofan is not just the gear in the fan, which optimises fan speeds for greater efficiencies. The significant thermal margins available can allow for future engine thrust upgrades, allowing for further aircraft upgrades with the same engine family.
Plane Facts & 4-cast
The E-175 E2 can seat 88 passengers in a single class, in a comfortable 31” seat pitch. The in-production E-175 can seat only 78 passengers, comfortably, and 88 with an undesirable 29” seat pitch.
The E-190-E2, which is poised to continue the legacy of the well-performing in production E-190, comfortably seats an additional 6 passengers in a uniform 31” seat pitch. The existing E-190 can seat 114 passengers, but with a compromised seating comfort. The fuel efficiencies of the E-190-E2 lend it more range than the E-190.
The E-195-E2 seats 132 passengers in a uniform 31” seat pitch. The In-production E-195 can seat no more than 124 passengers in high capacity, and 116 in single class (with 31% of the seats featuring a 32” pitch, and 69% featuring a 31” pitch). Sometime in 2009, Embraer had studied an aircraft of such capacity, dubbed the E-195X, which would have used the same engines as the E-195. The concept was eventually dropped in 2010 the light of degraded aircraft performance in the absence of a re-engine.
Owing to its poor sales and the drop in demand for 70 seat jets, the E-170 won’t be re-engined.
Embraer’s best bet is on the 106 seat E-190-E2, and hence is focusing all its energy in targeting an entry-into-service (EIS) of mid-2018. The E-195-E2 will follow in 2019, and the E175-E2 in 2020.
Embraer foresees a demand for 6,400 commercial jets with capacity of up to 130 seats, over the next 20 years. With more than 1,200 E-Jets orders, Embraer has achieved a 42% market share in its segment. While Embraer will aggressively compete with Bombardier’s CS100, its present and future E-Jet offering has, and will eclipse Bombardier’s present line up of the CRJ family: CRJ700, CRJ900 and the CRJ1000, all three now marketed with the NextGen suffixes. Embraer is poised to grab a large share of that forecasted market.
*This section builds on research for a comprehensive article on the C-Series by The Flying Engineer.
19 Saturday Oct 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer
Tags
1000, 110, 170, 190, 195, 700, 737, 90, 900, A320, Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, BRJ, CRJ, E, Embraer, Jets, X
Bombardier’s success with the CRJ 100/200 airplanes, which eventually sold 935 units, made it explore significantly larger capacity airplanes, in the 100 seat segment. According to Bombardier’s study in 1998, there was a growing requirement for larger aircraft in the fleets of the world’s regional airlines. To keep up with the growth in mainline fleets, Bombardier felt that regional fleet must grow in both size and capacity. The company felt that if the regional fleet did not grown beyond 50 seats, the number of 50-seaters required to satisfy demand would quadruple.
Bombardier identified a gap between its 50-70 seat CRJ series, and the smallest of the Airbus and Boeing single aisle offering: the Airbus A318 and the Being 737-600, both with typical single class capacity of around 120 passengers. Even before a formal launch, Bombardier had unveiled during the Farnborough Air show in 1998 the 88 seat BRJ-X-90 and the 110 seat BRJ-X-110, the “BRJ” short for Bombardier Regional Jet.
The BRJ-X-110 was applauded by airlines as a true 100 seat airplane, unlike attempts by Airbus and Boeing to scale down much larger airplanes. Although during that time, the first of the Brazilian Embraer E-Jets, the 80 seat ERJ 170, competitor to the CRJ700, hadn’t yet taken to the skies, published drawings of the BRJ-X airplanes bore an external resemblance to the new Embraer jets. But the cabin was wider, with a 5 abreast seating.
Threats from the new Embraer jets, which had a significant head start, and the then Fairchild-Dornier’s 50-110 seat regional jetliners, forced Bombardier to rethink the BRJ program. Late 1999, despite having further matured the design of its “paper airplanes”, Bombardier switched focus from the BRJ-X-90 to the stretched CRJ700: the 90 seat CRJ 900. According to Michael Graff, the then President of Bombardier Aerospace, “ They (airlines) have told us that a simple stretch of the CRJ 700series rather than an all new aircraft in the 90 seat category will meet their requirements for increased capacity at reduced acquisition and operating costs”
Mid 2000, although the BRJ-X-90 was killed, the entire BRJ program was suspended, but never cancelled. In the March of 2004, the 114 seat Embraer 190 took to the skies on its first flight, and Bombardier had no airplane to compete in that class. In July of the same year, Bombardier announced the development of the C Series as a replacement for the shelved BRJ-X project.
The C Series then had two variants: the 125 seat CS110 and the 145 seat CS130. But after failing to secure significant orders, and in the light of the certification of the Embraer 190 in 2005, the program was shelved in early 2006, and the focus again shifted to lengthening the CRJ series, to a 100 seat CRJ1000.
In the July of 2006, EASA certified the 124 passenger Embraer 195, competing directly with the shelved CS110. Bombardier was trailing its only significant regional jet competitor, Embraer, with no competing airplane.
Early 2007, Bombardier re-commenced work on the C Series program. In the July of 2008, Bombardier officially launched the C Series, with a letter of interest for 60 aircraft and 30 options from Lufthansa.
Having the right product at the right time bode well for the Brazilian airframer. The CRJ 700, 900 and 1000 combined have orders (as of 30 June 2013) of 723 airplanes, of which 91 are unfulfilled. On the other hand, the Brazilian Embraer E-Jets, comprising the E-170/175 and 190/195 families, have total firm orders of 1213, of which 266 are unfulfilled. Bombardier had to stop trailing and start leading, and focus on the clean sheet C Series was the only way out.
*This section is part of a much bigger, comprehensive article on the C-Series by The Flying Engineer.
04 Friday Oct 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest
Project Airbus Tech (PAT) is just 5 chapters away from covering the entire Airbus A320. PAT has been extremely useful for pilots who have needed a technical refresher, a review before sims, those headed for the type rating, and has also been useful to those who have appeared for their Command interview. PAT has never failed to help Airbus A320 pilots who have seeked help on the airplane’s systems. CLICK HERE to access PAT.
Even more interesting is the man behind PAT’s execution: Sushank Gupta. Sushank was one among 20 IGRUANs who appeared for the written test conducted by CAE for the “CAE-IndiGo assessment A320 Type Rating Program”. The test was conducted over 3 days, between the 16th and the 18th of April 2012. Sushank appeared on the 16th, and that was when the Flying Engineer met Sushank for the first time at Bangalore.
Having cleared the written, the interview was finally conducted, after a year and four months of the written, on the 16th of August, 2013. On the 8th of September, 2013, Sushank was sent an email from IndiGo informing him having successfully cleared the interview , and the hard copy of the Letter Of Intent having been dispatched by IndiGo.
Sushank is on his way to an approximately 10 week long type rating program, which will be held either at Madrid, Dubai, or Bangalore.
The first round in this entire process consisted of a written test: the aviation knowledge test. This was followed by a second round, which is the CASS: The CAE Crew Assessment and Selection System. The CASS consisted of a personality evaluation, an informal interview, an English test on spoken and comprehension, psycho-motor tests involving basic flying skills that also test the examinee’s abilities to multitask and process information in a stressful environment.
The third and final round consisted of a Group Discussion (GD) followed by an interview. Those on the interview panel included the Vice President: Flight Operations at IndiGo Airlines; Examiner on the A320 and Chief Pilot, Flight Operations, IndiGo Airlines; and the Vice-President of HR, IndiGo.
The Type rating Program will cost US$ 34,500, which is approximately INR 21 Lakhs.
Sushank will immensely benefit from Project Airbus Tech. The Airbus A320 is a complex airplane that requires a deep understanding of the airplane. 10 weeks is too short a time to master the airplane, but Sushank’s efforts on PAT will pay him rich dividends in mastering the 320 earlier than his peers.
We wish him all the best!
08 Sunday Sep 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest
CFM International, a 50/50 joint company between Snecma (Safran) and GE, announced on 7th September that it has initiated testing of the first full LEAP engine, specifically the LEAP-1A for the Airbus A320 NEO, “launching an extensive ground and flight test certification program that will encompass 60 engine builds over the next three years”.
The program will result in engine certification in 2015 and planned first entry into commercial service on the Airbus A320NEO in 2016. On September 4th, the engine ran for the first time, and yesterday, achieved full takeoff thrust. The LEAP-1A’s program is way behind the Pratt and Whitney’s PW1100G’s: the PW1100G began airborne testing nearly 3 months ago, while the LEAP-1A’s ground testing has just begun.
The LEAP series of engines will power the Airbus A320neo (optional engine), Boeing 737 Max and COMAC C919 families of aircraft. In contrast, the PW1000G family of engines will power the Airbus A320NEO family (optional engine), Bombardier CSeries, Mitsubishi Regional Jet (MRJ), Embraer’s second generation E-Jets, and as the Irkut MS-21 (optional engine).
CFM officially launched the LEAP engine, which is the company’s first all-new centerline engine in nearly 40 years, in 2008. The engine was being designed to bring double-digit improvements in fuel efficiency, emissions and noise, while maintaining the “legendary reliability and low cost of ownership” of its predecessor, the CFM56 engine family.
According to CFM, “The foundation of the LEAP engine is heavily rooted in advanced aerodynamics, environmental, and materials technology development programs. It will provide 15 percent better fuel consumption and an equivalent reduction in CO2 emissions compared to today’s best CFM engine, along with dramatic reductions in engine noise and emissions.”
For a deeper insight into the CFM LEAP-1A and its competitor of the Airbus A320 NEO, the Pratt and Whitney PW1100G, read a comprehensive article HERE.
31 Saturday Aug 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest
CAE 7000 series simulators
IndiGo’s parent company, Interglobe Enterprises, and CAE-Airbus had “broken ground” in the November of 2011 to establish a new pilot and maintenance technician training centre in Delhi. The new centre, located specifically in the Greater Noida Industrial Area, about 40 kilometers southeast of Delhi, is not for the exclusive use of IndiGo airlines, but rather for airlines in India and the neighbouring region.
The focus of the new Delhi training centre will be to provide “wet” and “dry” type-rating, recurrent, conversion and jet indoctrination training for commercial aircraft pilots. Programs will also be offered for maintenance technicians. The Delhi training centre was planned to initially house four full-flight simulators and was planned to accommodate eight simulator bays. Training technology such as CAE Simfinity multimedia classrooms, computer-based training and brief/debrief facilities are used.
Although planned to house 8 full flight simulator bays, the new centre has only 6 full flight simulator bays, with which it plans to “train 5000 professionals per year”. The Full Flight Simulator facility at Bangalore has 3 simulator bays (Two A320 and one B737NG), with the capacity to train 1500 crew members annually. This figure boils down to 500 crew members per FFS per year, leading the Delhi centre to train a maximum of 3000 crewmembers annually.
Of the six simulator bays, only 2 are occupied, at the moment, by two CAE Series 7000 A320s level D simulators, which can handle a maximum of 1000 crew members, annually, until more simulators are added.
This simulator facility marks CAE’s 5th training centre in India, after the CAE FFS centre and CAE “Hatsoff” Helicopter Simulator facility at Bangalore, Praful Patel’s flight school: National Flying Training Institute NFTI bat Gondia, in which CAE has 49% stake, and IGRUA, which is doled out a step-motherly treatment by CAE considering its low stake and low control over operations at the premier flight institute in India.
This new facility at Delhi has begun operations 2 months after Airbus and CAE concluded their training services cooperation, which was done to provide “more flexibility for both companies to serve their respective stakeholders directly”. Airbus assures that “There will be no impact on any airline customers training with Airbus or with CAE following the conclusion of the existing cooperation agreement.”
The new simulator facility takes the total fixed wing Full Flight Simulator count, in India, to 13, comprising of eight A320, four B737NG, two B777, one B747, one B787, and one A330. These simulators are spread out across India, at CAE Bangalore (2 A320, 1 B737NG), CTE Hyderabad (3 A320), FSTC Delhi (1 A320, 1 B737NG), Jet Airways Mumbai (2 B737NG, 1 A330, 1 B777), and Air India Mumbai (1 B737NG, 1 B747, 1 B777, 1 B787).
The new centre takes CAE’s total to about 70 Airbus full-flight simulators in more than 20 locations worldwide. CAE operates the largest network of Airbus simulators.
10 Saturday Aug 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest, Technical
Project Airbus Tech now covers chapters ATA 33 (LIGHTS), ATA 36 (PNEUMATICS) and ATA 52 (DOORS). This leaves PAT with only 8 chapters out of 18 that cover the entire Airbus A320.
11 Thursday Jul 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest
Project Airbus Tech (PAT) has added chapters ATA 30 (Ice & Rain Protection) and ATA 32 (Landing Gear). This covers 8 out of 18 chapters! Quite an achievement by the hitherto sole project contributor, Sushank Gupta! We wish him all the very best as he appears for the Indigo interview: he deserves to get in!
Click on the Project Airbus Tech banner to access all 8 chapters.
08 Monday Jul 2013
Posted in Technical
Tags
1A, 1B, 737, A320, Airbus, Boeing, Bypass, CFM, Efficiency, Engine, GE, Geared, GTF, High, LEAP, MAX, NEO, Pratt, Propoulsive, PW1000G, PW1100G, PW1500G, Snecma, Turbofan, Ultra, Whitney
There is a buzz about the PW1100G Geared Turbofan Engine from Pratt and Whitney, that will power the first A320NEO. The PW1100G is a family of ultra-high bypass engines, part of the PW1000 series. The Flying Engineer welcomes you to enjoy the most technical take on the engine, that will leave you either educated, or snoring on your chair. Grab that coffee, and appreciate the next big thing in jet transport as we know today: Geared Turbofan Engines.
In this article, we explore, at a high level, the design of the PW1100G family, how it compares with existing A320 engines, the differences, on a high level, of this family with the competitor’s offering: the LEAP 1A, why the Boeing 737MAX family doesn’t need such a large turbofan engine, and finally, before concluding, the pros and cons of such an engine.
Read the article, here: https://theflyingengineer.com/flightdeck/pw1100g-gtf/
07 Friday Jun 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest
Air Asia India is much closer to taking wings. The airline, with the reputed brands: Air Asia and Tata, lending it wings, begun conducting simulator checks at CAE Bangalore, a few days ago, for Airbus A320 type rated and experienced applicants who were successfully through the interview process. Simulator sessions are about half hour each, in which the pilot monitoring (PM) and the Instructor are from Air Asia Malaysia. Pilots are checked on decision making skills, adherence to procedures, and logical prioritization in the face of compound failures and crew pressure. Few successful applicants have already been sent their offer letters.
Interestingly, the call sign used in the simulator sessions was “Tata1”. If this is any indication of the call sign that will be used operationally, it will serve as a proud reminder, every single day, of the family that brought civil aviation to this country: the Tatas. Things are expected to further shape up next month, into something more tangible.
Air Costa got two Embraer ERJ 170s at Vijayawada (one of them VT-LSR, the other’s registration yet unknown), and their incomplete website allows you to choose these destinations and origins: Vijayawada, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Vizag, Chennai, Ahmadabad, and Pune. Job postings calling for “Embraer 170 Captains and TRI/TRE” confirm the two initial bases: Chennai and Vijayawada.
2013 is going to be an interesting year when two initially South-India focused (and Chennai based) carriers take to the skies, further dividing the market, and waging a stronger war for a large share of the market’s airspace.
12 Friday Apr 2013
Posted in General Aviation Interest
Air Asia has begun recruiting India Based Captains and India based First Officers for Air Asia-India. Last date for applying for the posts is the 19th of April, 2013. You have 5 days!
The good news is that even CPL holders without a type rating or experience on the Airbus fleet, are encouraged to apply. All you need are a minimum of 200hrs total flying time! Of course, a type rating will stand in your favour.
Applications for the position of a captain has, what is seen rarely in the Indian Industry, a minimum age limit of 26 years. Applicants must hold a valid ATPL. Senior first officers with a minimum of 5,000 hours total flying time may apply.
This news brings hope to many presently employed with Kingfisher Airlines, as they stand a very high chance of being considered. There will be an exodus of pilots from Indigo towards Air Asia, as upgrades to the rank of a captain (P1) is taking much longer than the airline had promised earlier. Low seniority numbers will tempt many first officers and commanders to jump to the new Indian airline.
Kingfisher and Indigo crew are expected to form the major chunk of flight crew at Air Asia, followed by A320 rated first officers, and CPL holders.
Air Asia specifies clearly, “AirAsia has not appointed any third party agents to recruit on our behalf. Official recruitment should only be conducted through airasia.com, official social media platforms and/or email addresses (user@airasia.com)“
Follow the link below to the official Air Asia Page where you may apply:
Captains: http://www.airasia.com/in/en/about-us/india-captain.page
First Officers: http://www.airasia.com/in/en/about-us/india-first-officer.page
The Flying Engineer 