D 1.4 Final Report WP1

Transcription

1 D 1.4 Final Report WP1 WP / Task N : 1.4 Lead Contractor (deliverable responsible): FS Due date of deliverable XX. Actual submission date: XX. Report Period: 6 month 12 month 18 month Period covered: from: Month X to: Month X Grant Agreement number: Project acronym: RETROFIT Project title: Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleetwise Implementation of new Technology Funding Scheme: Support Action Start date of the project: 01/11/2010 Project coordinator name, title and organisation: M. Knegt, Fokker Services Tel: Fax: martin.knegt@stork.com Project website address: Duration: 12 months PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT

2

3 List of authors Full Name Emile Kroon Martin Knegt Robbert Pronk Erik Baalbergen Harry Tsahalis Company Information FS FS FS NLR Paragon Document Information Document Name: Final Report on WP1 Document ID: RETROFIT_D1.4_Summary&Conclusions_FS_ doc Version Date: Author: ER Kroon Security: PUBLIC Approvals Coordinator Martin Knegt FS WP leader Emile Kroon FS Name Company Date Visa Documents History Version Date Modification Authors V1 28/03/11 Completion of the document ER Kroon V2 11/04/11 Added costs and benefits ER Kroon PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Work performed 6 2 Conclusion and outlook Literature Study Market Size Estimation Potential Retrofit Programmes Cost Benefit Analysis Stakeholder Input General Questions Professional Experience Technologies Funding Workshop Decision Factors Incentives Industrial Cooperation Funding Technologies Next Steps 12 3 References 13 Page 4/13

5 Glossary Acronym LED ATM RETROFIT AOG ROI SESAR OEM FMS LCD CRT RTD EU EIB TRL IFE TEN-T STC Signification Light Emiting Diode Air Traffic Management Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleetwise Implementation of new Technology Aircraft on Ground Return On Investment Single European Sky ATM Research Original Equipment Manufacturer Flight Management System Liquid Crystal Display Cathode Ray Tube Research & Technology Development European Union European Investment Bank Technology Readiness Level In Flight Entertainment trans-european transport network Supplemental Type Certificate Page 5/13

6 1 Work performed This work package summarizes deliverables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 to provide an overview and a concise report on the activities and results regarding WP1 the orientation and provides a general conclusion based on the information gathered from literature, interviews and the stakeholder workshop Page 6/13

7 2 Conclusion and outlook 2.1 Literature Study This section describes the information gathered and the conclusions formed based on literature study regarding market size, potential programmes and cost benefit analysis Market Size Estimation Both Boeing and Airbus have done research on the amount of currently operating aircraft and the estimated remainder of those aircraft in the future. Part of the target group for the RETROFIT project will include currently operating aircraft which will still be in service in the year According to research that group will consist of approximately 3500 aircraft. Aircraft in production between today and the next five years could still be target for retrofitting. This is due to the fact that aircraft in production today do not always have the latest developments implemented in their designs. There will still be some aspects of the aircraft suitable for retrofitting. Aerostrategy expects that the production rates are on average of 1200 aircraft per year, which would bring the number to approximately 6000 aircraft in five years. Adding the estimated production rates over five years and the aircraft still operating in 2029 would roughly bring the amount to aircraft which could be targeted for the RETROFIT projects Potential Retrofit Programmes Several potential RETROFIT programmes and technologies have been studied and reported. Some of the RETROFIT programmes aim to reduce maintenance costs, some aim to reduce weight. An example would be replacing all the original tube lights with LEDlighting which have a longer lifespan and reduce the aircraft s total weight. Projects like these would be appealing to airlines, since weight reduction allows more room for payload and thus more profit. However, the most appealing forms of RETROFIT programmes would be those who reduce fuel usage. Reduction of fuel usage means aircraft will have less impact on the environment. Fuel reduction also means cost reduction for airline companies. This could help companies in making the decision to retrofit their fleet. Because of this RETROFIT programmes who are financially self-supporting due to the fuel saving have great potential. Examples of these technologies would be aerodynamic improvements such as: winglets, sharklets and special coatings to reduce drag. In the past there have even been some cases of re-engining on entire fleets. The purpose of some of the RETROFIT programmes is to keep up with the increasingly stricter demands of ATM. With the increasingly growing amount of aircraft flying in Europe, the airspace structure keeps filling up. One of the consequences this has on the aircraft flying in Europe is the stricter demands of accuracy of the onboard navigation & Page 7/13 Date:06/04/2011

8 systems. This is all to give ATM in Europe the ability to reduce the spacing between aircraft and create a better flow. This increasing demand of navigational accuracy means aircraft navigation will eventually be outdated and insufficient to operate in Europe s airspace. Replacing entire navigation systems is an expensive operation which could involve a lot of on-ground time, parts and most likely a long period of re-certifying and testing. Therefore it would be preferable if the existing navigation systems could still be used, only to be enhanced by additional systems for navigational accuracy. These projects would allow aircraft to continue flying in the stricter ATM environment in Europe. An additional benefit from these projects will be the reduced impact of aircraft on the environment, since aircraft will be able to be guided more directly by ATM. As a result there will be less need for reducing speed and/or holding near airports. Similar to projects as re-engining and aerodynamic upgrades, this would result in a fuel usage reduction as well as a cost reduction for the airline companies Cost Benefit Analysis Whenever projects like these are to be implemented into existing aircraft fleets, airline companies will have to do a thorough investigation on the costs and benefits in order to create a business plan. With different types of projects, different types of costs are to be expected. Smaller RETROFIT projects such as LED-light replacements only require a relatively small amount of downtime and man-hour costs for the replacements. Such replacements can be done during scheduled maintenance periods to prevent the too much AOG time. Larger RETROFIT projects such as aerodynamic upgrades and reengining, require a significant amount of ground time and man-hours since an entire part of the aircraft structure has to be changed. With modifications of such scale certification and technical manual/documentation costs are also to be expected. Other costs would be training of flight crew, maintenance crew and station crew. Several benefits of these projects would be for example reduction in: maintenance costs and time, weight, fuel consumption and performance improvements. Each individual RETROFIT project would require a specific costs and benefits study. 2.2 Stakeholder Input The project team has assembled a list of stakeholders using each member s professional network. Part of the project is addressing the stakeholder requirements to investigate the current needs from within the market. A questionnaire was compiled to gather information from the stakeholders. Stakeholders were interviewed by the project team via a telephone call or face to face. The questionnaire included questions regarding general opinions on retrofitting, professional experience with retrofitting, technologies and funding General Questions General questions on retrofitting came to the conclusion that within the stakeholder group, the general opinion exists that the main barrier for a retrofit project is the nonrecurring investment required and the associated risks involved. The high upfront costs of the & Page 8/13 Date:06/04/2011

9 retrofit are often too much to have a short ROI, which is a barrier as well. In order to overcome this barrier, the non-recurring investment and risks should be lowered by implementing a retrofit over a larger number of aircraft Professional Experience Another item which could be of concern is leased aircraft seem less attractive for retrofits than owned aircraft. The reason for this is lessors do not have an incentive to reduce direct operating cost of the aircraft. This is because the direct operating benefits stay with the lessee. At the same time, the lessee is not likely to invest in retrofits which add residual value to an aircraft from which the lessee cannot obtain benefits. The stakeholders were asked to share their previous experiences on retrofit programmes. The interviewed people who had experience with various retrofit projects explained that many projects were not followed up due to the actual costs versus benefits turning out lower than expected. The projects that did turn out to be successful, usually aimed at extending the aircraft life. Having a short ROI period also played a big factor in the success of these projects Technologies With regards to technologies, the stakeholders were asked about the type of RETROFIT projects they thought were most likely to be implemented into existing aircraft. OEMs seemed to be interested in re-engining aircraft. However, airliners do not see this as a feasible solution. Engine replacements involve high costs, due to several factors. The long ROI combined with the high risks makes airliners not see re-engining as a potential retrofit. Although upgrades on existing engines was seen as feasible. Aerodynamic modifications were thought to be difficult and may involve complicated certification issues and high costs. Although less complicated and expensive than re-engining, these decisions are still usually bases on ROI. Stakeholders all showed great interest in advanced equipment retrofits such as health and usage monitoring systems and special avionics (to comply with the EASA regulations and future SESAR requirements). The stakeholders were also asked about the technologies they felt had the biggest potential. Technologies to reduce weight, fuel consumption, costs and environmental impact were all considered favourable. Also technologies to improve performance, maintainability and reliability were considered to have potential. However, retrofits on the avionics department were considered to have the highest potential. The technologies include software retrofits for CNS applications, replacing CRT displays with LCD displays, and FMS upgrades to comply with the increasingly stricter ATM regulations. Some of the stakeholders considered cabin and cockpit refurbishments/retrofits only as nice to have. When electronic upgrades were compared, the avionic retrofits overshadowed upgrades such as onboard diagnostic systems. The use of onboard diagnostics systems is generally seen to have a potential to reduce the cost of maintenance and simultaneously to increase reliability. The reason is that this should help with quicker troubleshooting and & Page 9/13 Date:06/04/2011

10 therefore reduces man-hour cost and potentially unnecessary removal of components. However, the reason the stakeholders did not see this as the retrofit with the most potential is, these systems are usually designed for specific systems and specific aircraft. Aircraft older than 10 years are often not able to use these sorts of diagnostic systems. Therefore these systems might not have much potential for all airlines in general. Stakeholders were asked about funding and involvement from third parties. The stakeholders believe OEM involvement in the retrofit programmes is essential as supplier of certified data, certification, configuration management and the potential to reach a broad customer base. However, OEM interests of selling new aircraft are conflicting with investing into older aircraft beyond mandatory requirements. On the other hand, should OEMs deliver this support it would be a good sign for new customers as well. Customers of OEMs interested in new aircraft would see the OEM will not let them in the cold and neglect them should their new aircraft go out of production at some point Funding There seems to be requirement for specific research on integration of new technologies onto older aircraft. It is generally thought that there is little need for extra specific RTD concerning general technology development, since the technologies used for RETROFIT should be proven concepts and the technology should be reliable. If there is a good business case there seems to be little need for additional funding opportunities except for small retrofit batches. Although EU funding via the EIB would reduce risks and could act as a catalyst for retrofits if the business case is good. After the results of all the interviews have been gathered a set of initial conclusions was made. With these initial conclusions the project team has defined a limited set of statements which were used as an input for the workshop session. 2.3 Workshop Based on the information gathered from literature and interviews a general feedback workshop was organized to gather a common view on retrofits. Topics were decision factors, industrial cooperation, cost benefit analysis, incentives and funding Decision Factors During the workshop the first topic was the decision factors for retrofitting aircraft. Operators mainly look at ROI of the retrofit, if the ROI is more than two years it is often already seen as less attractive. Other aspects operators keep in mind are the market image (e.g. winglets) and the ease of implementation of the retrofit. Lease companies own approximately 50% of the world transport fleet. As discussed earlier on, retrofitting leased aircraft is often a difficult matter. Leasing companies say they cannot increase their leasing rates thus not benefit from the retrofit. Operators with leased aircraft argue that they do not benefit from the added residual value added because of the retrofit. And Page 10/13

11 should the operators implement the retrofit based on a ROI shorter than the leasing period the ROI often becomes a barrier. The EU could play a role in this by stimulating leasing companies to be more favourable towards retrofits which bring operational benefits Incentives The next topic was the incentives which have or will stimulate the introduction of retrofits. Incentives as environmental friendliness could be linked to retrofits as re-engining or engine upgrades. Other incentives are appeal and airline image, although it is very difficult to compare value with company image. Even though most leisure passengers mainly compare airliners on price and connections, airliners feel retrofits which upgrade their image will benefit their marketing. Retrofits which could upgrade the image of airliners are for example, winglets or CO2 compensation and comfort for passengers. Another incentive was fleet harmonization, if airliners have aircraft of particular types it is considered useful to upgrade their older versions of the same type with technology available in the new aircraft (e.g. avionics or FMS systems) Industrial Cooperation OEMs are frequently approached by customers with questions about retrofitting. However, customers often lose interest when the proposals from OEMs are too costly. These costs are mainly that high because the non-recurring costs are charged to the first customer. Analyses are therefore required to investigate if retrofits over larger amount of aircraft will reduce these non-recurring costs for the first customer. A financing scheme could be setup between the OEM and the first customer, to fund the non-recurring costs, this could reduce the risk. In order to reduce the costs of retrofits partnerships between OEMs and STC developers could be formed. STC s are generally cheaper, as certification costs are limited and documentation is less extensive. However, OEMs are often hesitant about partnerships with STC developers due to liability risks. A possible role for the EU would be enabling a system that reduces liabilities and stimulating industrial partnerships As mentioned before, retrofits could cause risks for OEMs on their business of selling new aircraft. It is therefore thought that older out of production aircraft would be more attractive targets for retrofitting Funding The workshop presentations ended with the topic on funding. The industry is not always aware of the ability of funding and often do not know where to apply. For some retrofits funding could break the barrier of the initial non-recurring costs for the first customer. There also appears to be a need to involve airline associations. Besides funding by the Page 11/13

12 EIB there could be other European incentives like structure funds or TEN T funding available for retrofits Technologies After the presentations a larger brainstorm and discussion session was organized, the stakeholders and the project team were divided into three teams to discuss the longlist of technologies presented by the NLR. The teams discussed the different technologies and each gave their opinions and provided additional remarks. Some of more promising technologies suitable for retrofit were i.e. wing tip devices, IFE & communications, Avionics to improve flight efficiency & for ATM compatibility. It was also believed one of the criteria on research funded by public EU funds should be the direct benefits to EU citizens. Another criterion should be using the TRL to reduce the long list; technologies should be proven and available within 8 years. 2.4 Next Steps The first work package has provided the project team with knowledge gained from the literature studies, the questionnaires with the stakeholders and the brainstorm sessions during the workshop. With this information reducing the initial longlist of technologies into a shortlist of most favourable and promising technologies should be feasible. These technologies will be studied on certification requirements, costs and benefits and the likeliness of forming into a possible RETROFIT project. Page 12/13

13 3 References [DoW] [Retrofit-D1.1] [Retrofit-D1.3] [Retrofit-D1.3 & 2.4] Retrofit DoW Retrofit orientation, Retrofit project deliverable D1.1, version 5, d.d. 10-Jan-2011 Stakeholder Interviews, Retrofit project deliverable D1.2, version 6, draft 11-Apr-2011 Reference Group Meeting Retrofit project deliverable D1.3, version 5, d.d 25-Mar-2011 Page 13/13