D4.3 Report on industrial consequences

Transcription

1 D4.3 Report on industrial consequences WP / Task N : D4.3 Lead Contractor (deliverable responsible): FS Due date of deliverable: 31/08/2011. Actual submission date: 20/01/2012 Report Period: 6 month 12 month 18 month Period covered: from: Month 2 to: Month 10 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@fokker.com Project website address: Duration: 16 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 List of authors Full Name Auke Nouwens Dave Chilton Erik Baalbergen Johan Kos Company Information Fokker Services Fokker Services NLR NLR Document Information Document Name: Document ID: D4.3 Version Date: Author: D. Chilton, A. Nouwens Security: PUBLIC Approvals Coordinator Knegt FS WP leader Nouwens FS Name Company Date Visa Documents history Version Date Modification Authors Draft Initial draft version using selection of three cost-benefit options. V First version for consortium comments V Release for final consortium comments D. Chilton D. Chilton A. Nouwens D. Chilton A. Nouwens V Final changes to be reviewed A.Nouwens V Final Realese version A.Nouwens Page 2/20

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION CONTEXT BACKGROUND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT INTENDED READERSHIP CONSORTIUM SELECTION FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS RETROFITTING AVIONICS FOR SESAR COMPATIBILITY RETROFITTING NEW HIGH BYPASS RATIO ENGINES TO EXISTING A320 AIRCRAFT ELECTRICALLY POWERED TAXIING INDUSTRIAL CONSORTIA MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSORTIA RETROFITTING: AVIONICS FOR SESAR COMPATIBILITY RETROFITTING: NEW HIGH BYPASS RATIO ENGINES TO EXISTING A320 AIRCRAFT RETROFITTING: ELECTRICALLY POWERED TAXIING RISK ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENT CONSORTIA REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA OF RISK AVIONICS FOR SESAR COMPATIBILITY NEW HIGH BYPASS RATIO ENGINES TO EXISTING A320 AIRCRAFT ELECTRICALLY POWERED TAXIING RISK OVERVIEW CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD REFERENCES List of figures and tables Page 3/20

4 Glossary Acronym APU ATA ATM CFMI CPDLC EASA EC ECGA EIB ETS EU FDM FMS GE MRO NDA NEO OEM P & W RETROFIT ROI SESAR STC Auxiliary Power Unit Signification Air Transport Association of America Air Traffic Management CFM International (combines 2 Engine numbers CF6 (GE) and M5 (Snecma)) Controller Pilot Data Link Communication European Aviation Safety Agency European Commission European Commission Grant Agreement European Investment Bank Emissions Trading System European Union Flight Data Management / Monitoring Flight Management System General Electric Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Non Disclosure Agreement New Engine Option Original Equipment Manufacturer Pratt & Whitney Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleetwise Implementation of new Technology Return On Investment Single European Sky ATM Research Supplementary Type Certificate Page 4/20

5 1 Introduction 1.1 Context The RETROFIT project analyses the possibilities and attractiveness of retrofitting new technical solutions into the large existing fleet of commercial airliners. A new generation of airliners is only at the horizon. Existing aircraft still have a long life to serve, whereas the operational environment is changing. Airlines are confronted with an Emissions Trading System (ETS), new noise regulations, increasing fuel prices, new safety and security demands, new ATM environment where older aircraft cannot comply with the new ATM standards, and passenger expectations of enjoying the highest levels of comfort possible. The project first addresses the reference group requirements and also the consortium member s interests by investigating current and future technology options to retrofit existing aircraft. Next, it addresses the need to perform additional research to make retrofits attractive as well as the question if specific research activities should be integrated in the EC framework programs. It also makes a cost benefit analysis based on existing airline fleets and potential applications of new technical solutions. This document evaluates possible generic examples of consortia that could provide retrofit actions in order to identify risks and industrial consequences. None of the named companies have been approached or have expressed specific interest in carrying out retrofit actions (to our knowledge). 1.2 Background The European aeronautical industries and their supply chains, the research centres, and the universities are continuously developing, integrating and validating new technologies and processes in order to ensure industrial competitiveness in answering the needs of its customers and of the European society. Aeronautical research and technology development has been stimulated for many years by the European Commission (EC) through Framework Programmes. The Transport Programme in the 6th and 7th Framework funds a large number of projects addressing the need for more environmentally friendly, passenger friendly, and cost effective air transport, involving both small and targeted (i.e., level 1) projects and integrated (i.e., level 2) projects. In addition, the public-private joint technology initiatives Clean Sky and SESAR have started. There are also numerous national programmes in the member states also stimulating the development of aeronautical technologies and processes. The fleet-wise application of the new technologies and processes through retrofits would enable societal and economic benefits earlier and on a much larger scale, since a large portion of the future transport fleet will be aircraft that are in service today. The project, and in particular work package 4, refines the opportunities for retrofitting that existing and new technologies offer as in the initial long list. The inventory includes input from literature investigation, research knowledge, as well as inputs from experts in several technology areas. Page 5/20

6 The wishes and input of all of the consortium members has been sought to give a balanced impression of the available technology. This combined with a realistic knowledge of certification requirements involving new technology and the risks involved has resulted in a limited selection for cost benefit analysis. The same is also applicable for the industrial consequences. One of the main drivers is the fact that airframes with high remaining cycles are retired due to outdated engines, instruments or cabins. To extend the useful lives of these airframes is ultimately the goal of this project. Bearing that in mind it is also expected that current practices and their drivers as represented by existing re-engining projects and winglet programmes will be considered a key element of this study and addressed accordingly. A further simplified explanation of the process used to initiate this report is explained in paragraph Purpose of this document It is likely that large scale retrofit programmes will not be undertaken by a single company. It is expected that to spread risks and to combine multidisciplinary capabilities consortia will be formed, for instance between an engine supplier, a nacelle supplier, an OEM and an MRO organisation. For each conceivable retrofit programme there are different consortia possible, both in capabilities and in individual companies. For possible retrofit programmes as identified in task 4.2, which might prove attractive on a commercial basis, an initial overview of possible consortia will be identified. These are only intended as examples of possible consortia: if no likely consortium could be identified the feasibility of the programme under consideration would be low irrespective of other qualities. For possible consortia and different technologies as evaluated in the cost benefit analysis risks will be identified for actual application in industrial consortia. 1.4 About this document Based on 3 generic consortia differing in composition ranging from full to no OEM cooperation, 3 retrofit technologies will be evaluated and elaborated on in a systematic overview to asses risks of consortia and retrofit technologies through their chance and impact. 1.5 Intended readership This report is targeted towards the project consortium only. It may be used for the EC as background information for the identified retrofit needs. Page 6/20

7 2 Consortium Selection for cost-benefit analysis 2.1 Retrofitting avionics for SESAR compatibility The cost-benefit analysis [D4.2] indicates under what conditions retrofitting of existing aircraft would be cost effective, and how the EU could stimulate retrofitting if the direct benefits for candidate aircraft would not be sufficient. Assuming that the ground infrastructure is in place for SESAR and that suitably equipped aircraft will gain a time saving relative to the current situation. Non-SESAR equipped aircraft are assumed not to experience extra delays. The result of the study is that average time/cost saving for retrofitted aircraft, a ballpark development cost/ modification cost combination for the operator is provided, and a judgment on the number of aircraft that could be modified in different scenarios. The effect on the EU as a whole has been determined as a time gain for the incurrence of system benefits of SESAR in years. 2.2 Retrofitting new high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft. The A320 is one of the most numerous narrow body aircraft, burning a large fraction of the air transport fuel. The A320 NEO will be developed to use the latest state of the art Pratt & Whitney (P&W) and CFM International LEAP-X engines. Assuming Airbus involvement a relatively low threshold retrofit programme can be envisaged, where these engines are retrofitted to a significant percentage of the fleet of A320 aircraft. This promises a fuel saving of between 10 to 15% per flight, which will have a large economic and environmental benefit. Using assumptions concerning the involvement of Airbus a relationship between volume of conversions and cost per conversion has been determined. This will be compared with benefits in fuel consumption and ETS charges. It is expected that such conversion programmes will be cost effective when a large number of aircraft are converted. This implies a large risk development programme and it is expected that support by the EU will prove to be essential. 2.3 Electrically powered Taxiing The introduction of taxiing by internal power and thus reducing the emission levels in and around airports has dual effects initially in reduction of noise and gaseous emissions. Although the actual gain per aircraft movement will be relatively small, the accumulated benefits can be significant for the European and global air transport industry. This particular study is interesting because it involves benefits for the operators, benefits for the airports and benefits for the community as a whole. Page 7/20

8 3 Industrial consortia 3.1 Minimum requirements for consortia It is likely that large scale retrofit programs will not be undertaken by a single company. It is expected that to spread risks and to combine multidisciplinary capabilities consortia will be formed. This will ensure that the capabilities and capacities of various parties are combined to produce an acceptable end product. For each conceivable retrofit program there will be a different consortium possible, both in capabilities and in individual companies, having said this, the legal requirements for the consortia are in essence exactly the same. For possible retrofit programmes as identified in RETROFIT D4.2, which prove attractive on a mandatory, regulatory or commercial basis, an initial overview of possible consortia will be identified at a high abstraction level. If when a retrofit program has been identified in this project as being of importance for the EU and there is initially no possibility of forming a consortium capable of fulfilling the work required, this is a strong indication that EU funding will be needed to play a role in the selected program. To be able to indicate possible consortium members the minimum requirements of the chosen retrofit cost-benefit analysis are shown in a matrix table where all of the potential elements for retrofit are indicated. The possible combinations are, while not endless; extensive and show the expertise in the European aviation sector in the fields of Design, STC and MRO. Consortia: are ranged from full 100% in 01 through to the bare minimum in 03, the 02 consortium could be anywhere in between the two. A typical example of possible consortia is given here below: - Consortium 01: including the following: OEM & TCH airframe, OEM Engine or OEM System and a MRO organisation. - Consortium 02 including the following: STC organisation, OEM Engine or OEM system. MRO organisation. No or limited support from OEM & TCH airframe. - Consortium 03 including the following: STC organisation, MRO organisation. No or limited support from OEM's. 3.2 Retrofitting: Avionics for SESAR compatibility It is reasonable to assume that the OEM of the aircraft will be a potential consortium candidate along with the OEM of the system or systems to be fitted. If we consider all STC organizations that have the capacity to design and implement avionics programs for large aircraft the pool of possible consortium members on the industry side is very large. The quality and quantity of STC and MRO companies in Europe is high, with many players in this field there are numerous combinations possible, as indicated in the cost- Page 8/20

9 benefit. Due to the age distribution of the aircraft, and the associated differences in equipment standards, will result in many programs. This will possibly fragment the effort and make the commercial viability for consortium s an issue. To provide an acceptable completion rate and incentive for airlines to step into a retrofit programme it is assumed that financial stimulus will be required from the European Investment Bank. However, such a business case would be dependent on the large sales volume as the main cost driver of the system is the cost of developing the unit and the interfaces for the different aircraft. As the total volume of available aircraft is realistically limited to about 2000 and more than one supplier may be in this market, the costs should be recouped and a profit realised with a market share of well below 1000 units. If the market expected is much smaller the price to be charged for a conversion would increase rapidly. The commercial prospects for the development of such a system are by themselves probably not good enough to expect the market to take this up, and produce and operate sufficient units to make a noticeable difference at a European level. This is largely caused by the risks perceived by the suppliers and the operators. Possible Retrofit consortia for Avionics SESAR compatibility could include a combination of the following: Consortium 1 - Airbus /Boeing - (aircraft OEM) - GEC/Marconi Honeywell New Alcatel/Thomson-CSF Thales (system OEM) - *OGMA Portugal - Lufthansa technik Sabena technics Fokker Aircraft Services (MRO organisations) Consortium 2 will be STC driven supported heavily by OEM s or can have any level of support in-between all of the way down to having the minimum of support from OEM s, resulting in a much heavier burden. Consortium 3 will be STC driven but will be missing all OEM support that can result in a high risk situation. *MRO organisations that have been awarded prizes in recent years by the trade confederations and trade press, (these are only examples and not choices). 3.3 Retrofitting: New high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft. This retrofit program is fully dependent on the OEM of the airframe and the OEM of the engine, it has to be assumed that the certification and risks involved will be otherwise be too heavy a burden for a STC company. It is assumed that the OEM (airframe Airbus) and the OEM s of the engines (P & W / CFMI) will be willing to take part in a programme to re-vitalize some of the substantial fleet of aircraft in use in Europe. The nacelle producers are expected to be responsible to the engine OEM s. Page 9/20

10 The MRO organization s that do the work related to this programme will require substantial support from the OEM s and be approved by the OEM s to do work on the airframe / engine. The production rate and the scale of the retrofit actions will necessitate intensive production programs to keep downtime to a minimum and will require extensive facilities in a well situated and easily reachable location due to the scale and logistic challenge of the action. Projected fuel savings of 12% as specified by Airbus for retrofitted aircraft are not enough to offset the costs of such a retrofit programme, even when the reduction of external costs (noise, emissions) is taken into account. The actual choice of doing a retrofit action of this scale is a political decision as it is not envisaged that there will be a quick ROI. Possible Retrofit consortia for new high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft could be: Consortium 1 - Airbus (aircraft OEM) - P & W CFMI (engine OEM) - *OGMA Portugal - Lufthansa technik Sabena technics (MRO organisations) Consortium 2 will be STC driven supported heavily by OEM s or can have any level of support in-between all of the way down to having the minimum of support from OEM s, resulting in a much heavier burden. Consortium 3 will be STC driven but will be missing all OEM support that can result in a high risk situation. *MRO organisations that have been awarded prizes in recent years by the trade confederations and trade press, (these are only examples and not choices). 3.4 Retrofitting: Electrically powered Taxiing. Conventional aircraft use the power of their main engines to taxi. However, the main engines of typical commercial aircraft are very inefficient and polluting in this kind of operation, because of the low thrust levels involved. In many cases the aircraft speed is controlled by braking as the idle thrust of the engines is too high. This leads to additional brake wear. Therefore, alternative means to propel the aircraft on the ground are being researched by the industry. The advantages of using internal power, generated by the APU, for taxiing appear to be positive and are lauded by the company producing the system. The operators as the potential users of the system appear slightly more cautious. Having said that there appears to be an agreement between a major operator and the OEM of the system for future cooperation in the field of maintenance and logistics. Electric taxiing may well be cost effective on its own economic merits for the European airlines and provide a good business case also to the suppliers for such equipment. Large scale introduction would provide sizeable benefits for the European society, and the EC Page 10/20

11 could therefore consider stimulating this development to realise earlier and larger scale introduction than otherwise achieved. Consortium 1 - Airbus - Boeing (aircraft OEM) - Wheeltug - Taxibot (system OEM) - *OGMA Portugal - Lufthansa technik Sabena technics Fokker Aircraft Services (MRO organisations) Consortium 2 will be STC driven supported heavily by OEM s or can have any level of support in-between all of the way down to having the minimum of support from OEM s, resulting in a much heavier burden. Consortium 3 will be STC driven but will be missing all OEM support that can result in a high risk situation. *MRO organisations that have been awarded prizes in recent years by the trade confederations and trade press, (these are only examples and not choices). 3.5 Risk analysis of the different consortia To explain the thought process behind the risk analysis a brief description of the intended purpose of the three consortia and their EASA requirements, also the airworthiness requirements along with the certification aspects are briefly noted. The risk is limited to the technical and economic aspects with no accounting for geo-political aspects except for possibly location Requirements EASA Requirements: are the legal requirements applicable to those consortia that could carry out the work required to successfully complete a retrofit action: - Part 21 subpart J Design organisation; - Part 21 subpart G Production organisation; - Part 145 Maintenance organisation. Certification: is the achievement of the required legal level for approval of the design process during the retrofit action by the OEM s or STC organisation and is as follows: - Consortium 01 OEM based data available for MRO organisation and operator; - Consortium 02 Partial OEM based data available for STC, MRO organisation and operator; - Consortium 03 No or limited OEM based data for STC, MRO organisation and operator. Showing compliance to the requirements: is to prove compliance with the physical and operational properties of the system involved in the retrofit action and is as follows: Page 11/20

12 - Consortium 01 compliance will be proven by the various OEM's; - Consortium 02 compliance will be provided for part of the design, extra compliance required; - Consortium 03 compliance needs to be proven for complete design Risks It can be imagined that a consortium with OEM support will have a lower risk profile than a consortium that has little or no support from an OEM. In this section the following criteria are evaluated for each of the three technologies and for each of the three consortium types in order to be able to indicate industrial potential and potential issues involved Criteria of risk Capacity: is amount of personnel and docks or bays for retrofit actions. Capabilities: is the ability of the OEM, STC or MRO to perform the actions required by retrofit. The OEM s have normally a system of approval to ascertain capabilities where MRO quality is measured by audit. Location: is important in several aspects, the health and safety restrictions are important but a central location and access to transportation links also have a role to play in the choice. Commercial: is the ability of the retrofit action to provide a quick return on investment. Environmental: is the risk that the retrofit action will not deliver the required reduction of emissions for the EU. EU Support: is the level of support that the EU needs to provide for retrofit actions and the relationship between the commercial aspects as opposed to the aims and goals of the EU (including legislation).high risk will mean that the EU needs to provide a major funding initiative to enable retrofit actions. The following tables provide an argumented evaluation of the mentioned elements in order to identify risks for each of the three selected technologies and for each consortium. All of the titles are self explanatory except for the column ID short for IDentification to indicate the difference between the various consortia where relevant. The first number is the risk and the second the consortium, Page 12/20

13 3.5.4 Avionics for SESAR compatibility Risk ID Arguments for / against Impact Chance Mitigation Actions Capacity of consortium 1.1 Expected to be good due to nature of business and design / continued airworthiness responsibilities low low see arguments Capabilities of consortium limitations at location 1.2 Dependant on consortium make up the amount of risk will be relative to the support of the OEM's 1.3 The certifying staff needed and engineering effort required to certify without OEM input is relatively high 2.1 Expected to be good due to nature of business and design / continued airworthiness responsibilities 2.2 Major MRO organisations and STC organisations with some help from OEM's will achieve a result 2.3 STC and MRO organisations will able to achieving a result as many aspects of a SESAR compatible avionics suite are COTS units 3.1 It is expected that an OEM has a suitable location or a secondary location along with the possible MRO base. 3.2 Major MRO organisations normally have more than one location but the makeup of the consortium will be a determining factor in the whole 3.3 The consortium would normally have a location that complies with the limitations moderate low see arguments moderate moderate see arguments low low OEM requirements moderate low Organisational requirements moderate moderate Organisational requirements low low Ensure avionic test are allowed on location low thru high low Ensure avionic test are allowed on location low thru high low Ensure avionic test are allowed on location Commercial business plan 4.1 The mandatory character of SESAR for the various phases will eventually result in the required compliance, the aim should be for early retrofitting moderate thru high high The business case needs to be promoted and sold to owners / users along with the benefits to the community 4.2 The mandatory character of SESAR for the various phases will eventually result in the required compliance, the aim should be for early retrofitting moderate thru high high The business case needs to be promoted and sold to owners / users along with the benefits to the community Environmental goals / aims achievable Will EU support be available for retrofit 4.3 The mandatory character of SESAR for the various phases will eventually result in the required compliance, the aim should be for early retrofitting The proposed savings due to SESAR are 8 to 14 minutes, 300 to 500 kg of fuel, 948 to 1575 kg of CO2on average per flight. (bron SESAR joint undertaking) As SESAR is an EU initiative for the whole community, early introduction will mean earlier benefits high high The business case needs to be promoted and sold to owners / users along with the benefits to the community low low It is estimated that certain aspects of the goals / aims would be achieved high high If a form of promotion and and or funding mechanism could result in an early introduction. Page 13/20

14 3.5.5 New high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft Risk ID Arguments for / against Impact Chance Mitigation Actions Capacity of consortium 1.1 Expected to be good due to nature of business and design / continued airworthiness responsibilities low low see arguments Capabilities of consortium limitations at location 1.2 Dependant on consortium make up the amount of risk will be relative to the support of the OEM's 1.3 The amount of certifying staff needed and engineering effort required to certify without OEM input is very high 2.1 Expected to be good due to nature of business and design / continued airworthiness responsibilities 2.2 Major MRO organisations and STC organisations with some help from OEM's could achieve a result 2.3 Very difficult to achieve a result without OEM support 3.1 It is expected that an OEM has a suitable location or a secondary location along with the possible MRO base. 3.2 Major MRO organisations normally have more than one location but the makeup of the consortium will be a determining factor in the whole 3.3 The consortium would normally have a location that complies with the limitations low thru High low see arguments High High see arguments low low OEM requirements moderate low Organisational requirements High High Organisational requirements low low Ensure motor test are allowed with exceptional flexibility near to delivery low thru High low Ensure motor test are allowed with exceptional flexibility near to delivery low thru High low Ensure motor test are allowed with exceptional flexibility near to delivery Commercial business plan Environmental goals /aims achievable Will EU support be available for retrofit 4.1 Development actions done for production aircraft, data and specifications of baseline configuration available 4.2 Development actions done for production aircraft, data and specifications of baseline configuration available (possibly at extra cost) 4.3 No development actions done all engineering and certification required, not possible without specifications of baseline configuration Possible fuel burn savings of %, the goal of retrofit would be achieved for EU but not for owners / users because of ROI The EU would benefit from the resulting cut in emissions but it is difficult to see how the support could be arranged to a suitable level to be economically viable High High EU monetary intervention will be required to ensure success (see EU support) High High EU monetary intervention will be required to ensure success (see EU support) Impossible High Not possible low low EU goals would be achieved High High The major economic benefit from this retrofit program is for two USA companies, P&W and CFMI perhaps some kind of offset could happen Page 14/20

15 3.5.6 Electrically powered Taxiing Risk ID Arguments for / against Impact Chance Mitigation Actions Capacity of consortium 1.1 Expected to be good due to nature of business and design / continued airworthiness responsibilities low low see arguments Capabilities of consortium limitations at location Commercial business plan Environmental goals /aims achievable Will EU support be available for retrofit 1.2 Dependant on consortium make up the amount of risk will be relative to the support of the OEM's 1.3 STC and MRO organisations should be able to cover the capacity 2.1 Expected to be good due to nature of business and design / continued airworthiness responsibilities 2.2 Major MRO organisations and STC organisations with some help from OEM's could achieve a result 2.3 STC and MRO organisations could achieve the retrofit action certification and engineering is easier in this action It is expected that an OEM has a suitable location or a secondary location along with the possible MRO base. 4.1 Development actions done for production aircraft, data and specifications of baseline configuration available 4.2 Some development actions done, data and specifications of baseline configuration available (possibly at extra cost) 4.3 STC and MRO organisation could provide a business plan that will be attractive for the market, it is probably more expensive that the other two EU emission and fuel burn levels are achieved along with noise emissions Initially the business plan as presented by the consortia will be the motivation to retrofit. low thru moderate low thru moderate low mod see arguments low low OEM requirements moderate low Organisational requirements moderate moderate Organisational requirements low low low low This plan works on different levels and covers EU emission goals, profit generation for owner / user and emission / noise / staffing levels for airports low thru moderate low thru moderate moderate moderate This plan works on different levels and covers EU emission goals, profit generation for owner / user and emission / noise / staffing levels for airports This plan works on different levels and covers EU emission goals, profit generation for owner / user and emission / noise / staffing levels for airports low low The exact figures and values are not yet in the public domain (advertisement claims are not yet proven) moderate moderate EU promotion or a legislative choice to advance the law on total emissions at or around airports could speed up the retrofit actions Page 15/20

16 1 Capacity 2 Capabilities 3 Location 4 Commercial 5 Environmental 6 EU Support Risk Overview Based on the tables in which the risk elements have been discussed in previous sections the industrial risks can be summarized in the following overview. RETROFITTING Minimum expected airworthiness requirements Risks Consortia EASA Requirements Certification Showing compliance to the requirements Avionics for SESAR compatibility 1 See intro OEM OEM low low low high low high 2 See intro Partial OEM Partial OEM mod mod low high low high 3 See intro No OEM No OEM high high low high low high New high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft. 1 See intro OEM OEM low low low high low high 2 See intro Partial OEM Partial OEM mod mod low high low high 3 See intro No OEM No OEM high high low high low high Taxiing by internal power. 1 See intro OEM OEM low low low low low mod 2 See intro Partial OEM Partial OEM mod mod low mod low mod 3 See intro No OEM No OEM mod mod low mod low mod For capacity the risk depends on the consortium type to a large extent for a SESAR retrofit and re-engining. For taxiing by internal power this is the case to smaller extent. An important element of this study is the Fleetwise Implementation of Technology. In this perspective especially capacity plays an important role. When one is talking about retrofitting technology to reduce emissions assume that the aircraft is already half way or at least well on way its life span. Say an aircraft type fleet has an average age of 10 years when a retrofit technology comes available. In order to cover development cost of the retrofit it will have to be applied to a proper amount of aircraft. If capacity would not be sufficient to apply the retrofit to the fleet in say 5 years but in 10 years it will be hard to recover the investment in remaining commercial life of the aircraft. Application of the retrofit would become less attractive as time passes. In view of the important role of capacity for fleetwise implementation, the constitution of the consortium is important. Besides capabilities specifically needed for the retrofit programme at hand also general capabilities for co-operation in a consortium are needed such as an open mind to innovation and a drive to support existing aircraft to continue their competitive operation. Important aspects are the Integrator knowledge and capabilities. These are present at the OEM, therefore consortia risks are very dependent Page 16/20

17 on OEM involvement. Besides of information required on an aircraft configuration the key capability is the presence of Design Organisation Approval in a company or consortium. Companies that have a DOA on a large range of fields are more capable of applying extensive retrofits. Companies that suit this profile are for example, but not exclusively, the ones mentioned in the example consortia in this report. Retrofitting engines by a consortium type 3 is regarded as commercially impossible due to lack of specifications of the baseline configuration. All cases show a large potential for environmental improvement on a large scale, however dependend on availability of possible consortia and commercial risks EU support is required. Page 17/20

18 4 Conclusions and way forward The three retrofit actions chosen for cost-benefit analysis in D4.2 give an indication that the various aspects regarding retrofit are not easy bedfellows. When we consider the impact that retrofit technologies have overall, there are many benefits to the EU. These being in the support of initiatives like Cleansky and emission reduction. These also include general improvements to punctuality and reduction of flight delays. However, there are still several obstacles on the road. Fleetwise retrofit programmes need to be undertaken by consortia to spread risks and to provide sufficient capacity. Three types of consortia have been studied: consortia with only STC and MRO organisations, consortia extended with engine and system suppliers, and consortia further extended with aircraft manufacturers. The risk elements for the consortia to undertake a retrofit programme have been identified. The risk has been analysed on the three retrofit programmes that had been selected previously: - avionics for SESAR compatibility - new high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft - taxiing by internal power Overall it can be said that risk in terms of capacity and capabilities are strongly dependent on the type of consortium and the amount of support of OEM s. Location risks do not seem to be an issue for any consortium; however it will be a point of attention in the initiation of a retrofit project. The cases evaluated do show a definite positive environmental contribution. Although large benefits might be gained for the EU as a whole several cases show to be a risk commercially. Even when positive ROI is expected in several years the EU support is of large importance to get a consortium together for retrofit actions as stakeholders are generally reluctant to risks due to insecure nature of aviation economy. The dependency on EU support is very strongly dependent on risks and mainly commercial risks of a consortium. For the three retrofit programmes investigated the specific conclusions are as follows. For the new high by pass ratio enigines to existing A320 aircraft retrofit program it is concluded that from a commercial perspective the consortium needs to include at least the engine suppliers. Even if also the aircraft manufacturers are in the consortium the commercial risk is high and a major (EU) funding initiative is needed to enable this retrofit programme. For the avionics for SESAR compatibility retrofit programme the commercial risk is high and a major (EU) funding initiative is needed to enable this retrofit programme. Support from avionics system suppliers and aircraft manufacturers would increase the capabilities of the consortium. The consortium should be large enough to provide sufficient capacity for fleetwise implementation. For the taxiing by internal power retrofit programme the commercial risk is moderate and even low when the aircraft manufacturers are part of the consortium. Moderate EU funding initiative are needed to enable this retrofit programme. Capacities and capabilities of the consortium are at most moderately critical and even low when the aircraft manufacturer is involved. Page 18/20

19 In view of the important role of capacity for fleetwise implementation, the constitution of the consortium is important. Besides capabilities specifically needed for the retrofit programme at hand also general capabilities for co-operation in a consortium are needed such as an open mind to innovation and a drive to support existing aircraft to continue their competitive operation. Important aspects are the Integrator knowledge and capabilities. These are present at the OEM, therefore consortia risks are very dependent on OEM involvement. Besides of information required on an aircraft configuration the key capability is the presence of Design Organisation Approval in a company or consortium. Companies that have a DOA on a large range of fields are more capable of applying extensive retrofits. Companies that suit this profile are for example, but not exclusively, the ones mentioned in the example consortia in this report. In order to facilitate further progress in the field of retrofits for emission reduction assessment of possible EU measures to promote retrofit action is essential. This assessment will be provided through task 5.1 of this project. Page 19/20

20 5 References [Retrofit- DoW] Retrofit DoW, Support actions, FP7-AAT-2010-RTD-1, including Grant Agreement Number [Retrofit-D11] Retrofit orientation, Retrofit project deliverable D1.1, version 5, d.d. 10-Jan-2011 [Retrofit-D12] Stakeholder Interviews, Retrofit project deliverable D1.2. [Retrofit- D13D24] Reference group meeting, Retrofit project deliverable D1.3 & D2.4. [Retrofit-D21] Report on initial long list, Retrofit project deliverable D2.1. [Clean Sky] SESAR FP6 FP7 NextGen Page 20/20